From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:40 PM
To: alt.atheism.moderated
Cc: Brian Holtz
Subject: Re: JH: The Design Argument

"Paul Filseth" <pgxf@lsil.com> wrote

> > Paul's apparent conviction that he has
> > figured out what they missed -- that supernaturality is an
> > oxymoron.
>
> [..] Nor am I convinced supernaturality is an
> oxymoron.  That depends on how it's defined; and as I have yet to see
> a definition that convincingly matches common usage, it's premature
> to judge whether the concept itself is self-contradictory.

As I understand it, you claim to know of no definition of
'supernatural' that doesn't make its use oxymoronic in the
philosophical literature I've cited.  To me, that sounds like
a presumption that it's an oxymoron.  However, I recall that
last summer you wrote

  > c) definable but you've never seen an acceptable definition?

  I try to give those who use ['supernatural'] the benefit of the
  doubt, and assume (c).

So you apparently imagine that a non-oxymoronic definition of
'supernatural' is possible.  Can you share with us what your
reasoning for this is, what (if anything) you imagine such
a definition might be like, and how it would differ from mine?

--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net