4 ms·
I think the authors did not think of all possibilities. "Arguing back" might help them to improve the logical engine. I guess what I mean to say is that, rather
by cema 16y ago
I think the authors did not think of all possibilities. "Arguing back" might help them to improve the logical engine. I guess what I mean to say is that, rather than arguing back, we could contact them with suggestions.
Eg one thing they did not seem to consider is (my case) some of the implications of differences between the natural and the supernatural (say, God and the hypothetical Loch Ness monster).
- aaronblohowiak 16y agouhmmmmmm, how would the Loch Ness monster be any less natural than God? ;)
- adam-a 16y agoI got tripped up on this question too and I agree with the comment above. Loch Ness is a physical lake and Nessie, though perhaps a musical dinosaur, is allegedly tangible and physically there. It's not possible to get a submarine and go searching through God's lake because he probably doesn't live in one and if he did he may well decide to turn invisible just as you got close.
- cema 16y agoWhy, the other way, of course. But my point was, the authors have not considered all the (potentially) important aspects, and we may help them with this. Or just have fun.