A while back Jerry Coyne sought some input to help with a debate on Cats vs Dogs, which I duly helped with. Jerry unfortunately reported that the debate was won by the dog lovers.
Of course, cats are better than dogs, so how to explain this outcome? Well quite clearly, there were no Sophisticated Theologians (TM) present:
Of course, cats are better than dogs, so how to explain this outcome? Well quite clearly, there were no Sophisticated Theologians (TM) present:
1.By definition, cats winning in the cats vs dogs debate is
a result than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A result that necessarily exists in reality is greater
than a result that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if a cats winning the debate result
exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then
we can imagine something that is greater than us simply imagining that cats
won.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than cats
winning the debate.
5.Thus, if cats winning the debate exists in the mind as an
idea, then cats winning the debate necessarily exists in reality.
6. Cats winning the debate exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, cats winning the debate necessarily exists in
reality.
So, cats won the NY Times "Cats vs Dogs" debate!
No comments:
Post a Comment