This is a red herring. We can modify McGee's counterexample as follows, putting everything in the present:
McGee's counterexample modified:
It is certainly better this way, but we should all be able to interpret McGee's original in this vein without requiring my assistance.
So what the Bible says implies that the rapist who can afford to spend 5 years of wages on a rape can escape the death penalty and continue to rape his victim now his wife for as long as he feels like it.
Whoa. Holy Book. Impressively Good Book.
It only figures once you admit the thing was...
This is a stupid remark. You have no idea what I do.
I was also replying to aupmanyav's erroneous comment, and you interjected with an irrelevant remark. And now, LOL, you pontificate from the vantage point of your ignorance.
Well, yes, but the brain also works consciously, no? This certainly...
Yes? And how is that relevant?
Dictionary definitions try to be statements of what people mean. They don't provide encyclopedic or scientific context.
When aupmanyav says of the definition, "That is not true", he is just demonstrating he either doesn't understand what a definition is, or what...
Not true?! This is a dictionary definition of the word. This is what proficient speakers of English mean when they use the word "intuition".
Here is a dictionary definition of the word "definition", just to clear any ambiguity in what you understand of what I say:
Thus, proof that atoms exist only results in the existence of atoms being widely accepted as true.
This is of course very different from us knowing that atoms exist, since it may be false even if we all accept it as true.
We are unable to prove that we are in a "state of knowing"...