If you want to nitpick, I did not use the word "say" literally, as if I were actually quoting you using the word "wrong", but merely to posit the logical point that in order for the notion of "fool" to be intelligible at all there must be some standard by which to measure whether or not a designation of certain collections of atoms are silly or stupid or lack judgment or sense. I was positing the notion of "wrong" in the sense of not measuring up to a standard.
Unless you are prepared to admit that the notion of fool is completely meaningless you must assume some sort of dichotomy or dualism in the physical makeup of the cosmos that enables you to categorize some chemical reactions as foolish and other chemical reactions as just chemical reactions. What I am asking you to account for or justify is the distinction that makes some chemical reactions foolish and some chemical reactions just chemical reactions.
Yes I do and you said you knew what the definition of "God" is. Nothing can be said to exist unless it can be defined.
Are you attacking the quality of the definition I gave you, or are you saying that I did not give you a definition?
Since you you claim that nothing can be said to be said to exist unless it can be defined, and you are either unable or unwilling to give me an account of the term "fool", does it then follow that fools cannot be said to exist?
I guess I could then ask you if Creationists are something that cannot be said to exist, who you arguing with?
Cordially,
The word "fool" has an accepted definition whether God exists or not. Definitions are the creation of man and are arrived at through consensus. There is no great philosophical meaning to be arrived at by asking me over and over about universal dichotomies or dualities. Look in the dictionary under "fool". My definition and yours will be the same.