Even so, it will be useful in reading this entry to keep circular definitions in mind.
If God is simultaneous with the event of Rome burning in 410, and also simultaneous with your reading this entry, then it seems that Rome must be burning at the same time you are reading this entry.
After all, it is necessarily the case that if I know you are reading this entry right now, then it follows that you are reading this entry, but your reading this entry may still be seen as a contingent state of affairs.
The editors would like to thank Christopher von Bülow and Gintautas Miliauskas for carefully reading this entry and identifying numerous typographical errors.
The editors would like to thank Christopher von Bülow for reading this entry carefully and pointing out a number of typographical errors.
The editors would also like to thank Christopher von Bülow for carefully reading this entry and calling numerous typographical errors to our attention.
The editors would like to thank Philippe van Basshuysen for reading this entry carefully and taking the time to inform us of a significant number of typographical errors.
First, if the organism we call your body can think, your not being an organism would imply that you are one of two intelligent beings sitting there and reading this entry.
Although there are dissenters — e.g., Ziff (1974) — the claim that natural languages contain infinitely many complex expressions is plausible.[17] But it is equally plausible that nobody who reads this entry the first time has ever encountered this very sentence before, and consequently, the detour through cardinality considerations seems superfluous.
But because legal theories conceived of by their authors as positivist are, by and large, dominant in the milieux of those likely to be reading this entry, it seems appropriate to refer to those theories along the way, in the hope of overcoming misunderstandings that (while stimulating certain clarifications and improvements of natural law theorizing) have generated some needless debate.
