Bob Ross

:up:

What books have you read of Nietzsche?

Perhaps I should elaborate more on the difference between answering "what can be considered good?" and "what is goodness?". When one says "this car is...

Ok, I was using society in the sense of an institutionalized state. They are only explicated in societies. You still have a right to life even if you ...

Under your definition, then, people who are not a part of a society do not have the right to life nor bodily autonomy. I would say that rights are inn...

Sure, nietzsche didn't have a degree in philosophy; but he was still very much a philosopher, and one of the most influential, just like plato, aristo...

Nietzschien thought is NOT an affirmation of nihilism, as you seem to suggest in your OP, but, rather, an (alleged) antidote to nihilism. Nietzsche ha...

I apologize: I missed this response! Exactly what is sufficient in order to explain something has a hint of subjectivity to it; but, generally, I woul...

Although you have not responded yet to my question, I decided to just respond. I will note that, if you are a moral particularist, then we will have t...

So understand better your response, I would like to ask a quick question: are you a moral particularist?

I think it is best we agree to disagree at this point; as anything else I say will be a reiteration. Your very question is logically contradictory on ...

That's not what I claimed. Nature has elements of order and disorder. Yes, but so does all metaphysical theories per se. The question is whether or no...

I don't see anything incoherent with positing that some of nature is orderly, and some may not be.

I was referring to a person by ‘life’, not something that is merely alive. It is not a desire, it is an intellectual seeming. As internal coherence go...

:roll:

I am addressing the argument. Your OP has to demonstrate that every logical possibility, not actual possibility, leads to a first cause; and this mean...

The second you say that C is not the entire end to the chain of causality, is the second you conflate C with something else. C is the series of causes...

The point is that cannot prove, in principle, that the dew which affected the fleece (and nothing else that day) was a direct result of a divine, ulti...

I would view it as an intricate web of relations of things; so, yes, there are the relations and there are the things. I don't see what the puzzle is ...

This is a good thought; and, upon reflection, I agree. @"Leontiskos", let me refurbish my earlier statement: a phenomena that consistently or demonstr...

I see, and agree. So, it seems like epistemic parsimony is about concepts, and ontological parsimony is about (concrete) entities. I think I see where...

Testing whether something is a banana by doing jumping jacks is analogous to testing whether something is God by asking it to put/remove dew from a ma...

The problem with your assessment is that you have encapsulated nature into one entity, ‘nature’, which includes such laws, and then immediately denied...

A part of nature: in the case of naturalism, it would have to be. The telos would have be a part of how nature functions, as a whole.

I think I may be being a bit too liberal in my assessment of naturalism: I am starting off, conceptually, too entrenched in naturalism to fully apprec...

I think it would be both epistemically and ontologically parsimonious to posit naturalism than supernaturalism, if there is no need to posit supernatu...

If the toe had a mind of its own (and was a person), then, no, I don’t think it would be moral to cut it off to save the body. The problem with your a...

I agree. It is a straw man that Janus is arguing against (most of the time). I appreciate you providing an example, and quite an interesting one at th...

With respect to what you quoted of me, my point was that if a theist can appeal to ambiguity; then so can a naturalist. If you say “God’s infinite”, I...

I am assuming you mean objective purpose, and I think a naturalist could just say there is a purpose embedded into the evolution of nature: a law, or ...

Oh, I think I understand now: you are saying that, because you don’t think the examples which you have readily available are legitimate sources (or ar...

I responded to your only comment (that I see most recently in thread).

Can you elaborate? I don’t see how any phenomena requires an appeal to something supernatural; so I don’t see why a theist has more justified recourse...

:up:

I am talking about an infinite series of atemporal and temporal causes (i.e., the sum of all causes). In this series, there may be atemporal causes (a...

I believe so. At least, I use them interchangeably.

I would not go that far. Reason can easily overstep its bounds, while still maintaining its principles, and this is why some supernaturalist accounts ...

What do you mean? It is not scientifically peer-reviewed that ‘a=a’, ‘1+1=2’, ‘every change has a cause’, ‘p ? q, q, therefore p’, ‘truth is the corre...

This doesn't answer the question in the OP; and isn't necessarily true.

I just linked it at the top.

Interesting: I will have to check out their work! However, I think the point in the OP still stands: what phenomena requires us to posit God's existen...

Oppy is not speaking of the "theory" of theism as a scientific hypothesis; which is what Feser, in the link you gave, was complaining about. Oppy does...

I don't think that one needs to limit themselves to what is scientifically peered reviewed or easily replicable. However, every example I have heard s...

Unfortunately, I am not that familiar with the debate between scientific realists and anti-realists; but I do hope that naturalists and supernaturalis...

That quote you gave is dancing dangerously close between atheism and theism. In a classical sense, God is absolutely separate from the nature that He ...

True. But that is not the topic of this OP. We only have appearances to directly work with; and we only posit anything besides them to account for the...

Thank you: I will take a look!

The principle of parsimony is NOT that the simpler theory is better: it is that the theory which posits the least conceptual entities to explain the s...

I don't think you are fully appreciating yet what I am offering here. So, to get right to the point, here's what I would like to address: For the sake...

I am just uncertain as to if more beings actually creates more of Being itself; so I am going to refrain from commenting on this part. I am saying it ...