TheMadFool

1. Ariel is the maximally great mermaid 2. If Ariel does not exist then Ariel is not the maximally great mermaid Therefore, 3. Ariel exists A clearer ...

Perhaps the answer is more psychological than philosophical. People don't like to be singled out for abuse. That's how they'd take it if told in the f...

I agree. However, science, in its principles and methodology, is reductionist by your definition. In addition to say life(I'm assuming you have that i...

Chemistry?

:-O

I'm not proposing such radical measures as ''scrap our human understanding of morality''. I only suggest caution. A child latches onto what he underst...

But, mind you, not made by humans. Agreed

Doesn't science explain all physical phenomena? Why does life get a special status. We've been using science (biology and medicine) to understand life...

Yet one may fall off from both a bed and a tree. Gravity doesn't discriminate.

DNA, RNA, proteins are molecules that follow chemical principles. Muscle, bone, joints follow physics principles I don't see why you take an issue her...

The principles we (robots, fish, iPhones, humans) work on e.g. the laws of physics and chemistry are same. The difference I believe is that of degree ...

''Incomprehensible'' doesn't imply meaniglessness. Perhaps there's a meaning that we can't understand. My main point is that there's a possibility tha...

And how different are we from robots? God made us in his image. We make robots in our image. I don't think we're looking for a physical companion as m...

Can you be specific. Which version of the POE haven't I considered?

How does ''maybe we're wrong about god'' become ''i understand god to a significant extent''?

''I know one thing; that I know nothing'': Socrates (2500 years ago).

Your comments are too fast, too many. I focussed on the key points in your argument. What I'm basically saying is there's a possibility that the probl...

Consider this: No amount of monkey rationality will help the monkey to understand geometry. Ignorance creates a problem; a problem for the problem of ...

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." : Richard Feynman (physicist)

Thanks.

What is the difference between ''true events'' and ''actual events''?

"I like hockey more than football" Can you clarify

Exactly. And I've shown that this is not the case. That works for me. I agree. I find it reasonable to question the import of the problem of evil.

I'm exploring possibilities.

I can't understand what the problem is? Perhaps some analogies will clarify: I cannot understand Quantum physics (god). I can't understand the theory ...

Yes.

I'm not endorsing any religion. I'm only suggesting that caution is necessary in this matter.

No. Thanks

I'm not an extremist. At least not yet. Rationality has its uses and it is the most productive human tool ever. I just think its deficient in key resp...

Isn't the problem of evil (which I'm refuting) a deductive argument. If what you say is right (about the relevance of possibility in deduction) I'm on...

Of course that runs into the problem of evidently ''evil'' natural phenomena like quakes, hurricanes, fires, etc. Anyway, I don't want to go into that...

I'm not claiming anything about god. I'm just playing on the chance that we may not have the right tools and/or our faculties may not be up to the tas...

Do you mean that other minds have a better, more complete understanding of the matter? All I want to say is rationality may be wrong about the whole g...

Ok

But I'm summing the entire distance from A to B. The only difference is I'm moving a third of the distance now. How do you explain that walking in thi...

The assumption, given the words ''maximize'' and ''overall'' is that happiness can be quantified in a justified manner. This isn't the case. That even...

But we can move. We do it all the time.

To believe that there is no afterlife, as a failure of thinking, is equal in all respects to the belief that there is an afterlife. Both possess a cer...

One problem with summation of the geometric sequence solution: The half (1/2) is an arbitrary choice. I don't know if Zeno actually said ''half'' or n...

Too broad a definition? Well, I think the domain of discussion is ''living things''. Does my definition make sense now?

I'm not referring to the deliberate and deceptive use of fallacies. Rabble rousers and sophists have employed dubious tactics using fallacies from tim...

Yes

Yes, you are right. However there's no contradiction as such. Simply a circularity: to evaluate rationality rationally you already endorse rationality...

How do you define ''consciousness''? For me something is conscious if said thing responds to its environment.

And how do you come to that decision? You convince yourself through argument. Am I wrong?

I'm only exploring the possibility of evil being compatible with god by questioning the authority of rationality. This I do because the atheistic appr...

I haven't contradicted myself. I only questioned the authority of rationality. You were there in the old philosophy forum. Surely you must remember ho...

ok

Yes.

:) ok