S

I agree with this. I don't think that there was ever any real problem here to begin with. Do you? Apparently my earlier criticism along these lines, c...

I've done nothing wrong by objecting to your attempts to change the subject, and explaining why that's inappropriate. It's not my fault that you do no...

That's not an argument, that's just a condescending assertion, and an implicit attack on my character. I can't say I'm surprised to see this sort of r...

It's not something that can be quantified, at least not precisely, and that's not something I need to do to support my point. And surely you recognise...

The people of this forum never cease to amaze me. In a discussion on meta-ethics, people treat the topic as though it is a discussion on normative eth...

I deny full responsibility because I'm not fully responsible.

Fascinating.

Refutation @"Devans99", please bookmarks this as a reference for the next time you think about lying about the fact that I've provided a refutation. T...

Sure, whatever you say. Good luck with your paper. You're going to need it.

Would you recognise it if they had? No. So is it worthwhile having a discussion with you about it? No.

That's a really dumb thing to say. Intelligent people can be wrong, and Aquinas is one example of that. I'm still not sure whether you're a troll or j...

You don't need to point out what's obvious and goes without saying, and the conclusion doesn't follow. You haven't shown that nothing in an infinite r...

I'm not going to play out a Socratic dialogue with you, and the topic is whether it is immoral to do illegal drugs.

Really? That's your question? Of course I think that there's such a thing. I had started to read through your post, but it's a chore. I just wanted a ...

Then I'll skip to that bit and answer them. That's not a problem. What's a problem for me is when you write several sentences for what I can write in ...

Then you should be more succinct and more on point. But instead you ramble and lose focus. I'm not going to address excessively lengthy posts in the s...

No, because it isn't inadequate in the context of what it can explain. It's only inadequate if you take it out of the appropriate context I had in min...

We should stop talking in vague metaphor and stick to a clear context. I'm not sure I'd answer the question in the same way for all contexts.

I would say it leads to justice, and it is fair. Yeah, I went off topic. Oops.

There would be an infinite chain of causes. Your reasoning is completely erroneous because it begins by assuming a first cause, and then imagines that...

Inception-level cognitive bias! That's a good way of putting it. Have you met creativesoul, by the way?

A lack of a first cause is an infinite regress. You haven't reasonably reached a first cause. You just assert it. You assert that it's necessary witho...

Let me know if you want to be reasonable. That would require you dealing with the problem of why a regress can't, in theory, just be traced back infin...

You quoted before I edited out a typo. I meant to refer to your third sentence: "And the starting event causes the next event and so on and so forth"....

Is that a copy and paste? I've already addressed this. Your first two sentences go without saying, and by your third sentence, you jump straight into ...

This is why you get called a troll. It's different to why I have been called a troll. I mock and and can be super aggressive, whereas you feign ignora...

We don't need a pool table analogy. Take any event and reason backwards using the principle of cause and effect and you can just keep going infinitely...

And the criticisms? Oh, that's right. Sorry, I forgot.

Yes, but repeating doesn't solve the problem.

I get why you'd say that. But I'm mixed on Aristotle. There's a lot he got very wrong, and he is who I had in mind when I said that influential isn't ...

I agree with the criticism brought up by both Christoffer and Frank about the logical leap, or trivial semantics, from a first cause to God. It's not ...

And that one, too! You should write more like this and less like a robot or an angry teen.

Although that was a good witticism, even if borrowed. Very apt.

Ah, okay. Confirmation bias, you mean? It's not a bad argument when it's about God.

It's the stick approach, as opposed to the carrot approach. You use the same approach, but I'm better at it, and more funny. It might be seen as a jer...

You don't like strong criticism, do you? You take it personally, and respond with name-calling and the like. My original objection to your point about...

Ah, okay. So everything is water.

One really valuable lesson to learn in the history of philosophy is that influential isn't necessarily a good thing.

He is placed way down the list, except by believers, for obvious reasons. He doesn't even come close to all the other big names.

Do you know, I've never actually read Thomas Aquinas, and I don't know a great deal about him or his arguments, but if you are anything to go by, then...

But I don't. I don't assume that the universe was created, let alone created by magic. Whereas my mockery version of your argument, which resembles th...

Oh. But isn't that what you do with a first cause? You go: one, two, miss a few, it can't go on for infinity for no apparent reason, so there must be ...

It means right by default, and you're not right by default because that's just not how this works, unless perhaps you're a god. Your reply is far too ...

What are you referring to? Provide a link.

You don't "guess". You believe. Or is it the other way around? I'm sure Frank will tell us. Again.

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTERARGUMENT

Oh my goodness, this is getting too absurd, even for me. Now we have Frank Aspammer turning up! I ought to give him Apisa my mind.

Which number(s) do you object to?

That we have no valid counterarguments is no laughing matter. We really need to pull our socks up. We're in the presence of someone who's going places...

Oh, don't be so modest. You're a prestigious author! But yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'm glad we got that settled.