S

Logic. No, lol. Homer can walk to the end of the path, so the universe can be without a first cause. The logic against either conclusion fails. I've s...

Yes. If Homer can walk to the end of a path, then the universe can be without a first cause. Suppose Homer wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before...

If you don't believe that an arrow in flight must be motionless, then why do you believe that there must be a first cause? Looks like the same kind of...

I wonder if that distraction technique was deliberate or unconscious. :chin: Do you, or do you not, believe that a flying arrow is motionless?

You shouldn't define it that way because I can conceive of the existence of an undetectable being. It makes sense. Yet your definition rules it out. A...

I'm trying to get you to see the purpose of my relating your argument to Zeno's arguments by getting you to use your brain instead of me spoon feeding...

Describe it yourself. Describe to me the faults in Zeno's arguments. When you were at school, did you just sit back and ask your teachers to explain e...

We disagree. I rule out square circles because of the law of noncontradiction. Without that fundamental law of logic, nothing makes any sense. But alt...

I haven't got anyone's back. I was just trying to pickpocket.

If you understand how they can be doubted, then you should be able to understand how your argument for the necessity of a first cause can be doubted, ...

That's a really inconspicuous straw man: I did not say at any point that philosophy only involves metaphysics and epistemology. And I'm well aware of ...

Is it not a massive problem to interpret my claim about the existence of Jupiter to be a claim about an observation being reproducible under fixed con...

There's a reason for that, but it's not what you think. It has to do with psychology. Do you understand how it can be doubted that Achilles can never ...

I can't help but be logical about this when I'm in that mode, although I can switch between being logical and being practical. It just doesn't seem ve...

But isn't it kind of insane to go on a merry-go-round to nowhere? That's what you're effectively inviting me to.

You shouldn't capitalise the first letter of the word "philosophy". It's ungrammatical. And why would you dispute what seems so obvious? That metaphys...

That's the thing: you don't have to ask that. Are you, or are you not, capable of identifying questions covered by each branch of philosophy? Yes, you...

Philosophy covers metaphysics and epistemology, which in turn covers what history and science cover. And yes, I deliberately ignored defining "philoso...

No, the good philosopher will tell you those things, because he doesn't disregard what can be known through history and science. What can be known, an...

Only in the right context.

Lol! Americans are funny people with their simplifications of the English language. I can imagine it being discussed in a board meeting: "Yes, but if ...

That one definitely gets one of these: :100: I love how it brought this out of the woodwork: Yet those damn dirty Moslems be evil, I tells thee! :lol:...

Gandalf becomes King of Hogwarts.

How very Trumpian.

You mentioned, "in practice", quite a few times there. But if you're talking about, "in practice", then you won't get much disagreement from me. The p...

It's so confusing, isn't it? All that ambiguity. What on earth does, "I do not believe in a god", mean? Does it mean, "I do not believe in a god"? Or ...

:rofl: Yeah, you've really left me with that impression.

Well that went downhill fast. Oh well, brush it off and move on. I can handle being called names.

That makes sense, given your clearly expressed gripe with both OLP and whatever I have to say. Go ahead then, return to, "These terms really mean some...

That was basically your definition of morality. Although you're inconsistent with it. Morality is herd-morality! Just don't expect me to properly deal...

Oh. I had stopped paying attention when you began to blab.

And once again, you demonstrate your lack of close attention. In the context of ethics, I eschewed treating the thinking of the mob as sacrosanct, as ...

I spoke of ordinary language, not ordinary language philosophy. And the prevalence of the former is extremely noticeable.

No, that's just how it works in a very narrow context. Consider that you're using language wrong in both the context around us, which is philosophy, a...

In what respect? The dictating language part, I get. But in the bigger picture, ordinary language will win without any input from me. The "sophisticat...

I usually find your answers weirdly mistaken. It's like you're engaged in a futile fight against common sense. You present instead some account which ...

I mean what's usually meant. It's not like we've all been living under a rock or have no access to the internet.

I do.

But it works for me, whereas your proposal seems vague and untested. Let's test it: When I say that the existence of Jupiter is objective, you take me...

If I had to put my finger on it, I would guess "fallible".

It has to do with logic. But there's no point explaining it because you're an evangelical.

Is this a joke? You've basically just described the fallacy of appealing to the consequences.

Just a tad. But it doesn't really matter because he doesn't listen and in is in denial, so nothing we say will have any impact. He'll just repeat hims...

Then you'll love @"Noah Te Stroete". Hello.

Sometimes it seems like you're being deliberately difficult. It's like you withhold information, like the knowledge that you're addressing what's very...

Per the rest of what I explained which you cut out from your quote. Why are you playing dumb?

Oh the irony!

Yeah, yeah. And Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise. And the flying arrow is motionless.

Yes, I'm right about many things: one of them being that you're playing a silly language game without realising it. You don't understand, or are wilfu...

You think you're talking about me, but what's funny is that you're really talking about you.