Shwah

I just said it has too general reference. It's like saying "this is objective fact" where we can't properly describe "objective" except as their subje...

Okay but there are times the king of america does exist and even times you are the king of america. There are certainly references which make that tru...

I was replying to him. I don't know what that refers to. I said term which includes adverbs.

How can you parse the phrase "king of america" without a referent at all? I feel it's necessary to emphasize that the referent does not need to be mat...

I said term which includes any part of speech or phrase.

If it has no reference then how can you predicate anything about it? It needs something to build off of. For instance the queen of england has a mater...

"Intelligently" is a goofy term with no real reference and is really non-propositional.

That's the whole point. You don't need an *empirical* reference but you do need some reference otherwise it's a meaningless non-proposition.

It's weird how atheists slobber for that finish line sometimes.

No your objection doesn't work because you still have to speak of them all as existing.

Whichever object that would be understood as objectivly, relativly or subjectivly interpretable fundamentally. I'd say it's impossible to interpret an...

Yeah but you can't interpret the object as anything but a series of predicates away from your subjectivity.

Yeah that's what I do. I like that approach. I see no other way than to talk about them as they are.

He's lugubrious Reads all the way from John to Publius.

Everyone is a philosopher as we all seek wisdom in whatever we're doing. Thieves want to be more successful etc etc so the term is really useless.

I don't disagree. I think I was trying to say all of them could effectively be spoken about under one system but can only ineffectively be talked abou...

Also, speaking about a dog entails an animal but that doesn't mean you're fundamentally speaking about an animal.

A lot of philosophy distinguishes between the two but in any case, whatever you want to call it, predication inherently implies more particular and mo...

I can understand that position. I would say math that was valid 3000 years ago is still valid today without any losee of truth.

Science involves more induction issues the more empirically-laden you make it.

I think a good example is deciding to hang out with friend a because they are funny and deciding to hang out with anyone because they are funny. The s...

I would replace love with being closer to God entails more positivity. So if you grow closer to God then you get more positive results.

I would think to solve the crisis we would have to treat the brain as an object within its own right. Then we can analyze the nature of it, and what t...

I don't think I disagree. Even through our built-in "studio", it doesn't seem possible for us to ever approach atheism. In any case you entail somethi...

You can walk back your position but the point is if science can't refer to supernatural entities then everyone should figure out what means we are to ...

I wouldn't be so brave to preclude them so easily particularly how necessary God is for their work.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The social constructs which are the sense of the logic symbols can perfectly refer to an external object. This ...

One doesn't need an experiment to do science otherwise pure physics is thrown out the door (and the higgs boson, as well as general relativity and all...

Sure but it can't ever tell what it is except that it's a natural phenomenon. The position was, since science cannot intuit any supernaturalism then a...

The epistemological positions (belief, know, makes you hungry when you read it etc) have nothing to do with the ontological position (does God exist)....

What don't you accept about his proof? It's valid. Frege's sense and reference distinction might help. For instance commentary can be written about Go...

It would have to propose a supernatural entity from which to derive other supernatural entities from or it would have to prove supernatural entities d...

That "intellectual minority" would preclude Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Godel etc. In any case it doesn't speak to the propositions.

But the domain of science can never speak about the supernatural deductively. It can only speak about its own limits and not even conclusively.

You can't deny a God-like being doesn't exist if you accept his proof is the point and the op is about atheism. Also I'm clearly not interested in tal...

I'm not entirely sure how to mince that as those conceptions of God you mentioned were all universalist (they allow membership of all) and against tri...

I think you're using more idealist or epistemologically-demanding metaphysics for your conceptions of universal vs relativist (= subjectivist). In any...

I'm not sure what you're saying. You're saying God must be all positive properties? That's in definition D1. If you're saying a particular conception ...

It would imply that if the universe came into being (entailed) and it was epistemologically graspable, and that a scientific explanation couldn't expl...

I said "more universal" not universal itself although I think taken to any other degrees it eventually implies a universal domain and, through the sam...

It says a particular domain and I think that inherently implies a more universal domain. It also uses a particular object inside that particular domai...

https://i.imgur.com/6rlqwfL.png https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#GodOntArg

- EugeneW

A fallacious argument can still be a proposition and even a valid proof even if unsound. In any case Godel's ontological argument has been automated a...

Yeah why questions seem to have an unfalsifiability to them as they can't ever verify an answer and become effectively uninformative and useless. It's...

You changed demonstrate for proof. I don't know if that was to side-step an empirical requirement (depending on your definition of demonstrate) or if ...

Relativism doesn't deny "objectivity", it just says the particular domain is distinct in some manner from the more universal domain. So what energy an...

I think that's the issue with defining things by their negation - you get contradictions and really no answer. Instead, morality is defined by what is...

There seems to be no way to verify that atheism is true. There is no way to ever get to theism being false without asserting theism as a verifiable pr...

What does "helium is objective" introduce? If we lived in a simulation and found out helium was computer code would you call that objective still? Why...