Anything but theism is “irrational,” in the strictest meaning of the word. Logic’s a-priority highlights, & doesn’t, rather can’t, falsify, theism’s t...
This argument isn't technically a modus tollens, but it can definitely be converted into one; in which case, it's most definitely valid; & its rightfu...
"Illegal"? No. Yet I don't have the burden of proof by an example for something I that didn't assert. So, to be sure, not "illegal," but illogical. I'...
My quote that you're referencing there, when I say that "a thing may be the former without being the latter," isn't about precession & succession. So,...
I can't 'cause I neither observe causes nor effects within it. Although, honestly, I'm not sure that I get what it's that you're asking. So, if you ju...
Well, seeing as, at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/continuous, "continuous" is definable as "being in immediate connection or spatial relationship,...
... & therefore, according to you, a "mathematical" object isn't a "physical" object. Okay, thus, 'tis Platonism for you, mister professor. Got it. My...
I was looking through my old comments, & I came across this. You replied to my first post, & I never noticed it. Pardon this extremely late reply & re...
Sure, since seems to ignore questions intentionally, let's consider what you have to say. You didn't seem to answer my question, which is/ was a simpl...
You know, I read some of the information "about" you on your profile page, wherein, from the first line or so, I think, it reads that you're a retired...
Most people (talking about the U.S. here presumably) are theists & believe in creation, & so they wouldn't say that "nothingness," that is, a total ne...
What have I written that denies or is inconsistent with any of that? Nonetheless, I've noticed that you've made a few posts within this thread, Leo, s...
Hello, Bob Ross Well, some people might define "nothingness" in a unique way, which may make their assertion valid, i.e., words aren't absolute. Yet i...
Is a "concept ... in reality" anything other than words, i.e., do you talk of "concepts" nominalistically? It's self-evident that "not apples," i.e., ...
I’ve already addressed this point when someone else (either intentionally or not) misquoted me. So, allow me to reply to your comment with one of my p...
L.o.l., that’s cute. Only someone who’s not familiar with (or just now happened to look up) the fourth section of the third chapter of the second book...
Bottom Line: The latter, ultimately. For, according to the good ol’ bishop, without the divine mind, there would be no human perceivers, & so neither ...
Thank you; & that’s all that I’ve been maintaining throughout my thread, all of Kant’s verbosity & abstruseness can’t hide the fact that a simple cons...
Thanks for insisting on providing some useful information, for anyone who’s in need. Yet I think that the crux of the problem can be addressed here. I...
Sure, but that’s beside the point that’s in question, which is: can actual existence be denied of a thing? Kant, & Russell, I believe, answered negati...
I honestly don’t know what he may’ve have meant besides what it means on face value; & on face value, denying that actual existence is a predicate, un...
There’s no sensible or empirical phenomenon as such; if that’s what you’re asking? Now, if it’s claimed to be defined, in any way, then it’s made up o...
So, your line isn’t of matter, since it’s infinitely divisible unlike matter. Good to know, as that itself ultimately lets me know where the problem i...
... which means that they’re related to each other in the same way. Now, since that’s the case, how then are a special case and a general notion relat...
So that means that you accept that “x = not-x,” or “a tree = not-a-tree.” I’m sorry but there’s no greater reduction to absurdity than that, being led...
It’s quite simple actually... do multiple things make up a relation? If so, what’s the fewest amount of things that can form a relation? If you don’t ...
L.o.l.,, why won’t you just (simply) define “assumption”? It’s actually quite funny that you won’t & avoid it by referring to a single reader for the ...
What’s the qualitative difference between a straight line in the former & in the latter world? If there’s none, how aren’t you guilty of a false dicho...
A lot of this turns what you mean precisely by “polar opposite,” & yet that’s ultimately unimportant, so allow me to ask you: does the definition of “...
Sorry, but, no. I mean exactly what I asked: according to you, is there a relation wherein the number of members can’t possibly decrease, i.e., a “sma...
I don’t think that you’ve rightly understood what was meant by my previous posts’ only question, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Would you like me to r...
They actually do, just no novel information. There’s no way to argue that “X = X” can’t express “the nature” of “X,” granted that it doesn’t express a...
So, the thinker is assumed but the idea of thinking isn’t? What makes it that the latter isn’t but the former is? Doesn’t the fact that those people t...
Not complicated, just unclear. So, if you oblige me a little longer, I’d really appreciate it. Uh... measuring from one thing to another includes both...
Does something being a tautology make it false, if it’s really so? A tautology, just because it’s one, isn’t a falsity. How do you understand the term...
Can we “measure” a dimensionless thing? If so, by what means? L.o.l., that’s funny. I get what you mean, ha. You see, that’s where I think a line shou...
That you spoke of things “in the Platonic realm” as opposed to them “in the mental realm” is why I thought that you affirm their dualism, i.e, “the wo...
What a humble admission, I flatter myself by thinking that I may have lead you to it, l.o.l.. Yet, I must ask, so why talk or make declarations withou...
Comments