Leontiskos

I'm not sure how possible worlds semantics is supposed to be clear. Hardly anyone knows what a possible world is supposed to be. Or else, if "possible...

Yes, and that's the issue that relates to the entire thread. The atheists here are arguing on the basis of de-contextualized interpretations that woul...

Again, it's literally against the rules: - My response: - You are just name-dropping without providing any evidence that the authorities even agree wi...

- Did you see my post , where I looked at the position of a bona fide nominalist (in this case, fictionalist)? I don't think we will understand what n...

The simplest answer for the purposes of TPF is to simply say, "religious experience." At that point you will advert to your presupposition about relig...

For example, we could take Richard Joyce's moral fictionalism as an example: It seems that Joyce would agree with Peirce that all that can be loved is...

Interesting OP, but I don't follow this sentence at all. Peirce is not saying that figment is all that can be loved...? (Edit: So is it the idea that ...

Okay, interesting. Such negatives are pretty slippery. I won't speak to practical prohibitions, but, "This is false," is an incredibly difficult thing...

I would interpret it this way: people are not interested in entire posts of AI-generated content. The only words of your own were, "All AI generated, ...

Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate that. :smile: Yes, well that would be an interesting topic. Aristotle thinks that any piece of new knowledg...

Cf: From what I remember, Spade gets at the deeper issues (which bear on the discussion between @"Banno" and @"Arcane Sandwich" in the linked thread),...

- Okay, great. And for Aristotelian essentialism this is taken for granted, namely that we can know water without knowing water fully, and that theref...

What says is correct. I can agree with him even if he must always stubbornly disagree with me (or at least pretend to).

I think one could take your argument and claim that Aristotle and Lavoisier were not pointing to the same thing at all with the term "water." There wa...

Yes, of course you are. That's what I've been saying over and over. You are talking about 1a, not 1: When you ask "was water H2O" and then immediately...

I think you've helped to show the real complexity of a story that is often treated with historically and exegetically tone-deaf canards. If we don't u...

Yes, it's a good point. I was trying to get at the same thing with this:

Right. And the odd thing is that when religious people consistently take the bait they too become confused about thinking that religions have only to ...

Because when @"Hanover" said, "I trust wholly in the sincerity of your atheism, have no desire to modify it..." he was speaking to @"Tom Storm". So wh...

Well then how in the heck are you getting to your conclusion that, "water was not H2O "? Do you have an argument for that claim? You seem to think tha...

Yes, I agree. I think you've written a number of good posts and I've mostly fallen behind in this thread, but I nevertheless disagree with the bolded....

Super crazy. Stuff like this: Apparently this is, "Psychological discrediting." :roll: "Leontiskos asked that we give arguments for our claims. How ru...

Yes! :up: The point is that your objection will exist whether or not the topic is so-called "foundational philosophy." If X is true then people who ho...

In a rather direct sense this relates to the external thread I mentioned <here>, "The Philosophical Virtue of Certitude Shifting." * @"J"'s concerns m...

So is this your argument? <A 4th century B.C. essentialist did not believe that water was H2O, therefore water was not H2O before 19th century chemist...

Okay thanks Moliere. Let's think through this: You say, "In Aristotle's time, water was not H2O." You say, "We even have reason to believe Aristotle w...

Not sure how I am to "butt out" of a PM I am not a part of. Note that I have known @"J" longer than anyone here. I was the one who him to the forum. I...

If you have something of substance to add to the thread, by all means do that. If not, please cut it out with the harassment.

The forum topics are available to all members, are they not? As I said, if you don't want to answer J's questions, don't. But don't get mad when other...

I would say that instead of engaging in ad hominem you should give philosophy a try. Here is the question: Here is your answer, as usual: Just because...

- No problem, apology accepted. :up: Still, I think formal or quasi-formal argument would be helpful, especially insofar as we draw near to more diffi...

Quoting from, "Beyond the Pale": 1. I hold X to be true 2. Therefore, I am committed to saying that Joe, who holds ~X, is holding to a falsehood The q...

At this point if the conversation is to continue then I think you need to offer formal argumentation, because you have . So if you want to offer an ar...

I'm really glad that you are beginning to perceive the moral foundations of your philosophical project. Your whole project seems to be motivated by th...

Okay, great. My point was that even the most tolerant do not tolerate everything. When I say that Christianity values unity in plurality, I am not say...

Yep, good post. :up: On a philosophy forum my request is actually extremely meager. It's that evangelistic begging-the-question does not happen again ...

- :up:

- No worries. I just find that when people ignore parts of posts they seldom come back and return to them later. Maybe you were planning to do so.

I think you've presented a canard of "teleology," but let's accept it for the sake of argument. Does "water is H2O" contradict "Water wants to sit ato...

- I agree. That "reductionism" is a large part of why his thought is more amenable to modern man, and why he is a good mediator.

Er, but how are you disagreeing? Again: So: P1. (2) does not contradict (1) P2. (2) contradicts (1a) P3. (3) does not contradict (1) P4. (3) contradic...

Well here are two claims. Do you agree or disagree with them?

I think you have been asking some good questions of late. This is one of them. :up: I would phrase it this way: <If foundational premises are known to...

@"Moliere" I want to revisit our short but illuminating discussion, since it is such a clear model for what tends to happen on TPF with discussions of...

If it's not relying upon the science then apparently Kripke would have made the exact same argument in 1700, before the science had occurred. Is that ...

When you are reading Kripke on this issue, if you don't begin with an interest in developing the notion of rigid designation, then his whole project w...

This hasn't been mentioned in the thread, but religious scholars will point out that faith is only central to revealed religion (i.e. revelation-based...

Er, it is crucial to understand that Kripke's claim is not merely logical. If it were merely logical then it would not be a posteriori at all. That it...

Even if that is true, the mountain of quibbles does not actually succeed in showing that water is not H2O. When chemists or philosophers say that wate...

This is a lot of nonsense. <Here's> a primer for you on the scientists involved in 18th and 19th century chemistry who discovered the molecular compos...