Clearbury

And with that we're done. I'll be ignoring you from now on as you're either a troll or incapable of arguing sensibly.

Yes, you did that time, not before. And I refuted your case. Your argument was demonstrably unsound. Premise 1 is false is artificial intelligence mea...

As I said, it depends on what you mean by an artificial intelligence. I'll quote me:

As I say, someone who is so disingenuous as to think I mean that I have a right to a case from you is probably not worth debating with. The point - an...

That's not a case! You're just asserting things. Now, maybe you're God and saying it makes it so in your case. But I don't think you are and as such y...

But I supported it with an example. Do you think that I did not communicate with the other person in the example I gave?

Yes, you're derailing the thread in my view. Unless you can make a case for the falsity of something I said, then you're not engaging with me or the s...

I think it is, for Wittgenstein does not say that a private language is unlikely, but that it is impossible. If something is impossible, then it is ne...

I don't think you are. Plus those are just some more of your thoughts and they don't constitute any kind of case for anything.

Assume it arose randomly.

Well, you need to engage with the case presented in the opening post. If someone makes a case for thinking that P is needed for S, then one is not eng...

My post was about language and what's needed for one. You seem to be taking things off topic.

Do you disagree with something i said? i am not clear what your point is

By the time we get to agree to things, we're already successfully communicating - and so don't actually need to agree to things (not that I'm against ...

But how do you agree to something unless a language is already up and running?

Suppose it just arose randomly. That doesn't seem to affect whether the communication was successful or not. All that seems to matter is that my makin...

So, I want to convey to you that I am having sensation P. I randomly make the sound "S" in order to do that. As it happens, you're disposed to form th...

But I have read works by Christian philosophers and I have met Christians and talked to them, and i also know that the word 'God' is not used by 99.99...

'God' is not the concept of nothing. There's no point arguing with someone who thinks otherwise. It is akin to insisting that 'God' means 'turnip' and...

Excellent point. Look, rather than playing Judy to my Punch try and engage with something

No. It means the act of creating something out of materials that did not previously exist. The creator already exists. That's absurd. I am not a Chris...

Then you need to get out more (and maybe consult a dictionary while you're at it). It's what the term means. If you're using 'God' to refer to a brand...

I don't see a difference. By 'everything' I am referring to everything that exists. So everything that exists has an explanation (according to the PSR...

That seems conceptually confused on your part. God is by definition a person. If you're using the term 'God' as a label for a mindless object or somet...

That's both rude and untrue. You don't seem to know what 'omnipotent' means. it means 'all powerful'. It doesn't mean 'unable to die' . I am repeating...

I take 'God' to mean a person who has the three omni properties (omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence). What I want to know is what philosophi...

But the PSR says that everything has an explanation. If one stipulates that there are things that do not need an explanation, then one is rejecting th...

So, an 'existent thing' is the label for something that exists. Now, by definition something that exists, exists. Everything that exists is an existen...

That misses the point somewhat! There's no puzzle. There's nothing to discuss. God is by definition an omnipotent person. So 'of course' they have the...

I am just asking you to explain what is philosophically puzzling about any of this. If I say that I am sat in a chair, that is not philosophically int...

I do not see that there is any philosophical puzzle here. The answer to the question is surely just 'yes'? An omnipotent person has all abilities. The...

The PSR is logically incompatible with there being necessary existences. A necessary existence is something that exists and can't not. That is just a ...

The point is we seem to have reason to think there are no ethical principles if an evolutionary account of our development is true. I don't draw that ...

If the PSR is true - and you think it is - then you can't just say that something is fundamental or basic. Such a status is precisely what the PSR den...

I do not see that you've really addressed my point. This is, I take it, a paradigm example of a non-normative judgement: Jane is disposed to do X. Thi...

Here is an argument against suicide. Killing another person is wrong (other things being equal) and that is not seriously in dispute. It is also not s...

You haven't answered the question. What explains it?

We're going on circles. No, they're two completely distinct principles. One says everything has an explanation. The other says that, other things bein...

I have told you numerous times what the word 'solipsism' means. If you haven't grasped it by now, then either you are being obtuse for kicks and giggl...

No, you just seem unable to understand or accept definitions when offered. Anyway, let's not have any more interactions as I don't think it's going to...

My claim was about moral principles. It is about those that it is beyond serious dispute do not come into being through simply believing in them. We c...

No, I posit one kind of thing - a mind - and one instance of it - so just one mind. Yes. I don't understand what you mean. The mind I posit has a disp...

I do not follow you. I am positing one kind of thing - a mind - and one instance of it. Now, it is clearly conceivable that minds can exist without an...

All you're doing there is drawing attention to some claims whose truth is explained by appealing to truths of reason. It has nothing to do with existe...

No, they're absolutely not the same principle differently expressed. Sufficient and efficient do not mean the same thing. Take an event - P. What the ...

You are coming to conclusions about how people are disposed to behave. Ethical principles are normative. That is, they prescribe. We can describe them...

Your question answers itself. It is simpler to suppose a mind to exist by itself than it is to suppose it exists in a body, for then you're not assumi...

At this point I think you're not really interested in listening to what I have to say, as I have already told you numerous times - and in the opening ...

My purpose is to try and figure out what's going on. And 'solipsism' isn't trying to prove anything. It's a thesis. I am the prover. And I'm not reall...

No, for solipsism - as I keep saying - is the thesis that only one mind exists. That's certainly how Russell was understanding the term (else his joke...