Sure, neither do I, necessary. There might be, for example, a existing entity who lives at all finite moments, who keeps living from moment to moment....
That doesn't really help me because you could be referring to either. Logic and experience have a theatre in the sense of the infinite definition of t...
What do you mean be "consciousness?" Do you mean the existence of a consciousness entity/states that cause some other event of existence? Or do you me...
I'm saying the "non-material" is infinite and changeless. So when you claim the finite, limited moment of God causing our universe is "non-material," ...
Right, and that's the contradiction in your metaphysics. You ascribe something finite and limited, a thing of experience which causes something else, ...
...that wasn't my claim. States of consciousness may be causally efficacious. My point was any such state is material, a contingent moment of existenc...
I suspected you didn't. But if you mean a non-material God, then it is not an existing conscious being. And it can certainly not be the cause of our u...
It's not outside the observable universe. If someone was present, who could perceive that part reality prior to the creation of our universe, they wou...
You have to be careful there. It would be outside the created universe, since its prior to its creation, but it would not be outside reality/ "univers...
Consciousness isn't. That's just a reference to a certain type of logical meaning. A conscious being, however, most certainly is of the empirical. It'...
Science can be performed by the religious or as part of the practice of a religious tradition (just as it can with any other human tradition), but in ...
I'm not sure if it is your exactly metaphysics, but the metaphysics S thinks you have is contradictory. The metaphysics S is attacking equivocates met...
I know that, but my point is that is not attributed to any existing being under your argument. Let's consider this Universal Consciousness. What happe...
I think it's in the meaning of that where the objection of the OP fails away. What can be everything? If we are considering an individuals of the worl...
I want to know how such a God can be said to exist. Nothing you said there makes a claim of an existing being of God in the world. We are always able ...
Nietzsche is referring to a metaphysical God. “God is dead” doesn’t refers to the existence or even just to the death of a religious tradition in soci...
That you don't read these philosophers because you think they are just delivering meaningless words. I'm then extending it into the point your critici...
You even outright denied your comment were based on anything these philosopher had said or writing (i.e. that what you are saying isn't based on what ...
You outright said you won't read these philosophers because they'll only say something meaningless. You also said this in response to a Hegel quote ea...
This sort of statement is incoherent. If you don't even know what someone is saying or haven't even looked at it, how can you have any idea whether an...
I don't think so. We have to be careful here. The certainty of death is something people the to approach form a position of actuality. Promises grante...
I thought he was talking about the truth. That's why I commented he was arguing a contradiction. If truth is at stake and someone has good reason for ...
The math stuff can be a little bit bizarre ( I think he's chasing after justifications in a correlationist form actually), but I wasn't really concern...
Meillassoux's position is pretty understandable in the context of radical contingency. Since he holds any logically possible state can occur, includin...
That's true, but then you are shifting from "good reasons" in terms of truth, to "good reasons" in terms of normatively or preference, as per my comme...
This is an outright contradiction. If we have good reason to hold one is sure over another, then we are dealing with refutable positions. By the measu...
Yes, idealism is refutable. It requires recognising the question at stake is not whether the table exists when we look away from it. That's just an em...
People who say "privilege is why" are using this descriptive sense. They mean in the social context some people have been put in difficultly by an uns...
We can say more than that. Difficulty of circumstances are defined by the conditions of the individual. In this respect, there's not much required for...
We might say it has already progressed the moment God is placed outside the empirical world. Once monotheism leaves behind a being that manifests in r...
In that I was referencing what their texts talking about, showing the claim they are relativists to be a contradiction. I've read Being & Nothingness,...
By "big problem" I'm referring to assertions about the deficiencies of athesim or materialism. I'm not speaking about the words you are using. It's th...
That's the type of merely assertion I'm talking about. You don't actually show your claims to be truthful. Their texts show otherwise. Sartre asserts ...
It worse than that. To argue morality is "relative" in a sense of outcomes being right for particular people, objectivity is assumed. The circumstance...
I'm saying you've just asserted there is a big problem with materialism. You haven't show why that is true or logical conclusion. Everytime you are ch...
Clearly you haven't read the people you talk about: Sartre, de Beauvoir and even Nietzsche think morality and values are objective... just true on the...
1) hasn't happened because most of the stuff around "God exists" hasn't defined the state or the evidence we would see if God exists. We cannot invest...
My point was you don't support that point. You just come along and expect everyone to believe it because you say so. When challenged, you just revert ...
I'm not talking about a specific belief unique to one side of an argument. My point is about the use of logic and reasoning to support one's arguments...
At that level, the issue is the reverse: what is it that one believes about existing states ? Without setting up which states are the presence of a go...
I'm not on staff, so my comments do not represent there reasons in my comments, but your criticism had been terrible throughout, a series of posts wit...
Depends what you mean by God. If you mean the notion of a being of the world, who you then try to pass off responsibility of existence to, sure. On th...
Descartes postion holds with respect to the imaginary. What he is showing in the argument is not the existence of God, but the self-sufficiency of rea...
My point is the question is a category error because no-one can derive morality in that way, be they secular or religious. Attempting such an derivati...
In a way... yes. Morality doesn't have that sort of "basis." Secular or religious morality does not have such a basis. We cannot "derive" morality fro...
Morality is secular precisely because it is objective. If it were religiously defined, moral character would cease to be defined on the basis of the m...
Apologies, I missed a "not." That second statement should read, "It's not a question of individual preference of feeling." As for how so many people c...
Comments