Bartricks

Do you understand why this bit is true?

Read the OP then. Do you understand what a self-refuting argument is?

But I think you don't even know what it is. I think you just saw the word God and then decided to say some stuff. You didn't take the time to understa...

Describe the puzzle

So who do you think is the better qualified of the two of us on this subject? Me or you? For example, how familiar are you with the literature on evol...

No, I was simply pointing out that God is mentioned in the solution to the puzzle, not the setting-up of the puzzle. But you don't even understand the...

I use word i no understand. I think it mean being in France. But I not sure. I use anyway. I am be clever. I using wordings I not know meaning of. Tha...

So you understand, then, that an exclusively evolutionary story about our development isn't correct?

I dun not understand OP, but I dun don't like it cos he mentioned god and I don't like god so I will say some stuff.

So? You think philosophy is a democracy? Do you actually understand the OP? Do you understand how an unassisted evolutionary account of our developmen...

Vague and ambiguous mean different things. And it's not a fallacy to employ an ambiguous term. Christ almighty - who the hell educated you people?

I don't think you know what 'bald assertion' means. I did not baldly assert that purely evolutionary accounts of our development leave us having to co...

Once more, address the OP. Start by trying to understand the puzzle I was raising. Like I say, there's no doubt an SEP page on it. I know you people l...

Read what I say carefully. Reasons-to-believe things are directives. Directives need a director. The director needs to be a person. The word 'reason' ...

Clearly you don't even understand the puzzle I was attempting to resolve. Do you understand what a self-undermining case is?

But you're not very good at arguing or at understanding what another person has argued. I mean, you somehow thought that I had argued that your facult...

Show your working. Address the OP. Note, you have yet to do this. You simply told me your 'intuitions' about certain matters. I then asked you in what...

More attitude expression. Show your working. Address the OP.

You addressed precisely nothing in it. Address it.

Again, more attitude expression. Address the OP.

Go away. This is a philosophy forum and so far all you've done is express ignorant attitudes. It's pathetic.

Yes. I presented a case. It's not my fault you can't understand it. There's a big literature on evolutionary debunking arguments. There's no doubt an ...

No you're not. Address it or go away.

Address the OP or go away.

So much for your comprehension skills. Why would I trust the intuition of a person who is unable to understand the OP or address it?

No.

Relevance to the OP?

First, reasons to believe things are directives to believe things. Directives require a director and only a person can occupy that role. Thus, the dir...

You're the troll matey. I made an argument and all you did was insult me (and a very wet and feeble insult it was too). Anyway, get back to your fairg...

I didn't deny it. Now, once again, is there any reason to think it true? Read the OP again. Engage with the argument I made.

And I counter-replied. You made the inane observation that the theory of evolution is just a description of a processs. That didn't address anything I...

Bit literal aren't we. I imagine you get stuck at stop signs a lot. Now: address the OP.

Show me how by addressing the argument in the OP. Dad.

So, you think there's no reason to think it's true? Read the OP again and try and understand what I'm arguing.

I am familiar with his argument. It is different to mine (though this is from memory). All he does is argue that we have no more reason to think our f...

Innocence is not our creation. It's a status that someone has, not something we bestow by our attitudes. If I believe you're guilty of something, that...

First, I did not say that deserts do not create obligations, I said that they're different concepts - the concept of moral desert is not equivalent to...

Aw, is Isaac unable to make an argument?

So, tell me, Issac, how does one argue for something without appealing to intuition? I'm dying to know....

I did read the OP and I explained why it does not raise a problem. I have asked you umpteen times now to raise a problem. You haven't. Here are some m...

You have provided no argument. All you've done is assert that we are not souls but matter and then expressed your disapproval of the eternal soul thes...

I know! That's the point! The thesis that every truth is in principle knowable is not, note, the thesis that every truth is actually known. It is that...

That thesis is demonstrably false. I am demonstrating its falsity by providing you with examples of truths that, if true - and it's metaphysically pos...

Yes, that's why they're not knowable! Sheesh. There are no justifications. There. That proposition might be true. Assume it is. Now, we don't know it ...

Yes. I gave you some examples of such unknowable truths.

No. Here are tonight's lottery numbers: 1,2, 3,4,5,6. Imagine they are. Do I know that those are tonight's lottery numbers? No, for my belief was whol...

Yes. So? That a proposition is true does not entail that it is known to be. Look, this is very simple: this proposition "X is true and no one believes...

I don't. No one can. That's the point. 'True' does not mean 'known'. So there's no problem with there being true propositions that are unknown. I mean...

You've missed the point. There are lots of propositions that can be true - and may well be true as we speak - but which can't be known to be true when...

Yes they are. To be innocent is to be a person who has not freely done anything wrong. Animals are persons - there's something it is like to be an ani...