Bartricks

Argument, not arguer. Do try and learn. Argument. Address it. And yes, the argument establishes that I am entitled to an entirely harm free happy life...

Why did you post that? Are you just bored? Now, Isaac, which premise is bizarre? You think we're born guilty? You genuinely think that of these two cl...

Which premise do you dispute?

So you think no one deserves anything. Good one.

No. That's a Christian doctrine and I'm not a Christian. Argument, not arguer. Which premise do you dispute?

Yes you were. It is my thread and you wrote on it. Thus you were trying to say something relevant to the OP. You failed. Go away and learn to focus on...

That does not engage with the argument I just presented. Focus!

You seem to be attacking a straw man version of idealism. Berkeley is the most famous and best idealist. And he argued that the external world that ou...

Here's an argument for free will: 1. We are morally responsible for our choices 2. If we are morally responsible for our choices, then we have free wi...

Is A a proposition or a state of affairs? You have to say it is a proposition. But if there are no truths then there are no true propositions. It can ...

I do not follow you. If there are no truths, then A will not be true. You have said that it would be true if there are no truths. But that's you asser...

The premises of the argument were that 1, everything that begins to exist has a cause; and 2, the universe began to exist. You have decided that the t...

I know - that's what I just said. And what I said in the OP.

As I said in the OP, hypothetical consent is not consent. The proposition "Rachel would have consented to have X done to her" can be true. And it is t...

I've never done that. How's that any kind of contradiction?

I repeat: not knowing whether C is satisfied or not is not evidence that C is false. We ought not to hurt another, other things being equal. But somet...

No. Pour l'amour de Dieu

What's the problem? Are you saying that there is no fact of the matter about whether doing X to Rachel will harm her or not? Or are you just saying th...

No, I don't know what you mean. How is what you're saying not covered by my conditions a-d?

You're attacking a straw man. You have outlined his argument and then you have proceeded to attack a premise not present in it. His argument requires ...

How is that relevant to the OP? In the OP I outlined what I took - and still take - to be a set of conditions on when hypothetical consent might count...

You've nothing to contribute, Hilary.

Question begging.

You now want me to give you reason to care? Something most think impossible has been demonstrated to be possible. You don't care. Ok. Fine. You clearl...

So you agree with my conclusion in the OP? Good. That means you have nothing to say. So stop saying things.

Relevance? Read the OP. Try and understand the argument. You will fail. But if or when you succeed, try and address it.

Er, what? OP. Read it. Address it.

Oh, okay then. Brilliant. Don't bother addressing the argument in the OP. Just say stuff and it'll be true.

Just obviously question begging. Read the op and address the argument.

Quite a lot of words for someone who does not give a shit about this dude's arguments. Needless to say, I did not waste any time reading them. I win.

You are making no sense. X did come into existence. Perhaps you are conceptually confused (or worse), but if something does not exist at one time and ...

I don't know what you are on about. You're trying to create puzzles where there are none. At time t1, x does not exist. At time t2, x does exist. So x...

Sunday afternoon philosopher

T2.

So what? What, you think your faculty of reason is the only one that matters? If the reason of others - including virtually all of those whose faculti...

You're just saying words in the vague hope that they'll somehow constitute a good criticism. What assumptions are you talking about? Christ - argue so...

So?

Obviously God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift. An omnipotent person can do anything, thus he can do that. You seem to think that if someon...

What does that even mean? Fallacies are features of arguments. So, identify the fallacy in my argument. Don't just say the word 'fallacy' and think th...

I don't see how anything you have said engages with anything i have argued. You have just assumed I am mistaken without providing any evidence whatsoe...

Let me raise an objection to my view that no one has yet made. Self destruction. I take it that self destruction is obviously coherent. X can cause x ...

no in between. You asked what coming into existence involves. I have answered.

No. At some time it does not exist and then at another it does.

Why are you crying with laughter? If p, then q. If q, then t Therefore, if p then t P Therefore t. There - wet your pants.

I take it that something has come into existence if there was a time when it did not exist and then a time when it does.

Not sure I follow. Let's say object X pops into existence. So, at time t1, X does not exist. At time t2, X exists. Did some object or event at time t1...

Because reasons - that is, reasons to do things and to believe things - are favoring relations. Only a mind can be the source of a favoring relation. ...

I am not seeking an answer. The thread's title is a question - that's the question under consideration. But in the OP I presented an answer: yes it is...

It is self-evident to reason that events have causes. Evidence that it is self-evident to reason is the fact that throughout history it has been appea...

The arrogance is staggering. You hadn't even heard of substance causation, yet now you think you know what contingent means, even though it is quite o...