You don't understand how combining lots of little things can make a big thing? I assume you have velcro shoes and not lace ups. Bloody hell. I do wond...
You haven't addressed anything I said. The principle you mentioned in your OP is demonstrably false. God is not 'needed' to explain the universe and w...
It does not make 'more' sense - it has the same sense it always had, it is just that now you see it, whereas before you loudly declared what I said to...
But I am. Social constructivists and marxists and relativists and Nietzscheans are mainly in English departments and other disney disciplines. Needles...
Quite. In this particular case it is really a form of Garret Travers self-love, for Epicurus is the philosopher that Garret Travers has been most infl...
Oh, I've done the work. I'm the most qualified person here, I assure you. If God exists of necessity, then he can't not exist. And if he can't not exi...
I'm not. What you said was that it is impossible for a deductively valid argument to have a false conclusion. That's false - they can obviously have f...
I'm not remotely confused. You agree, then, that God does not exist of necessity? God exists, but has the ability not to? And you agree, do you, that ...
This principle seems false. Lots of little things can be combined to make a greater thing. A house of cards has greater complexity than any one of the...
Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions. And a valid argument can have a false conclusion. You're confusing validity with soundness. If ...
No I don't. I conclude that I exist at the time of my death. Jesus. Charming, Hugh. I did make an argument. I make nothing but arguments. Now, address...
Question begging. Read what I wrote. Don't substitute my words for yours. Now, answer my question: do you think death is not a harm? Coz that's really...
Well of course his logic seems valid to you! You can't reason well either. And none of my arguments assume their conclusions. For my arguments to appe...
I didn't talk about fear of death. I said the reason of virtually everyone represents it to be a great harm. That doesn't mean the same as 'virtually ...
So, just to be clear, do you think you exist at the time of your death, or not? That is, do you think death marks the cessation of your existence - in...
Yes, normative oughts can be generated by any kind of normative reason, not just moral ones. In the chess case the 'ought' is the ought of instrumenta...
What total and utter junk. You really can't reason. Because you're a parrot and don't seem to understand the meaning of a sentence and how it can be d...
You don't really know what you're talking about. Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions. And yes, this argument - your argument - 1. Ma...
Of course thoughts exist. They exist as certainly as anything can.Any argument against their existence would have at least one premise less plausible ...
So, your argument that materialism is true, is that it is true. Good stuff!! A+ The argument I presented was deductively valid. It had this form: 1. I...
Epicurus's most influential argument was this one: 1. If God exists, evil wouldn't exist 2. Evil exists 3. Therefore God does not exist But it is not ...
So you reason like this: materialism is true because science. Epicurus was a materialist. Therefore Epicurus is correct. Epicurus is a good philosophe...
No, best not discuss Epicurus with someone who knows about him and is able to show him to be a poor reasoner, albeit an ingenious one. But arguments, ...
I present a proof that divine command theory is true, and your concern is over whether Paul McCartney has a PhD in music. You think that is the issue ...
Because death is a harm. If death improves our condition, then it is not a harm. If death is nothing, then it is not a harm. If death makes our condit...
"Keep your fuckin arguments to yourself", hmm, sounds a little rude to me. Also somewhat against the spirit of philosophy, which is all about making a...
He made two distinct arguments for the harmlessness of death, as you should know. One appeals to the experience condition, the other to the existence ...
It's not just valid. It is sound. If you reject 1, you reject one of Epicurus's principles. And anyway, we would need an argument against 1, given it ...
Seems you do not know your insults either - that's not an insult, but just an observation: you kept conflating the experience and existence conditions...
I did not say 'existence presupposes harm'. I said - following Epicurus - that harm presupposes existence. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist a...
You don't know your Epicurus. It is 'harm' not 'pain'. Yes, pain has to be experienced to be pain, for pain 'is' a kind of experience. But not all har...
Death is harmful - our reason could not be clearer on the matter. Harm requires existence. Thus death does not end us, but makes our existence worse. ...
Yep, seems sound to me. There's no need to invoke Christianity, however. One can arrive at the conclusion by reason alone, as I have done. An all powe...
You're appealing to a different version of the argument, one that is even less plausible. One version of the argument appeals to the 'experience' cond...
If there are blurts, there must be a blurter. The blurts of TheRiddler all have the same source: theRiddler. Only a mind can blurt. Therefore, TheRidd...
I don't understand what philosophical point you are making. What has influence got to do with anything? What matters to a philosopher is what's true, ...
This thread has lost its focus and become about antinatalism rather than hypothetical consent. I simply pointed out that given hypothetical consent ha...
I have presented an argument that demonstrates that Reason is a person, God, and that moral commands are the commands of God. Get up to speed and then...
If only there was some kind of instrument that one could use quickly to find out about these matters - a kind of 'searching engine'. Do your own resea...
Well, I showed you how it would apply to non-naturalism. Nothing stops 'the Form of the Good' from issuing a prescription to kill others for fun, does...
I am trying to figure out what's true, not what it is easiest to believe. God exists, as my argument demonstrates. And the 'problem' of evil is no pro...
Are you a hand-dryer? So much hot air. Try harder. Why are you crossing out 'Reason' and replacing it with 'reason'? It's 'Reason' not 'reason'. The s...
Where have I said that life cannot be a blessing? I have not. The point, however, is that we have no obligation to bring into being lives that would b...
Locate an inconsistency in what I am saying! I am the one being consistent. You are being ad hoc. We are justified in performing an act, at least in p...
Nothing. It tells us something about us and our situation. But it does not challenge the idea that moral imperatives are imperatives, or that they are...
Your view seems ad hoc. You think that a person can be harmed by an act even though they did not exist prior to it, but you think that a person cannot...
So, to be clear, you think that one can be harmed by an act even if one does not exist prior to it, but one can't be 'imposed' upon unless one exists ...
So you think that in order for something to be an imposition it is not enough that we locate someone who is imposed upon, they must exist prior to the...
Comments