Bartricks

So, what did you put in google then? What am I implying about you? Or, to put it another way, what am I entailing about you? That makes sense, doesn't...

Well they do not mean the same thing at all. Imply does not mean entail. Infer does not mean imply Refute does not mean deny Raise the question does n...

That's a huge mistake. Perhaps there is some device - some searching engine, we might call it - that one could use to establish the truth of the matte...

Yes, implies is weaker than entails. If something is entailed it means it is the case.

That one thing depends on another does not entail that the former existed before the latter. As I keep explaining.

So when I inferred a causal relation was responsible for the correlation between my flicking the light switch and the light coming on, that was a mist...

What do you mean by 'necessity' then? Why do you think it implies 'exists before anything else'?

Well they do not aid understanding, do they. They obscure it. Correlation does not entail causation. But it does imply it.

What on earth are you talking about?

So why did you use symbols?

I do have a soul. And I'm a philosopher.

I'm a philosopher.

Do you think implies means the same as entails? And why did you use symbols and not words?

I don't know what that means - what do the arrows mean?

You think a random collection of claims constitutes an argument! HOw condescending. Who do you think you are? Let other people make their own decision...

Correlation does imply causation. I flick the switch. The light comes on. That keeps happening. The reasonable conclusion is that there is a causal re...

No it doesn't. That's you just insisting that if a proposition has always been true, then it is true of necessity. Stop begging the question. Now, onc...

I think it's always been true. But perhaps I'm wrong about that. Doesn't matter: the important point is that it is true. Now show me how that law some...

You don't seem to understnad what I am asking you. Something can exist and its existence can be contingent, yes? (Not something I beleive - for I beli...

No, that's just you asserting what you're mistaken about. Say it as often as you like, it's not going to be true. Again: X exists contingently. Now im...

Presumably you realize that if something exists contingently, then that can be consistent with it actually existing? Or do you not understand that? So...

Oh, ok then. Jesus. And no, if something exists eternally it does not therefore exist of necessity. Bloody hell. This is basic. If something exists of...

No, I know better than you do what I mean to say. I said it is true that time exists. I say it is nonsense to say that time exists 'of necessity' and ...

Take anything that exists now. Can you imagine it existing yesterday? And the day before. Keep doing that until you get to the first moment. Now you'r...

Can't you see that 'eternal' and 'necessity' are different?

You're begging the question. Remember: I deny the reality of necessity and contingency. Look, do you deny that there are any hoity truths?

No, I do not deny that. Why would you think I would deny that?

Yes I can. There are no necessary truths or contingent truths. But it is true that time exists. There.

No, you're conflating 'exists of necessity' with 'exists eternally'. They're different. The first entails the latter, the latter does not entail the f...

No it isn't. That's question begging. Explain how it is logically impossible. (It's from Kant)

Imagine that for all time there has been a two storey building. Imagine the first storey exists of necessity, but the second does not. The second depe...

I don't understand your response to L'elephant. I am a sceptic about necessity. But putting that aside, if A exists of necessity and B depends on A, A...

Your MO is to find a thread I have started and then not bother reading the OP but instead to make an inane comment and then post a crying with laughte...

This thread is not about the coherence of theism. So pointing out that, in your view, the divine attributes contradict, is neither here nor there. It'...

Note: I would never, ever, read anything you have said twice. So, read the OP - you clearly didn't, or you lack the understanding necessary to appreci...

Read the OP.

If you read the OP you'll realize that I am talking about the God of Abraham and pointing out that nothing in the bible commits one to supposing he cr...

I don't understand what you're saying. My claim is that to be rational is to be reason-responsive. that is, it is to recognize and respond to reasons ...

With what? Read the OP and try and focus on what it is about.

The writer of Genesis employed the term 'day'. If I say 'day' you interpret me to mean a 24 hour period or thereabouts. That is the reasonable interpr...

Philosophical puzzles are puzzles about the nature of reality. Each one has but one solution, not multiple solutions (until we figure out what the cor...

No, I said that by 'God' I mean a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Now, what are you disagreeing with? Do you think I don't ,...

To be rational is to be highly reason-responsive. Reason-responsiveness has two components: a receptivity component and a reactivity component. To be ...

Jolly good. Now apply that to the bible. And then acknowledge that your case for thinking that 'day' in Genesis refers to something other than what ev...

So how do you know that I mean by 'day' what you mean by 'day' or second or year? Pray, do tell

But how do you know you're not going to tell me? How do I know that you mean by 'me' what I mean by 'me'? These really are very good points

But how does anyone know anything?

Another second - which could mean a house, or a 45 trillion billion years, or anything at all. How do we know what anything means? How do we really kn...

It's called arguing in a vicious circle. Your criticism of me will only work if I am correct. So, well done. Imagine we're in a duel. You would put yo...

Well, figure out what I am arguing and then figure out why what you just said made no sense at all.