I took the point here to be that our faculties are the means of awareness (with which I agree). But I dislike 'through which awareness operates', for ...
A warning from Two Planks is a commendation. But if he's your guru, we're not going to get on. No, that's not the answer I want. If I am a bot - and I...
I am not sure I like your phrasing. Our faculties are the means by which we gain awareness, but faculties do not themselves perceive things and when w...
Our sensible faculties - which provide us with visual and other sensations - and our reason (our intellectual faculty or faculty of reason). So, I see...
Why is the word 'agent' in inverted commas? And yes, what's your point? I am arguing that some agential guidance is necessary (not sufficient) for awa...
That's a different topic. I am arguing that in order for our faculties of awareness actually to give us any awareness of anything, they'd need to be d...
I do not understand your question. We are aware of things, yes? I said premise 2 was true and that denying it would commit one to a nonsensical positi...
I am arguing that if our faculties are a product of unguided evolution, then they do 'not' provide us with any awareness of the pie in the oven. I arg...
They fail in every case: that's what I'm arguing. That 'if' our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary processes - tha...
They're not different. Ethics has a Greek root - ethos - and Morality a latin one - mores. But they're used interchangeably by professional philosophe...
I've got an argument and if you go through my comments you'll find it. But like I say, you're too ignorant and confident to be worth arguing with. I'm...
That's not a good start. Er, no, that's not anything I've said anywhere. And relevance to the OP? Christ, can't any of you actually focus on the OP an...
Yes. Morality is not a human construct. Some things are. My house, my trousers, my money. And some things aren't. Morality being one. Jeez, why oh why...
Enjoy blurting that tediously commonplace nonsense did you? Morality is not a human construction as anyone with the intelligence needed to think caref...
Timber, you have no expertise in ethics. You do not know, for instance, that rightness and goodness are not the same property; do not know about the s...
So Timber, can an act be immoral, yet do no one wrong? While you think over that one, here's another. A good person is offered the choice of creating ...
it's immoral, other things being equal. Evil is a quality of people more than acts. Plus there are subtleties that a blank 'evil' won't acknowledge. N...
No, I don't mean 'subject to reason'. Christ. Reason with a capital R refers to the source of all the imperatives of Reason and all normative reasons....
You're not following, are you? There's no 'necessity' to anything if an omnipotent being exists, for an omnipotent being can do anything. Thus no trut...
An all good being is good all the time. They don't have to be. They just are. An all powerful being is capable of being powerful all the time. They do...
You're the confused one! Jeez. You're confusing questions about the coherence of the divine attributes with problems of evil. Focus. Now, once more, s...
No, not at all. God determines what is true. And as God can do anything, God has the power to make anything true. Thus, the propositions that are in f...
how can they be the truthmakers for necessary truths? For either they are just true - in which case the necessity of those necessary truths still need...
No, they are not necessary truths in my 'system'. I have literally just said that there are no necessary truths and explained why. Truth is a property...
Although the agent who is God is not essentially omnipotent, for then that agent would lack the ability not to be omnipotent, which is incompatible wi...
You seem confused. No, God is not a necessary truth (that doesn't make sense - propositions are true, not objects). God exists. But he does not exist ...
There is no point in trying to understand what sort of a thing a square circle could be. My position is not that we can conceive of a square circle. W...
Philosophy. Not maths or science. Philosophy. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are obviously compatible, as I just explained. Omnipotence involves bein...
Ah, and now the condescension. I am not religious. You don't have any arguments for anything, do you? What does omnipotence mean? It means 'able to do...
Again, just gibberish. Employ your reason, and show that omnipotence - so, being able to do anything - is incompatible with being omnibenevolent - so,...
Just to be clear: you think the belief in God and God himself are one and the same? Okaay. Presumably I can eat my belief in a ham sandwich and drink ...
What in the blue blazes are you on about? Present an argument that demonstrates omnipotence and omnibenevolence to be incompatible. And it is one's mi...
Morality requires God, not belief in God. No intelligent theist thinks belief in God is necessary for moral behaviour. It's a straw man position. Do I...
No she isn't. Nothing I've said gives you any ground for thinking such a thing. She's not a language - languages don't issue instructions, people do. ...
No, I'm saying that God can make a square circle. For we suppose such things are impossible because the idea involves a contradiction. But the law of ...
Once more: Kant is unclear on who or what Reason is. As you'd know if you'd read him. You'd have adopted the same sarcastic tone towards Kant himself ...
Comments