Hmm.... It's not a weak argument at all. You really don't seem to understand the dialectic here. The best evidence one can ever have for anything is p...
Well done for not addressing anything in the OP. Do you agree with Strawson and myself that if one is in no way morally responsible for A, and in no w...
No. I said that if we are prime movers then we have what is 'in principle' needed to be morally responsible. That doesn't mean that it is 'sufficient'...
See the OP. No, my arguments imply that it is 'necessary' not that it is sufficient. It is your poor reasoning skills - your tendency to commit the fa...
Ask them to clarify the question. It's gibberish. Ask them to ask it again without using the words 'prove' and 'epistemology' and 'is the only correct...
If strawberries taste nice, does that mean I own a mercedes? So? I don't think any premise of my argument mentioned irate chimps or dogs. All it does ...
No. The opposite! We are morally responsible, therefore we are uncreated things. I have argued that moral responsibility requires being an uncreated t...
You're just not following the argument. Yes, human bodies - sensible bodies - seem to be created things. Not in dispute. We have empirical evidence th...
Nor I you. If you accuse someone of committing fallacies when they are clearly not - which is, incidentally, to accuse someone of reasoning badly - th...
Stop being such a snowflake. You accused me - falsely - of committing fallacies while committing at least one yourself. Yes, that's what it means. Som...
Why are you talking confidently about Strawson's argument when you clearly haven't read the article in which it appears or understood my representatio...
Again, you're just being tedious and attacking assumptions that are not in dispute. This thread is not about fundamental issues in epistemology. But w...
Yes, what our reason represents to be the case, we are default justified in believing to be the case. So, we are default justified in believing that w...
I have argued that we are morally responsible! Look, why does Strawson think we're not morally responsible? Because he thinks it is impossible to be m...
You're being tedious. That was an example of how we can arrive at the conclusion that we are prime movers. It was not my argument against Strawson, an...
Imagine that punishing Jane for a crime you know she did not commit would nevertheless be extremely helpful and deter others from committing such crim...
I am assuming that we appear to be morally responsible and that as such Strawson has the burden of proof. This isn't something he'd deny, so I am not ...
er, I said nothing about it being 'as' clear. I can see a table. I can see a tree. I'm using sight to see them both. By your logic I have just claimed...
Why would I do that? A person who thinks that if it is useful to believe X, X is therefore true, is too foolish to be worth arguing with. As someone s...
Our reason is a faculty. It's deliverances are 'intuitions'. It is by intuition that you know this argument is valid: 1. P 2. Q 3. Therefore P and Q T...
Those behaviours and attitudes that presuppose we are morally responsible for what we do. They're known as the 'reactive attitudes' and would include ...
Because it is a rational intuition. Our reason tells us that if we make a decision, then we are morally responsible for having made it - that is, we a...
That's a different issue. This one bears on it, of course, for if we're not morally responsible then a whole range of attitudes and behaviours are bas...
Change does not require time given that an event in time changes from being future to being present to being past. So change is required for time to p...
Presumably you think Newton's most important contribution was the sterling job he did as head of the Royal Mint, and that Jesus' excellent joinery is ...
What you say sounds correct to me. As I read him, his point is that the thought "I exist" is necessarily true whenever or wherever it occurs. But its ...
I take it the article was about 'buck-passing' accounts of moral value (according to which 'moral value' is reduced to 'something we have normative re...
No, this is just confused. I could explain again, but you've already made up your mind. Er, yes - that's why God doesn't exist of necessity. Blimey. A...
Irrelevant. I have the power not to exist, yes? So, an all powerful being must have that power too. He wouldn't if he exists of necessity. What you sa...
I now want to go through those divine attributes you list and show why, in my view, necessary existence doesn't imply any of them - indeed, is positiv...
I don't think it is a compelling argument. First, if it goes through it does not prove 'God', but rather a 'necessary existent'. That thing will not b...
It might be as well to drive home further why a sensible use of Ockham's razor is by itself sufficient to establish that we are dealing with one mind ...
But I did precisely that. Yes, your responses do constitute a very good illustration of the Dunning Kruger effect. Questio pasted the argument on my b...
I don't understand your response. You asked me why one mind is posited rather than multiple minds. I explained. There are lots of other reasons why on...
This is getting tedious now. To be honest, I don't know what you mean here and I've been charitable in assuming you mean that there is something incoh...
Yes, they could be. But they aren't. There's a burden of proof to discharge. One mind is the default, not multiple minds. There are lots of other reas...
How? Here's my argument again: 1. If the imperatives of Reason are the imperatives a mind is issuing, then that mind is not bound by those imperatives...
Look up 'laws of Reason'. Look up 'imperatives of Reason' (that fool Kant will come up). Now, I gave you some examples of imperatives of Reason, didn'...
Again, you just keep begging the question. First, yes, of course God could make 2 + 2 = 7. Has he? Consult your reason. Oh, he hasn't. In fact, he's v...
I did respond to your argument, though admittedly it was not entirely clear to me what it was. And it still isn't. But I assumed that you thought - fa...
I done understand the first part of what you said or how it connects to what I said. At what point did I deny that words are malleable? And as for the...
Ah, again with the advice. My posts do not inhibit others from posting. So that's false. And if someone talks 'about' me to another poster, I think it...
Yes. The 'most likely' is important. Presumably you would not dismiss Dunning and Kruger's article on this basis? How would one know that one is not m...
It is not semantical. The definition of omnipotence is an attempt at capturing a concept; the concept of an all powerful being. If I define 'omnipoten...
Comments