You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Bartricks

Comments

Who's more arrogant, the expert who thinks he's an expert - that is, the person who has actually gone to the trouble to make himself what he believes ...
February 03, 2021 at 04:22
You don't say! Nor is Questio. But you'll confirm each other. And that's good enough for you, yes? If you're not an expert, why are you listening to y...
February 03, 2021 at 03:53
I told you. Jeez. Ratiocination. Look it up.
February 03, 2021 at 03:47
So you're asking if everything that happens is happening 'due to' the omnipotent being? On the face of it, it would seem not. I mean, what I am doing ...
February 03, 2021 at 03:45
Because he wants to, presumably. Reason and observation. Our reason is our guide to reality. And our reason tells us that some things are happening an...
February 03, 2021 at 02:53
Yes, he can do all that. Are you on a sponsored go-slow or something? He can do anything. I then explained - goodness knows why - that 'can' doesn't m...
February 03, 2021 at 02:27
I imagine it must be that time on the ward when you're allowed a bit of computer fun before din dins and drug induced catatonia. You haven't addressed...
February 03, 2021 at 00:22
Yes, so? Again: Dunning Kruger. You think 'they' are the experts, right? After all, they must be becuase you are and you think I'm being illogical, an...
February 02, 2021 at 22:24
You provide no evidence that I am begging the question and appeal not to arguments, but authority figures. Have I denied the law of non-contradiction?...
February 02, 2021 at 21:11
I know you find it hard to believe. That's because you lack expertise. You think an expert will say things you easily understand and agree with. That'...
February 02, 2021 at 18:56
That's the point. Of course it doesn't show to you. That's the Dunning Kruger effect. You need to be an expert to recognize one. To you I will appear ...
February 02, 2021 at 08:57
No, God can do all things. That means he can destroy all things if he so chooses. That means that nothing that exists has to exist. All things that ex...
February 02, 2021 at 00:20
I fail to see how you get from 'is able to do all things' to 'has done them all'. To go from 'possible to exist' to 'exists' is quite a leap. Having a...
February 01, 2021 at 23:53
I think you should look up irony too.
February 01, 2021 at 23:13
And you find that funny why? People with low levels of expertise on a subject often - perhaps invariably - dramatically overestimate just how expert t...
February 01, 2021 at 22:17
It most certainly does mean that he is limited by something above him. Freight what you say with as much latin as you like, the fact is you think God ...
February 01, 2021 at 21:47
I cannot discern an original objection in what you say. Because this thread has now been made into an unfocussed mess, I assume that you are attacking...
February 01, 2021 at 21:23
I take it that you would agree that it is by using our reason that we find out about what actually exists? Does an omnipotent being exist? Yes. Our re...
February 01, 2021 at 21:12
Question begging. And tedious. Up your game.
February 01, 2021 at 20:56
That's question begging. They're not omnipotent for neither of them can do all things.
February 01, 2021 at 20:53
It does mean that they can't do things like destroy each other though. So they wouldn't be omnipotent.
February 01, 2021 at 20:49
Look up normative reasons or normativity (actually, try using a properly edited book and not the internet). Laws of Reason are normative. That's fancy...
February 01, 2021 at 20:43
This thread is about....well who knows what it is about now! There will not be more than one omnipotent being. This is because otherwise one could fru...
February 01, 2021 at 19:45
They were on different topics - one was an exploration of what being all powerful involves and the other was about something's existence. Each debate ...
February 01, 2021 at 19:38
No, Wayfarer, it means the opposite. Stop being obtuse.
February 01, 2021 at 10:04
Yes it has.
February 01, 2021 at 09:54
no. How does that follow? The exact opposite follows. You are no doubt conflating arbitrary with 'capable of change'.
February 01, 2021 at 09:37
well, I show why reason entails God in the OP- the OP that no one can now find due to the merging. The imperatives of Reason are imperatives and thus ...
February 01, 2021 at 09:35
yes, but scornful is. I mean what, exactly, was your criticism then?
February 01, 2021 at 09:20
why?
February 01, 2021 at 08:49
It doesn't 'have to be' God's mind. It 'is' God's mind. Why? Because the mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscie...
February 01, 2021 at 07:20
No. The upshot is that God exists. That's what the argument demonstrates. Does that mean that no reasonable person could disagree with me? No. There a...
February 01, 2021 at 07:14
It does apply to them. But I don't say that truths of Reason are imperative, I say that there are imperatives of Reason and that there can be truths a...
February 01, 2021 at 06:15
I couldn't care less what you think. I care only what you can show by means of a reasoned argument. But given you are convinced that I, who have argue...
February 01, 2021 at 06:01
A valid argument extracts the implications of its premises. So unless one of my premises asserts God's existence - and none do - the argument is not q...
February 01, 2021 at 04:57
And as for that, moral imperatives do need an imperator because they're imperatives and imperatives require an imperator. But you know, deny it if you...
February 01, 2021 at 03:23
"Imperative" can mean 'important', but 'an imperative' is 'a command'. Commands need commanders and away we go.
February 01, 2021 at 03:19
Yep, whatever. You've certainly got me. Embarrassingly next door's dog has also just refuted my argument as decisively as you did - it went 'woof woof...
February 01, 2021 at 03:19
Well, your plea is accurate but your request is insincere. So, that's a big fat 'no'.
February 01, 2021 at 03:05
No. How in blue blazes does that follow?
February 01, 2021 at 02:44
By ratiocination. That's why you're having trouble.
February 01, 2021 at 02:38
That was not my argument. I did not argue that as our minds detect the imperatives of Reason, therefore the imperatives of Reason depend on a mind to ...
February 01, 2021 at 02:30
'God' does not mean 'existence' - that's why we can intelligibly ask whether God exists. But yes, God can do anything so God can make himself disappea...
February 01, 2021 at 02:21
He has the power to be. Look, this is about omnipotence and what it involves. It involves being able to do anything. Those who think it involves less ...
February 01, 2021 at 02:14
You're just contradicting yourself. God can do anything, so God can destroy himself. I can destroy myself. If God can't destroy himself, then I'd have...
February 01, 2021 at 02:10
Yeah, that's all false though isn't it - I provided arguments in support of those claims. If you think there's reason to think there are no imperative...
February 01, 2021 at 02:03
Why are giraffes?
February 01, 2021 at 02:00
Er, none - I think you've lost the plot. I'm arguing that God can do anything. I'm not arguing that I can do anything, or that anything God can do I c...
February 01, 2021 at 01:58
God can make predictions. That doesn't mean he does, just that he can.
February 01, 2021 at 01:57
Yes, I didn't say that I have the power to make God commit fallacies, I said that I have the power to make myself commit fallacies. So, 'one has the p...
February 01, 2021 at 01:41