Bartricks

Yes, I know - it's an example from Judith Jarvis Thomson, I think - and I addressed it. I have my own reasons for bothering with the thread, one of wh...

Correct, of course. Also correct, of course. Yes he can. I can make me commit fallacies, yes? So God can make God commit fallacies if he so wishes, ot...

You ask why you're you. That's not a coherent question unless you mean by it "why do I exist?" I then explained why that question only makes sense on ...

Of course you are (see a). As for b, I have my reasons.

No, but I have provided you with arguments for thinking them so. So it's you who, rather than addressing or acknowledging the arguments, just persists...

Are you slow? The. Imperatives. Of. Reason. See argument above. Yes, I know they're prescriptive. If you want to win the game, you have reason to move...

Your thought is incorrect. I don't think you're God and you don't either (I hope) and nothing in what I said implied you were God. What I said showed ...

They are directives. And you ought to believe them. And that's a description of a directive. So, they are directives. There are directives of Reason, ...

I hope you cleaned it up. Are you asking why you exist? I mean, if you exist then you're bound to be you. So I can only assume that you are asking why...

They are directives and simply saying they're not won't alter that. But it doesn't matter, because I take it that you agree that you ought to believe ...

I have done. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't shove its muzzle into the water and say "drink it you stupid horse!!" You can fail to follow...

Okaaay, if you say so. Look, there can be directives about directives: 'do what he told you to do' for instance. But anyway, if you're just going to i...

Yes, if you say it is 'false' (unsound?) then it will be. That's definitely how reality works. Enjoy listening to yourself.

The problem you have with my argument is twofold: a) you don't understand it, b) it's a proof of God.

If you 'ought' to draw the conclusion, then you are bid draw it - that's what the oughtness 'is'. If you do what you ought not to do, then you are doi...

I explained. The laws of Reason are prescriptive laws, not descriptive. That's why you can flout them. A directive requires a mind to issue it. Take t...

And what, pray, are philosophers talking about when they talk about the imperatives of Reason? And what are you following when you reason, if not some...

So you are denying that you ought to draw the conclusion of a sound argument?

No. A description of an imperative is a description, of course. And if by 'Reason' you mean 'a description of all of Reason's imperatives" then yes, t...

I'm certainly an a-theorist about time, but I don't think I'm a presentist, as I think past and future events exist. But I'm waiting on Paul Hollywood...

I don't think you fully grasp what i've done. The existence of God is what the argument 'concludes'. It is not asserted in any premise. I defined God,...

It does follow. If commands express the desires of a mind, and there are commands of Reason, then those commands express the desires of a mind. As for...

Sorry, but I did. You accept, I take it, that I did what I did: I, a mind, issued an instruction to you. I'll do it again "Give me all your money!" Th...

I repeat: where is the error? Don't just express your conviction that I have made one. Where is it? Have I reasoned fallaciously - if so, where? And i...

By wanting us to do and believe things and by ordering or instructing us to do so. Here's a law of Bartricks: if you have money, give me money. Not on...

I just gave you some. Their precise content is a matter of debate, but their existence is not. You can't do philosophy without having to accept their ...

Plotinus did not make the argument I just made. If you think there's a problem with the argument, use your extensive knowledge to highlight it.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. God. There's only one.

God. Reason is not strong in this one.

God is in the conclusion, not a premise. I see no real similarity. I think you're seeing Plotinus everywhere. Just because you have a hammer, that doe...

Thems is rules such as "do an act if doing so will serve your ends and won't violate another rule of reason" and "be nice" and "believe in the truth o...

Well that's 2 minutes I'm not getting back.

er, God. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. Blimey, I'm not anticipating a good objection from this one!

I am not a dualist. I'm an immaterialist. Note, whether materialism or immaterialism is true is a philosophical matter, not a matter of scientific inv...

That too made no sense.

That made no sense.

Listen boyo, I started this thread and it's a place to discuss whether God can do anything, not discuss the bible. It's not my fault my arguments are ...

Question begging and absurd, as I keep emphasizing. Being able to do anything, doesn't mean 'able to do some things and not others'. It means being ab...

I think you're missing my point. The word 'necessary' is ambiguous on everyday usage. If I say "it's necessary for you to buy me some butter" what do ...

I do not really understand what you're saying, but it smells false and beside the point. Can there be a being who can do anything? Yes, although we ne...

I wondered how long it would be before the bibleos came along and started discussing the God of the bible rather than thinking for themselves. This th...

This has nothing to do with materialism. Let's assume immaterialism is true (I do think it is). The problem is that the future can't cause the present...

Er, no. You're being tedious and you're out of your depth.

Here's the argument again: 1. If you can fail to follow a law of logic, then the law is prescriptive 2. You can fail to follow a law of logic 3. There...

No, that's what 'you' are doing. The relation is a 'favoring' relation. And it is not between the premises and the conclusion, for premises, being pro...

Shall I help you? A 'premise' is not a law of logic, right? Nor is a conclusion. When we say that the conclusion 'follows' from the premises, then we'...

Which website did you copy and paste that from? You don't actually know what you're talking about, do you? Here's my argument again: 1. If you can fai...

Yes it is. No it isn't. No, I'm not at all confused. I think necessity does not exist, so what could I learn from people who just take for granted tha...

no, that's what you've just done. You just made the vague assertion "logic deals in propositions" (what does 'deals in' mean, exactly?). Then I replie...

No, they're instructions. Can you fail to follow a law of logic? Yes, of course one can - this is what happens when one reasons fallaciously. One 'fol...