You just keep putting the word 'necessary' in. I think you are confused about the kind of thing the rules of logic are. The rules of logic are instruc...
He can make a flying pink democracy too. He can do 'anything'. Not hard to grasp really. And he can make anything a thing, and then do it. That's what...
no, that's not made anything clearer. But I am not confused and in need of enlightenment. I don't need to keep being told about necessity. I know it i...
I don't need to demonstrate that there are no necessary truths to show their dispensibility. But I can anyway: 1. If God exists then there are no nece...
because if he can't do them then he can't do all things. If I can do everything you can do, but I can also draw square circles then I have more power ...
I think you misunderstand. You are just begging the question. Look, you are saying that if x presupposes the truth of y, then if x is the case y must ...
er, no I haven't. I didn't say it was necessarily true, did I? You think contradictions are necessarily false; I think they are just false. So we will...
Question begging. If an argument has that form then it's conclusion will be true if the premises are. That isn't a necessary truth, it is just true. T...
The conclusion follows, yes. Which is just another way of saying that it will be true if the premises are. You're just adding - entirely needlessly - ...
Again, I reject - reject - Benatar's argument for that conclusion. You don't seem to grasp that there can be different ways to arrive at the same conc...
Well obviously I think the moral sums come out against procreation - it's a new argument for 'antinatalism'! A new argument for antinatalism is still ...
Not sure I follow. I reject determinism because the notion invokes necessity. But that leaves open whether we have free will or not (which is what one...
That's obviously question begging. Triangles have three sides. That's all you need to say. Saying 'they have three sides in all possible worlds' is ju...
How does dispensing with necessity generate a contradiction? Because you say so? Perhaps you think I reject the law of non contradiction. No. I think ...
that's question begging. You've just stipulated that the whole point of logic is to 'prove necessary truths'. I am pointing out the redundancy of the ...
I don't think that's what 'will be' means - for instance, if I say "I will be there" then I am not saying that it is a necessary truth that I will be ...
I don't understand. My question was "what does perfect goodness involve?" and your answer is Do you mean that if you believe you're morally perfect, t...
ah, now you've lost your star. "No" isn't a coherent answer to the question I asked you. Anyway, lovely as this is, it's clearly a waste of time as we...
Yes, so it means what I said it means - perfect goodness. You get a star for that. Now try understanding the rest of what I said. I'll help - this is ...
No. They. Don't. You don't know what the words you're using mean, do you? Omnibenevolence doesn't mean 'all benevolent'. It means 'all good' or 'moral...
I've just told you: he couldn't be able to be. What you've asked, in effect, is "if morality doesn't exist, how can Robinson Crusoe be immoral?" Like ...
He might behave in a way that God categorically disapproves of. I think, perhaps, you're not taking the time to understand the view I am expressing. A...
Well, 'omnibenevolent' doesn't mean 'maximally benevolent'. It means 'morally perfect'. And, as I've said before, being all powerful would mean that m...
I mean, I take it that if you think you sometimes see the future, that's what would need to have happened, right? An event that hasn't yet happened, w...
Beside the point. Yes, most people are perfectly capable of leading morally superlative lives, the point is that they're a) highly unlikely to and b) ...
But the argument doesn't work, which is probably why only grade 6 children are impressed by it. He 'can' create such a stone (obviously). That doesn't...
I want to follow up on an issue that Counterpunch raised, but then fled from discussing. And that's the issue of whether an omnipotent being would hav...
Not sure I follow you. God can't be a slave to time, for then he would not be omnipotent. So time must be a slave to God. That is, God must have domin...
Well, I certainly agree that those who think a good, all knowing, all powerful being wouldn't have suffered us to live in a world like this one would ...
No, I think 'you' don't understand. I see no evidence that you do, anyway. So, at the moment I don't see why being able to do anything would mean one ...
I think the problem here is that you don't understand the definitions you're given. I gave you a very clear definition of God. Then you asked if God h...
I know. I mentioned philosophers because this is a philosophy forum and I thought it might be interesting to expose such a widely and uncritically hel...
Being able to do anything does not mean one has done everything. God 'could' make it the case that he created the universe. He could take out of exist...
And why did you do that? I know it. It's irrelevant. Why don't you address the argument I made rather than categorize things? There have been people i...
I don't see the problem. Once we take seriously that God can do anything, surely no problems arise? An all powerful being has the power to make himsel...
Oh, okay. I won't prove God then. (I thought it was a perfectly good point - an all-powerful being would exist - and so I was going to prove that he d...
Comments