You should be careful with "=" signs. It means "identical", which is not the case here. Pre-existence has non-existence as a property, but is not iden...
This sounds like the notions of Essence vs Existence. A unicorn has an essence - it is defined - but does not have existence; although it could. If it...
Yeah I agree. The laws of logic are really called "laws of thoughts", and as such, the test of imagination is an effective way to determine if the thi...
I don't believe the "I" is eternal, for it begins to exist, but I believe it survives death. Let's assume as the starting point that we have free will...
Hmmm... Is this claim ad hoc, or is it defendable? On another related note, would you make the distinction between true and false information? Such as...
That seems consistent. I'll keep testing your hypothesis. Let's say a person did not kill people like Hitler, but tortured people a lot and made them ...
Hello. By that, do you mean that our life's purpose is to gather and produce information? Here is my objection. For any thing that has a purpose, we c...
This happens to me too, but when I ask such questions, I mean it to say "even though I know my intentions were good (let's suppose), why did I believe...
Good question. A common saying in christianity is that "God judges the heart of men"; where "heart" in religion is roughly equivalent to "intentions" ...
Hello. If I understand correctly, you are asking if, if it is possible for some constant to change, then can the laws of logic change too? The answer ...
Is it not logically possible that the soul is the primary source of free act, but then the brain is also necessary for its final product? Consider the...
Sounds good to me. It seems to only be a matter of definition of the term "being". Using the scholastic definition, being is "that which is not nothin...
I understand. But I persist to say that your definition of religion is therefore too broad, because sportball would be a religion for Alice and Bob in...
Bro. If you think I misunderstood your claim the first time, then repeating it in the exact same way does not help my understanding. If you are merely...
The problem with using any terms other than "being" after the term "perfect" is that any other term is "defined", that is, has boundaries, is limited....
The problem with this definition is that it is too broad. It sounds like believing in bigfoot, or believing that this football team will win tomorrow'...
Right back at you I'm afraid. Merely saying this doesn't make it so. There are many arguments that defend the objects of faith (I'm thinking particula...
Supposing your armchair is indeed the perfect armchair, it still does not fit the definition of god I have given, because it is not perfect in every w...
I interpret your comment as saying that it is not a proper definition of god; is that right? Would you have a counterexample, in which the term "god" ...
If we define "religion" merely as "a response to the holy", then I suppose it is indeed only man-made. But this would omit religious acts and rituals,...
I concede that since this discussion is about religions in general and not only about catholicism, then we may include "blind faith" as part of "faith...
Mainly the latter. Of course this implies the former, but it is less important. Also I assume we are excluding dead religions like the ancient greek r...
I believe faith applies to secular topics as well. E.g. trust that your spouse is not cheating without hiring an investigator to confirm, is a type of...
The christian catholics would not agree with this definition of faith. As described, this would be called "blind faith", which is not regarded as a go...
I believe you are missing the point. The original goal as per the OP is to find statements that most groups agree with, and my point is that there are...
God: Is that which nothing greater can exist; where "greater" means the most "powerful" in the sense of abilities. Agreed. Although I believe my defin...
I'll try to explain the concept of the Trinity. First, no contradictions are allowed, even when talking about God, for contradictions represent an err...
Fellow philosophers, I will be very busy for the next couple of days, and will not be as responsive on this discussion as I would like to be. Sorry fo...
I'm still not sure I understand your meaning of the term 'judgement'. Could you perhaps give an example of judgement, and then in contrast, an example...
The Fourth Way argument goes as far as to prove that there must exist a being whose essence is moral goodness to the maximum degree. Then christians p...
In your terminology, is a judgement that same as a proposition, that is, a sentence that can be either true or false? If that is the case, then the pr...
Let's recap the comparisons so far between the Stone hypothesis S and the Christian hypothesis C. S is found figuratively; C is found literally, as le...
Maybe not, but my aim is merely to reconcile the conclusion in the argument from degree that perfect moral goodness exists which is what christians ca...
How the bible should be interpreted: With regards to interpretation, not truth, the literal interpretation is always the simplest. Now regarding creat...
I accept that distinction, that the purpose of the human parts are relative to the human being. That said, that kind of purpose is nevertheless object...
Let's talk epistemology. We really have two questions here. (1) Should the bible be interpreted the way you claim? and (2) is the stone real? To answe...
I don't understand what you are saying here. Most of our principles are arrived at by inductive reasoning. Are you saying it is not right to say the p...
Hello. I first want to point out that this objection seems to be against the inconsistency between Aquinas' argument from degree and his claim that Go...
A fantastic hypothesis! Allow me to examine it. I have two points. (1) From a christian standpoint, the primary purpose of the bible is to inform man'...
That sounds ad hoc. Why is purpose subjective? The purpose of the eye is to see, and that of the nose is to smell. It would be objectively wrong to be...
Hmmm... This post is quite large, and you are correct that this is not really related to the main topic of this discussion any more. We can pursue, bu...
When we talk about the good, I mean specifically the objective good. I agree with you when it comes to subjective goods like best song or best flavour...
Did somebody read Dan Brown :wink: ? Jokes aside, do you have an example of passage in the OT that is not clarified in the NT? I myself am not all tha...
We are still not quite on the same page. First, I think we can both agree that this conscience, this moral compass, is real (not necessarily truthful ...
'Ought' is different than 'should'. 'Ought' means 'should' specifically in the moral sense, in the sense of duty, obligation; in the sense that we are...
I accept the clarification. While your argument is valid, its conclusion unreasonable, as it fails the Law of Parsimony. It is like saying that althou...
Hello Mr White. To clarify the position in the OP, opposing Aquinas, I do not believe that there must exist a being with maximum property for all bein...
Yep, I now agree with you. The Law of Parsimony made me lean towards the hypothesis of a single being, until a better reason is provided, and you prov...
We need first to establish what good is in general. My definition of good refers to any type of good that is objective, not merely moral good. Thus it...
Comments