Michael

Something is Yahweh iff it is the being that created the world as described in Genesis. Science has proved that the world wasn't created as described ...

You're the one asking the question. I don't know who – or what – you're referring to when you ask if logic or science can disprove God. You have to te...

Which one? Yahweh (Christianity), Allah (Islam), and the Monad (Gnosticism) don't seem to be the same person.

You have it backwards. The vacuum of space isn't "really" empty because quantum fluctuations happen. It could be, but we have no evidence of such a th...

Does Christianity have something to do with @"Shawn"'s question? Is he asking if science or logic can disprove Yahweh? I wasn't sure if he was referri...

Sure, but when we ask if God exists we're not just asking if there exists someone or something named "God"; we're referring to a specific individual a...

There are quantum fluctuations, albeit they don't last long.

That depends on whether or not "God" is a proper or common noun.

Then I don't know what you're trying to argue. That polytheism is easier to understand than monotheism?

I don't understand the relevance of your question. I'm addressing your claim that one deity cannot be the source of both good and evil. "Good" and "Ev...

You seemed to reify good and evil. They're not things in their own right. But more to the point is my second question: killing someone for fun and sav...

Good and evil are just concepts. Something like killing someone for fun and saving a drowning child are real things, but why must at least two deities...

I have no idea what you're saying here. Can you speak literally and not in metaphor.

For one thing, you're reifying. For another thing, why would two deities be required?

That has nothing to do with whether or not monotheism is correct. Any facts about the supernatural and religious cosmology are entirely separate to hu...

No they're not. One is about the psychology of a particular species of animal life, one is about supernatural entities that are responsible for the cr...

What does human psyche have to do with the existence of one or more deities?

What is God?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

That's who I was thinking of but as we didn't carry over bans from the old place I guess it doesn't technically count as an unban.

Actually, I'm wrong. We did reverse a ban and they're still here.

No. We tried it once and it didn't work.

Fewer. Unless you're casting aspersions on somebody's weight.

We have a word like “soul” despite the fact that we have no such thing.

Brain activity that triggers the vocalization of the expression "I am conscious." There's nothing special about those words. "I am conscious" is no mo...

Yes

He doesn’t deny the distinction, he offers an alternative. He wrote that in 1986. 4 years later in The Structure and Content of Truth he explained why...

@"frank" suggested that realists could use Davidson to support their position. I showed that Davidson rejected realism. He might also reject anti-real...

How often does an incumbent lose?

Which, as Dummett would argue, is what metaphysical realism amounts to in the end.

From The Structure and Content of Truth:

https://youtu.be/sOyIJl6N5y4

Those were Devitt's own words about what it means for him to be a realist. He clearly believes that it adds something to the statement. And it's not j...

Hempel's dilemma

Try addressing the actual points raised in my post instead of deflecting with a non sequitur.

Dummett's antirealism is the position that truth isn't recognition-transcendent or bivalent. It's very much about truth. It's about more than that. Fr...

Regardless of whether or not the metaphysical realist explicitly claims to be a semantic realist when he argues for the “objective independent existen...

We turned off registration because some twat came back 100 times after repeatedly being banned.

An exact genetic clone is in principle possible so this isn’t sufficient. That this physical process maintains token identity isn’t a mind-independent...

It is what Dummett said it is when he coined the term. https://iep.utm.edu/dummett/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/ Not exactly. I'm sayin...

That’s why it’s antirealism. We decide if the Perseus is the Theseus. Unlike, for the sake of argument, whether or not Donald Trump is Joe Biden. I kn...

It’s not just about conventions of naming. We’re questioning whether or not a token identity is maintained. We’re discussing the referent(s) of the na...

Precisely. Not having verified p isn’t the same as having verified not-p. You need to verify not-p for p to be false.

Properly speaking it’s knowing the truth value of every proposition. In the case of verificationism that requires having verified every proposition (o...

Because under verificationism that isn’t sufficient to be omniscient. Omniscience requires having verified every proposition or their negation. A veri...

No I don’t. Verificationism doesn’t permit unknown truths. It permits unverified propositions.

I’m lost now. Are you objecting to something I’m saying?

I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. I’m just explaining what the technical terms “valid” and “sound” mean within the domain of deductive reaso...

I could if you prefer. Doesn’t really make a difference I suppose.

True. I guess I’m just going along with Banno’s account of verificationism here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/603899