Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post"Starting with God is a justification" is the assumption God exists The assumption of "the absolute properties of the laws of logic" assumes God exits as the basis that "There's a transcendental deduction of the properties for the ground for the absolute properties of the laws of logic."Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostSo circular it bites you in the butt!Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI have no idea what your point is, or what is circular.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThis basically sounds like what I read from Alvin Plantinga, with few twists. At bottom it is an axiomatic position. Which I have no problem with. But isn't this really subjective since I could not objectively demonstrate that my moral intuitions are actually correct or true, except for me?Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBoth require the assumption of the existence God, each used to confirm the other.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostStarting with God is a justification for the absolute properties of the laws of logic.
There's a transcendental deduction of the properties for the ground for the absolute properties of the laws of logic. You start with the laws of logic. See that they're absolute. And then you posit a ground for the possibility of the properties that inhere in the laws of logic. That itself is a method of justification with a philosophical pedigree dating back to Kant. Unless you conflate your scientistic verificationism with epistemic justification, you won't be able to see that. And that, in the words of Yoda, will be why you fail.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNo it's not. Starting with a god is an unverified assumption, an axiom - no more than that.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNo it's not. Starting with a god is an unverified assumption, an axiom - no more than that.
What a pretentious ass you are.
Last edited by Cow Poke; 01-06-2020, 10:06 AM.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostBy starting with God, you are starting with an unverified premise. Therefore you cannot claim your conclusion "that the laws of logic are absolute" is true.Last edited by Hornet; 01-06-2020, 12:14 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI didn't say that, I said you couldn't logically prove it to others: I said: How could you logically demonstrate that you are actually feeling pain to anyone but yourself with out begging the question?
And if he contradicts himself what does that tell us? It certainly does not tell us that the laws of logic are universal or inviolate. BTW - I do believe that the laws of logic are absolute since I start with God...
If the laws of logic can be violated everywhere in all places at all times in all possible worlds, then this would imply that the laws of logic are universal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hornet View PostAre there any instances when begging the question is not fallacious?
If the laws of logic can be violated everywhere in all places at all times in all possible worlds, then this would imply that the laws of logic are universal.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hornet View PostThere cannot be laws of logic without God. The laws of logic are necessary truths about other truths. They cannot be false. They are true propositions and these propositions exist. They exist, but they are not made of matter or energy. They are immaterial. They are thoughts and they exist everywhere in all places at all times. Since they are thoughts, there must be a mind that contains them. If there must be a mind that contains them, then there must be a person who has that mind. This person is what is called God.
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
635 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Yesterday, 07:30 AM
|
Comment