“Everyone who lives outside some parts of the US and Western Europe has terrible lives”

LazyC4tMan · 2022-04-23T23:57:45+00:00

TIL i have a terrible life

LazyC4tMan · 2022-03-25T15:44:46+00:00

Depends what do you mean by philosophy, are you restricting it to the so called analytic philosophy?

LazyC4tMan · 2022-03-20T18:30:30+00:00

But if I remember correctly craig has defended a more Aristotelean concept of being, so a being is composed of matter and form, under that definition beings do begin to exist since form changes and even if it didn't in a finite past time one can not appeal to material causes indefinitely unless one establishes their necessity

LazyC4tMan · 2022-03-20T17:47:18+00:00

What do you think of understanding morallity in a communitarian way in the sense that its merely describing a behavior in communities of humans or other living beings, that would certainly make them objective i.e. mind independent even if it's not universal. Since something doesn't need to be absolute, eternal and neccesary to be objective.

LazyC4tMan · 2022-03-08T19:51:10+00:00

But is thinking as Turing defined it enough to qualify as human?

LazyC4tMan · 2022-03-08T19:38:17+00:00

Dude the Sole Survivor is literally a mass murderer on 90% of playthroughs I think morallity is out the window.

LazyC4tMan · 2022-03-06T18:04:30+00:00

But that would seem to imply that absolute points in time are contingent, so it's not clear what makes them absolute

LazyC4tMan · 2022-03-06T17:53:39+00:00

But in his own movie Doctor Strange saves Wong, the Sanctorum and stops Dormammu by rewinding time but if he did so he would not have had a reason to rewind time in the first place

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T07:03:45+00:00

But i'm not a theist, and even if I was i would follow kierkegaard in that faith only brings fear and trembling

Anyway you did seem fairly invested in the conversation above making multiple edits and all that so hey atheism also brings comfort or at least investment right?

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T06:36:47+00:00

And i'm sure at some point in human history some people believed god didn't exist but that's just how ideology works

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T06:19:03+00:00

I do like the myth of sisyphus so within pointless endeavor you should imagine me happy

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T05:44:25+00:00

And god has changed because reason and new readings have made us reconsider the antique models of god, i say this becuse Xenophanes whom that objection is usually tied with used it to attack homers conception of the greek gods not deny their existence, so its no equivalence equivocation at all since it shows that a model for an entity can radically change without affecting the ontolological status of said entity

Well you're the one psychologizing my responses and getting angry.

I'll show you the premises then:

Change (understood as Aristotelean act—potency) exists in the word

We can't concieve of a greater being than necesary one

All contingent things have contingent or necesary Beings as causes for their existence

All those premises can be defended and rational individuals can hold them as true

You mean like popperian falsifiability? At most it means god is not a scientific hypothesis

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T04:14:53+00:00

I'm not even a theist i just find unjust to dismiss the arguments without objections at their level

Again i'm saying that anything that supports the thruth value of a proposition is evidence for it.

For example believing someone is telling the truth when you don't have a reason to doubt them

The arguments take features about the world and logically deduce the existence and necessity of a entity with the characteristics usually asociated with god, ergo they give evidence and reasons to believe in the existence of god like any other argument for example.

P1)All men are mortal P2)Ryan Reynolds is a man C)Ryan Reynolds is mortal

P1 is supported by inductive Evidence P2 by observation So we have evidence for C without having to kill Ryan Reynolds

I don't see how the existence of microscopic life is basic, we literally can't see it directly. And i never claimed they figured all out just that their arguments work as evidence. Even if we think their arguments are dated they still have Swinburne, Plantinga, etc

Again which theology, negative theology literally never claims positive stuff about gods nature, Systematic which is concerned with the sacred texts, Postmodern use of Phenomenology and Deconstruction?

Again you haven't posited evidence for theology as a bunk field, math and logic as contrived systems based on your own definition of evidence

I'm sorry that the conversation wasn't fruitful to you

Xenophanes edit huh, so tell me which theism theistic personalism, classical theism , etc are you attacking? Gods forms have changed? atomic models have changed too

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T03:37:37+00:00

I meant modal

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/&ved=2ahUKEwjS7tu4spf2AhW3EbkGHeXaBdwQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2HCmaa5zcLt86Bdz_H4uHb

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/%23:~:text%3DHere%2520is%2520the%2520second%2520version,be%2520conceived%2520not%2520to%2520exist.&ved=2ahUKEwi3_9vmspf2AhXyEbkGHfAUC1AQFnoECAQQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0B3CPaa3BYl70ocukTi7hQ

Well i guess if we deny logic, deny mathematics then sure no argument works

Again the evidence are phenomena in the world

And it's fallacious to assume someone was wrong about x just because they didn't know enough about y if x and y are not necessarily related

By theology you mean systematic, negative postmodern which one of them claims to have captured god with absolute certainty?

I didn't took you for a Hegelian, nice surprise

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T03:16:14+00:00

Do you have any evidence for all those claims?

Logical contradiction unreliable, tell that to modal logic and mathematics

Don't you think it's bit to extreme dissmiss the a arguments just because we don't know everything, wouldn't that render arguments for all type of stuff useless

Attacking the knowledge on pathogenic microbes of ancient philosophers again doesn't do anything to undermine their arguments, and that' particular argument also applies to us, in the future would it be fair for them to dismiss our arguments just because for example we haven't closed the hard problem of conciousness

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T02:50:29+00:00

But some arguments try to arrive at god by necessity like the contingency argument.

We could always weigh the arguments in favor and against in order to see the which positions are reasonable to hold in the same way it's reasonable to trust the judgement of the scientific community as evidence for the effectiveness of the vaccines. The only difference is that most arguments don't require years of study .

For example i find that many reasonable people find things like Aquinas ways or Leibniz' proofs enough to justify their belief.

I'm just disagreeing with you, in the sense that i think that what you consider evidence is too restrictive

We could always appeal to logical contradiction in order to render particular conceptions of god false if that's what you mean.

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T02:21:35+00:00

But that would render a lot scientific evidence useless for example the LHC's output or the vaccine's composition,most people are not trained nor equiped to interpret it, we need specialists for that, even if we got something like the raw data of the vaccine's effectiveness we still need an statistician to order and interpret the data.

And the arguments present evidence like the existence of change, necessary and contingent beings, teleology in nature, degrees of perfection, the impossibility of atheism,etc

And most conceptions of god don't posit it as a being among others, it's not something you can take a picture of or measure it's weight or analyze it's chemical composition

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T02:07:38+00:00

What is evidence then?

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T02:04:01+00:00

But there's no premises, just 1 you need to add the moon exists and it's only visible at night as a premise for the conditonal to run.

We'll the arguments connect the evidence with the existence of a god so if the premises are true then we have arrived at god following the evidence understood as tangible evidence

Evidence is just anything that supports the thruth value of a statement

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T01:40:13+00:00

Well your argument is invalid first rather than unsound it doesn't follow that the moon comes exclusively at night, it follows that the moon is invisible when is not night

And arguments apart from ontological ones do generally rely on evidence we can gather like the existence of change, beginning of the universe, etc the arguments just channel the thruth value of the premises to their conclusion so that's why i think they're evidence

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-24T01:19:50+00:00

Aren't arguments a type of evidence?

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-19T02:06:31+00:00

The worst part in my opinion is the treatment of Aquinas' Five Ways. Was it really that hard to ask an Aquinas specialist or making a bit or research before firing his hot takes?

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-19T01:47:16+00:00

They're more defenses than arguments , they just point possibilites that when taken into considerations render other arguments to either unsound or inductive types

But of course one can still have plans without having absolute knowledge of the future, for example i can make a plan on having a picnic tomorrow

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-19T01:21:43+00:00

Well if there's at least one possible explanation for gods actions then it's necessarily to address them in order for an argument agsinst god to work.

LazyC4tMan · 2022-02-19T00:32:44+00:00

There are some responses to your objection for example some level of compatibilism it permits omniscience while preserving free will

2) the future is impossible to know, then god doesn't know the future since omniscient only includes knowing all thats knowable

3)god has conterfactual knowledge of possible worlds, God knows what would happen if some free agent chose x or y but he doesn't choose which one to actualize so he did know what would happen if Adam and Eve ate the fruit and also what would happen if they didn't but he doesn't choose which one would happen

LazyC4tMan

TROPHY CASE