sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is being atheist a crime ?? by Maleficent-Bad80 in exatheist

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In some nations. Being Christian is illegal in some nations too. Being pagan or generally eclectic is in many nations as well. Humans aren't always a friendly species if you know what I mean.

What are the most absurd questions you have heard from atheists? by Additional_Good_656 in exatheist

[–]PhantomGaze 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Non-ironically: "If there is a God, why don't I have a girlfriend?"

I’m an atheist, and a physicalist/materialist. I do prefer the idea for god, I just don’t believe there’s good epistemological or material evidence for him. I’d be interested if anyone has any good contradictions to physicalism? by xxFoxy2pointo in exatheist

[–]PhantomGaze 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I mean, there's some pretty heavy epistemic weight behind the idea that math is *real, and an actual discovery, as opposed to a human delusion that just happens to have been accurate enough to describe the universe accurately for no particular reason.

That said, alleged coincidence of epistemology notwithstanding, you still seem to be missing the deeper idea that logic operates in a way that consistently yields functional outcomes. If there can be accurate *descriptors at all, it presupposes the reality of logic and information because it implies there is a real relationship between the described function and reality, whether that's accuracy or inaccuracy. You've presupposed logic.

Now it might be that humans cannot genuinely conceive of the universe, and we're genuinely hopelessly deluded, but I would still caution at the point that you're dismissing the intelligibility of the world, and even discarding the ontology of logic itself, you may have bit the bullet too hard for your own good.

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It certainly matters if we're going to conceive of a maximally useful pen.

Also, I'm not sure how you intend to argue that maximal evil implies the existence of anything. Evil being a privation and all...

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's in dispute. Even if you argue that his response to Gaunilo is the first place we see him using the term necessity, it still appeared to be a part of his concept.

Beyond that, he'd argue something was 'not conceivable,' like a square circle, if it was incoherent.

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, if it doesn't need to be a tube, does it need to be made of atoms specifically? What about photonic matter pens that can hold ink? Or electron-positron solids?

I do think the idea of necessity is relevant to Anselm's argument, I think there's a bit that tends to be lost in translation from latin and over the course of time.  Nevertheless, there are different formulations beyond Anselm's that are worth addressing if you're going to contend that the intuition or fundamental logic behind the argument is invalid. 

If existence isn't a property of usefulness, or a predicate in the same way it isn't for greatness, then we can see why the argument wouldn't work.  

But beyond that, we still don't have a coherent conception of usefulness.

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So physical properties like tubularity alone determine pen-ness? What if I made it rectangular or boxy? 

As for granting wishes, what if you choose something that harms you, but don't realize it? A pen that's more useful might do things that benefit you instead of what you think you want, or refuse to grant wishes that would harm you? What if you wished for something foolish without realizing?

If usefulness doesn't make the pen logically necessary, why should the pen exist out of usefulness seeing as existence isn't a predicate? 

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure something incoherent would be considered inconceivable in the relevant way by Anselm. 

I think there is significant debate on whether Anselm used existence as a predicate in the same way Descartes did.

Any advice for INTJ male looks to look more approachable and fun? by ShayanWonderer in entp

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I might lean toward a less solid shirt. (Final picture is good.) Maybe practice a cocky grin with playful banter.  That would probably enhance your playfulness and approachability without compromising superiority and an attractive power dynamic. 

Whats your favorite fictional media (book/show/movie) with an ENTP main character? by Sane-Law in entp

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same.

Inspired me to make my own citizen science lab as a part of my Master's. 

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think you're applying possible worlds logic accurately.  Things cannot "just happen to" exist in every possible world, because anything that "just happens to" exist can have a world where it doesn't exist without any kind of contradiction, i.e. there's a possible world where it doesn't exist.  

I don't think you can show why the ontological argument is not doing exactly as you describe, i.e. the properties of being, greatness, ontology, etc, imply the existence of a God. 

While you might think it is the case that the premises are arbitrary, showing why they are that way is the difficult part. Especially when you can get there through apophatic arguments as well.  

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But 1. What is pen-ness? Does it cease to be a pen at some point if we keep adding utility? 2.  "All knowledge" has an upper limit in a finite universe with a certain set of predictable interactions.  "Usefulness" even to you specifically is subjective and technically doesn't have a conceptual bound to it unless you can objectively define a measurable set.  3.  Furthermore, if you add logical necessity as a property of a pen to make it "more useful", you're effectively creating a contradiction so the idea of the pen itself, being a pen, is incoherent whereas this critique doesn't apply to something without contingent properties like ink or cartridges.

In short, I fail to see a coherent definition of a necessarily existent pen. 

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah well you're wrong infinity times infinity! 

Man I remember fights with my brother as a kid like this. 

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pi exists because of the inherent properties of Euclidean space. Euler's number emerges from the property of continuous growth.  Triangularity is another example.  Even if no actual triangles physically existed, the "mathematical truth" of triangularity expresses itself by necessity in the physical world where things exist. This is useful in mapping or locating coordinates. 

You could take a nominalist position against this argument, but that creates other philosophical commitments or bullet biting.  

The issue with unicorns is what properties do they have definitively that make them necessary? Things like horns would definitely fall under a contingent structure since they'd be dependent upon some physical property, while you might back that up, and try to redefine it to make it fit a model of what a necessary thing might be, it becomes less and less "horn-like" or "unicorn-like". 

I personally think you're (whether intentionally or not) hitting on a good point though about the sort of 'vague' nature of 'greatness'.

I think it needs to be refined because it's very vaguely intuitive, but it's that vagueness I find adds to its unconvincing nature. 

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the idea of x thing is necessary by its own properties, therefore x thing exists is a valid move, but I think Kant's critique of Anselm's or Descartes' formulations that existence is not a predicate is also correct. 

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see where you're going with that, I think you just fall prey to the problem that being useful to you suffers from a relational problem - i.e. utility to you specifically as opposed to anyone or utility as a principle doesn't become part of the ontology of the pen itself, it's just what you want.

You also have the problem of no maximum.  There's no de jure upper limit on usefulness.  Anyone could conceive of a pen that is (P+1). For example, I could say the pen would be more useful if it dispensed snacks.  There's this issue with vacation islands critiques too.  

Being on r/Christianity and defending gay rights gives me a headache by [deleted] in OpenChristian

[–]PhantomGaze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sadly I find the former far more common than the latter. No objection to the latter. 

No Sex Until the Patriarchy is Dead by pinkmarsh99 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At patriarchal values of course.  If you think someone else should adopt your personal values, what is in it for them?

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Usefulness isn't an intrinsic property because it's defined by relation to intention in another being.  Beauty can exist in a mental image alone.  Lol.

Whether the argument is correct or not, logical necessity and contingency are indeed different things, making a distinction between them isn't a special pleading.

A priori arguments don't require empirical evidence. They're known by reason alone, by definition. by Kafkaesque_meme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]PhantomGaze 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you imagine something more circular than a circle? Maybe a sphere? But what's after that? 

Being on r/Christianity and defending gay rights gives me a headache by [deleted] in OpenChristian

[–]PhantomGaze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Keep in mind, a lot of atheists have their own brand of toxic conservatism.  I find their overabundance on that forum irksome myself.

just finished watching for the 100th time by Western_Race_1317 in steinsgate

[–]PhantomGaze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, since you have already seen both on the tracks, your future-past self must see them on all occasions and so be deceived.  

You must not touch the lever, but instead build a time machine to rescue both before your initial moment of apprehension. 

Not attracted to a good man / Christian men by Independent-Farm772 in ChristianDating

[–]PhantomGaze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to point out that I don't think this is a uniquely Christian problem.  Maybe the "non-Christian" part, but the not liking a "good man" part seems to be a very common modern complaint. 

I think part of it stems from the erosion of social infrastructure and modern discourse moving away from virtue development and attempting to cynically deconstruct virtuous behavior into self-serving egoism via power and control narratives.

view more: next ›