|
>How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?! The >thread was months ago and you're trying to revive it? You've >got serious anger issues.
No, I don't.. I thought it was relevant. The notion of existence itself and whether or not morality "exists," IMO, is closely related.
>>>>>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the >>>>>term. >>>>>> >>>>>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial >>>>>context. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your >>>>terminology >>>>>>isn't correct, that's your problem. >>>>> >>>>>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define >>>>>something within the context of a logical debate, it's >>>>>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues at >>>>>hand. >>>> >>>>Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know >>>what >>>>the hell you are talking about. >>> >>>You defined "truth" as "that which is." "Is" what? "Is" >>>true? If you actually meant "that which is true," then >your >>>definition is empty. >> >>How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven? > >Your statement is logically the same as saying A=B, but B is >undefined except for the tacit colloquial assumption that B=A. > So A=B was already known.
No.. the only thing I have claimed, ever, is that A=A, but I cannot prove--only believe--what A actually is.
> >>>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized >context, >>>and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why >>>dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks. >> >>But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks, straight >>from the dictionary. > >Sure, and there are other definitions in philosophy arguments >that can't be found in any dictionary. The dictionary is not >specialized enough. How in the fuck are you still arguing >about this?!
Name one.
> >>>>>>>>>>All that was concluded is that existence >corresponds, >>>>>>>>>exactly, >>>>>>>>>>to "that which is". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's >where >>>>>you >>>>>>>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been >>a >>>>>>>>>tautology all along. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or >>>>metaphysical >>>>>>>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about >this?! >> >>>>>>You >>>>>>>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no >different >>>>>>than >>>>>>>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place >>>1+1=2 >>>>>>because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can >>>>>>conclude that something, somewhere, exists. >>>>> >>>>>Hehe, whatever you say. But I thought you Christians >>>>weren't >>>>>allowed to smoke that shit. >>>> >>>>Yeah, that "understanding the English language" shit will >>>fuck >>>>you up. >>> >>>Apparently by "understanding the English language," you >mean >>>"bringing it into direct correspondence with evangelical >>>catchphrases." >> >>Nope, just the dictionary... I don't know webster, his >>associates, or any of their motives. > >I'm surprised that you don't know Webster, you still have his >dick in your mouth. How in the fuck are you still arguing >about this?!
Thought it was relevant.
>>>>>>>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, >go >>>>>>>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical >community. >> >>>>>>Just >>>>>>>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical >>>>>>justification >>>>>>>for your faith. >>>>>> >>>>>>If a purpose for living isn't logical justification... >>>then >>>>>I >>>>>>concede. >>>>> >>>>>1.) No, it isn't. >>>> >>>>That's your opinion (and, yes, you are absolutely entitled >>>to >>>>it), but you've given me no reason to think otherwise. >>> >>>Oh, it's only my opinion! It's funny how evangelicals hold >>>such deep hatred for deconstructionism except when they can >>>use it for their own aims. >> >>Where is my hatred for you? > >I never said "me." I'm not into deconstruction. You're the >one who's saying there's no such thing as logic here, only >opinion.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that a logistical equation can be set up when it comes to morality, but it obviously can't be proven.
>>I just said we have a difference >>in opinion. Do you really take offense to that? > >No, but it's not just my opinion. This is the danger of >reviving an argument from months in the past! You've >forgotten the context. A "reason for living" might be >considered a logical justification for you, yourself, to >believe in God, but it's not a logical justification to make >the statement "God exists," and treat it as an objective >truth.
Everything we consider true is treated as such. I consider the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as such. Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to believe in God. Why do I believe the existence of God is real? Morality. Hence the chime.
>>>>All >>>>you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more >>>>questions. >>> >>>What's so dangerous about questions? >> >>Nothing, except they do nothing for the sake of debate. If >I >>say I believe something is this way, and you say "well, >maybe >>it isn't," you have done nothing for the debate because I >>never claimed to have anything more than belief in the first >>place. > >If you say "here is my opinion, take it or leave it," you're >not adding anything to the debate either. You're saying that >my arguments (at the moment) are irrelevant to the debate, but >that's only because I'm responding to arguments which are >irrelevant.
That depends on whether or not morality exists, and THAT depends on whether or not "exists" has a defintion.
>>All that this entire post consists of is the notion of >>belief and reason. No one on here is trying to prove >>anything. > >Have you read InVerse's posts? You know . . . the guy I'm >ACTUALLY here to debate.
There was a debate going on? ***I'm a Child of Production***
|