|
>>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..
He says as he begins yet another completely irrelevant post.
>I thought it was relevant. The notion of >existence itself and whether or not morality "exists," IMO, is >closely related.
Sure enough, but you are reviving our old argument about whether your old definition of "true" as "in exact correspondence with that which is" is meaningful or not. That question was relevant to that thread. It's not relevant to this thread. Your bullshit definition was never raised in this thread until you started jumping into the middle of other people's arguments.
>>>>>>>>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.
Ah, so you're finally admitting that your definition was logically empty. I'd be refreshed by that candor, IF YOU'D HAD IT ALL THOSE MONTHS AGO, WHEN SOMEBODY CARED.
>>>>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.
I've already asked you how Webster defines "symplectomorphism," and you haven't told us.
>>>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.
You treat every belief you hold to be an obective truth?! Shit, man, I guess I see why you hold so much disdain for scientists.
>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.
I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that you "believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does not count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being exists.
>Why do I believe the existence of God is real? >Morality.
Man, this argument relapses all the time. I'd argue with you about the fact that morality exists just fine without any monotheistic, or even theistic structure. But again, every few months, InVerse argues your side better than you would. Nobody's in the mood to retread that shit with you right now.
>>>>>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.
Did you get mixed up there, or were you just in the mood for a complete non sequitur? Or are you just grabbing whatever space you can to pretend your bullshit definition wasn't bullshit? Again, that argument was months ago. Get the fuck over it.
|