|
>>>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.
Your opinion.
>>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.
I think it is entirely 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.
I don't think my definition is bullshit, and yes, I did jump into the middle of other people's arguments. I thought it was relevant.
> >>>>>>>>>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.
If logic only equates to naturalism, pretty much everything you and I say is empty. However, if we recognize that naturalism is only our limited perception, then logic really has no basis to begin with, other than that of a hypothetical one (which I consider valid).
>>>>>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.
Webster was dead before that, and the context in the lines above were from a philosophy textbook. I understand that not all the words on planet earth were/are written in the dictionary. I just happened to like Webster's definition of existence.
> >>>>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.
Actually, God/morality is the only thing I consider to be objective truth. And I hold zero disdain for scientists. You all do wonderful things all the time. What I hold disdain for are assholes.
>>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.
No, and that would be a ridiculous equation, logically. However, the fact that morality exists, in my opinion, is logically rigorous proof that God exists. Therefore, I believe in God.
>>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.
That's fine, but we can't argue about anything existing, ever, until "exists" is defined.
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.
Fine by me.
> >>>>>>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?
The sentence I wrote made sense.
Or are you just grabbing whatever >space you can to pretend your bullshit definition wasn't >bullshit?
This coming from someone who has no defintion? Tough box to soap on.
Again, that argument was months ago. Get the fuck >over it.
Sorry, I believe it's relevant to this post. ***I'm a Child of Production***
|