Arguments for God

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed, and I didn't suggest that philosophy was the only tool for teaching one how to think, just one tool, and a well-developed one with that specific purpose. Having said that, any thinking you did in your appraisal of the 'unforgiving real world' constituted philosophy, in one form or another. Empiricism is philosophy, but a particular school of philosophy that values measuring premises against reality, rather than taking them as axiomatic simply by assertion, as much philosophy does. When you measure against the real world, you are engaging in a particular school of philosophy, whether you recognise it as such or not.

I have emphasized the passage which I think reduces your definition to virtual meaninglessness.  Why not just call it thinking and be done with it?

I really don't want to derail the discussion, but equating "any thinking" with "philosophy" does nothing to clarify philosophy, or thinking, for that matter.

[hackenslash]

It's not the 'any thinking' but the act of appraisal that is philosophy, in the form of attempting to draw conclusions about reality. When I think about having a beer, I'm not doing philosophy, but when I think about the nature of reality, I am, by default.

So your reduction exposes meaninglessness, but you were focusing on the wrong bit and missed the prize.  

[The Magic Pudding]

It's not the 'any thinking' but the act of appraisal that is philosophy, in the form of attempting to draw conclusions about reality. When I think about having a beer, I'm not doing philosophy, but when I think about the nature of reality, I am, by default.

So your reduction exposes meaninglessness, but you were focusing on the wrong bit and missed the prize.  

Thumpalumpacus seems unconvinced.
Can you give a practical example of philosophy exploring a contemporary problem?

[hackenslash]

Empiricism is a school of philosophy, so think of any scientific experiment for an example.

[Jac3510]

[hackenslash]

Translation: I have no answer, so I'm running away now.

Don't worry, I get that a lot.

Would you like to point out where I called you a name? I'd be really interested in seeing that.

[humblesmurph]

Translation: I have no answer, so I'm running away now.

Don't worry, I get that a lot.

Would you like to point out where I called you a name? I'd be really interested in seeing that.

I looked, You didn't call any member of this board a name.  You referred to someone Jac quoted as something rather derogatory (and kind of funny).

[i_am_i]

rants

Hey, congratz. You are one of the few people on this planet who has earned a permignore.

I'm perfectly content to have civil conversation. I won't waste my time with that kind of ranting. If anyone wants to wade through all the name calling and rhetoric and find something that resembles a rational point and raise it, I'll be glad to address them. Not you. Consider this the last word of communication between us.

Hah! That figures, that really figures. Along comes someone who not only plays your game but plays it far better than you so you put him on ignore.

The way I see it is that you, sir, have been exposed both by hack and by yourself as an agenda-driven amateur. My suggestion is that you save your peanuts for the zoo.

[Jac3510]

Hah! That figures, that really figures. Along comes someone who not only plays your game but plays it far better than you so you put him on ignore.

The way I see it is that you, sir, have been exposed both by hack and by yourself as an agenda-driven amateur. My suggestion is that you save your peanuts for the zoo.

It is a simple matter of respect, i_am_i. I don't engage in discussion with brilliant yet disrespectful Christians. Getting put on ignore says nothing about the strength of the argument. It says everything about whether or not the person is capable of reasonable discourse. May I recommend Adler's comments on the matter, posted here and for the most part embraced by this very community?

You can assign me whatever motivation you like if it makes you feel better. That would only expose you as agenda-driven, looking for a reason to dismiss someone rather than have to seriously consider their arguments. But I trust that you are a better person than that. I suspect that you are just the kind of person who recognizes that something is decided to be true based on the merits of its position, not rhetorical value or the motivations of the person from whom it comes. Still more, I fully believe you to be the kind of person who values truth, wherever it may lead, and as such, you don't strike me as the kind of person who isn't looking for an excuse to write another person off. Am I right in all this, that you are primarily after interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before?

[hackenslash]

As it happens, I have nothing but respect for the poster. The guff he posted, however, is another matter entirely. I have absolutely no respect for that, because it's the usual pseudo-intellectual drivel I've come to expect from navel-gazers.

[i_am_i]

Hah! That figures, that really figures. Along comes someone who not only plays your game but plays it far better than you so you put him on ignore.

The way I see it is that you, sir, have been exposed both by hack and by yourself as an agenda-driven amateur. My suggestion is that you save your peanuts for the zoo.

It is a simple matter of respect, i_am_i. I don't engage in discussion with brilliant yet disrespectful Christians. Getting put on ignore says nothing about the strength of the argument. It says everything about whether or not the person is capable of reasonable discourse. May I recommend Adler's comments on the matter, posted here and for the most part embraced by this very community?

You can assign me whatever motivation you like if it makes you feel better. That would only expose you as agenda-driven, looking for a reason to dismiss someone rather than have to seriously consider their arguments. But I trust that you are a better person than that. I suspect that you are just the kind of person who recognizes that something is decided to be true based on the merits of its position, not rhetorical value or the motivations of the person from whom it comes. Still more, I fully believe you to be the kind of person who values truth, wherever it may lead, and as such, you don't strike me as the kind of person who isn't looking for an excuse to write another person off. Am I right in all this, that you are primarily after interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before?

I don't get the slightest impression that what you came here for is "interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before." You want to play by your rules and yours alone, and I do not intend to   accept homework assigments from you or anyone else, I'm not here for that.

Your high-minded approach is very off-putting. It makes you seem pretentious. If you could drop all the highfalutin rhetoric and just say what's on your mind...but you can't, or won't. You've already said that you don't do plain English. That being the case - cash me out. This game is fixed.

[Jac3510]

I don't get the slightest impression that what you came here for is "interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before." You want to play by your rules and yours alone, and I do not intend to   accept homework assigments from you or anyone else, I'm not here for that.

Your high-minded approach is very off-putting. It makes you seem pretentious. If you could drop all the highfalutin rhetoric and just say what's on your mind...but you can't, or won't. You've already said that you don't do plain English. That being the case - cash me in. This game is fixed.

If not treating you like a child is fixing the game, then I'm guilty as charged. You are asking me to have a technical discussion without appealing to technical concepts, which is impossible. I've offered to state things plainly, at which time you can question that is unclear. It's up to you if you want to engage in discussion.

As far as your opinion of me, I'm terribly sorry to hear it, but the rules I want to play by aren't mine. They are the rules of civil discourse. Nothing more and nothing less.

[humblesmurph]

Jac,

If I may make 2 suggestions:  First, please take Hackenslash off ignore.  Second, Hackenslash, play nice please.  

As for your questions Jac, All I can do is direct you towards my Mad Lib.  Read it again, if you don't understand it, PM me what you are having trouble with.  Absent that, I think it prudent that I STFU and let you and Hackenslash have a cordial, respectful go at it.

[Jac3510]

Jac,

If I may make 2 suggestions:  First, please take Hackenslash off ignore.  Second, Hackenslash, play nice please.  

As for your questions Jac, All I can do is direct you towards my Mad Lib.  Read it again, if you don't understand it, PM me what you are having trouble with.  Absent that, I think it prudent that I STFU and let you and Hackenslash have a cordial, respectful go at it.

1. It is apparent that Hack and I have a different idea as to what constitutes productive public discussion. If he wants to work out those differences, the PM box works perfectly well. So long as we can agree on the groundwork for discussion, I'm more than willing to continue this (and any other) conversation.

2. I'll work my way through your other post again and offer a reply later. If I still need clarification to make an educated response, I'll shoot you a PM.

Either way, I've settled on looking at the nature of rationality next. I'd like to let the morality discussion in the PW thread cool a bit more before looking at a formal argument from morality.

[Sophus]

1. Just to pick on your verbiage a bit more, notice that you say we can't "observe pure nothing." By definition, if it could be observed, then it would be a something. I know you know this. My point is that we can't even think about nothing.

Yup. Nothing would have to be alone to even "exist". I know, more sticky verbiage.  

That is far more exciting that, "Hey, look, nothing is doing that!" That's just blind, irrational faith.

2. It is not, then, just more likely that something has always existed. It is necessary that something has always existed.

3. Just noting that something has always existed does not require it to be a deity, but nor is a deity excluded from that which has always existed. It remains to be seen what the nature of that which as always existed is.

You're right that it would have to first be proven to be nothing in order for it to not be faith. I'm not well read enough on the subject currently to say that it has or hasn't.

I'll respond to the rest next chance I get.