Right, but you said its purpose is what you are using it for. I used a spoon to make it clear that you can use something for a purpose it wasn't intended. Under your view this would never be the case. Instead of spoon, we could talk about different qualities of knives...all purposed for cutting but some purposed for cutting certain things in certain ways etc and it would be the same thing. Eventually it will come down to different senses of the word “purpose”, different contexts of the same word (“purpose”).
Maybe this is semantic...what about if we make a distinction between the purpose of something and the usage of something? (As opposed to a distinction between two usuage of “purpose”).
Does that make it more clear what Im getting at? That you use something for a task doesnt mean that task is its purpose. If that were true, then in some sense the spoons purpose is to cut bread. (In the sense thats what you are using it for, but NOT in the sense that the spoon was made for a specific set of uses (scooping, stirring, transferring contents of a bowl etc).
Your notion that its a matter of degree to which the thing is useful for a purpose can be countered by a different example, a necklace. The purpose of a necklace is to look good or show status or whatever. Its also very useful for strangling a person wearing them. If our clueless friend from my spoon example asked “what is the purpose of a necklace?”, what would you answer? Even if you have used necklaces to strangle people before, I think the answer is still clearly “its purpose is as a fashion accessory” (with whatever Purpose you want to assign to fashion accessories).

I think to “have“ a purpose is the same thing as to “be useful for” a purpose, and so if a thing is not useful to some purpose, that is not a purpose of it (a purpose it “has”); that’s not something it’s good for. — Pfhorrest

I understand. So what about things that have a purpose/usefulness but do not fulfil its purpose particularly well, or even poorly? Would that change anything? Like, you could use a spoon to cut bread but it seems strange to say thats the purpose of the spoon doesnt it? Its what you are using the spoon for, not what the spoons purpose is. If you were cutting bread with a spoon and someone who did not know what the purpose of a spoon was asked you what the purpose of a spoon was would you say “cutting bread”? You might explain to them about purpose being what something is used for but at that point you are describing a different sense of the word. You might say “the spoon wasnt made with cutting bread as its purpose, but thats what im using it for now so thats its purpose” and to me that sounds like two different kinds of “purpose”. One the purpose intended, the other purpose its being used for.

Ok, so can something have a purpose that it isnt useful for? What about something that has a purpose but it isnt really that useful to that purpose, or at least mot as useful for something else?
Also, could you address the lack of mutual exclusivity I mentioned? It seems to me it can be both, and thus my point about different senses of the word being used stands.

Its both. Its two different ideas about the purpose of the golf club (as a means to play a game and as a weapon) AND it is two senses of the word purpose (purpose created for and purpose in use).
Do you think that the purpose of something is the same as the usage of something? That seems like a clear distinction to me.

A thing’s purpose is whatever it is good for, regardless of whether or not anyone created it with that use in mind. Our use of the word in the blackbird case demonstrates that we are generally okay with this sense of “purpose” in everyday speech. — Pfhorrest

I think its useful to have a distinction between purpose of use and purpose created for. I could create create a golf club for the purpose of playing golf, and that purpose isnt changed if someone decides to use it, re-purpose it, as a weapon to smash in someones head. It was created for the purpose of playing golf And later used for the purpose of murder. Neither purpose negates the other and the “use” for the purpose of murder doesnt change what the golf clubs purpose was/is because there are two senses of the word “purpose” at play.

Wow. I did 1 minute 27 seconds on the first and 57 seconds on the 2nd. That blonde was particularly cringe inducing. No wonder I never watch those things.

Whats an example of one of his dumb ideas?

In what way is that “ mod submitted” dipshit? What I said is highly accurate, as you just evidenced.
First, you don’t know enough to understand how you are wrong. I am not a mod dipshit. This is Dunning Kruger, just like I said.
Second, you are on here doing exactly what I accused you of doing: repeating the same muddled talking points and infecting new threads when you dont get the proper response to your precious (“precious” Meant here in the most condescending possible sense) little ideas. You have an axe to grind, and its transparent in everything you post.
Who started this thread? You. Whats it about? The same shit everything else you say is about.
The fact you think your garbage ideas are going to be any more accepted by repetition is the third thing, arrogance.
Number 4, aggressively wrong. You are wrong, and you are aggressive about it, lacking the humility to consider the possibility you are wrong and having only the very poor option to double down, full speed ahead.
Number 5, ignorant. You at least have touched upon a few pertinent bits of knowledge but alas only enough to hop on a Dunning Kruger soapbox to support your pet idea. You clearly lack knowledge on what you talk about (philosophy, philosophers, logic, reason, burden of proof...really everything you talk about you have only superficial knowledge about).
Lastly, I included you amongst these train wreck fools, and you obliged me by not only staying true to form but also went out of your way to post my spot on analysis that is proceeded by strong evidence of its truth.
You havent been banned by the grace of the mods, but you will be eventually because you are a dipshit. You are not open to ideas or argument, you make stupid, ill considered posts, you cant help but be obnoxious since your arrogance demands ridicule (cuz youre so brilliant and correct and everyone else is so hopelessly burdened by weak thinking. Classic arrogance) and because you so poorly grasp the content of what you speak nothing you say or think will ever get any traction (except, of course, with other dipshits).

This thread is embarrassing, not just for 3017amen and for @Frank Apisa, but for the forums that spawned it. — Banno

You have never made a more clear and accurate statement. If the difference between a soft handed mod team and a hard handed mod team is jerkoffs like those 2 polluting the forum with garbage then I welcome the heavy hand. My self-righteous judgement would be complete except I share in the embarrassment, having interacted with both trolls.

Im not out there bitching about my threads getting moved you fucking dipshit. If I was you would have a point, but im not so you dont.
I cant remember a single douchebag with these painfully stupid threads that get deleted or moved actually make a good one. Its always starts with this muddled, dogmatic talking point that they preach over and over again whether its pertinent or not. Then when they dont get the recognition of brilliance they think it deserves they make an equally unimpressive thread demanding peoples attention to their ill conceived pet philosophy/talking point.
Its just a bunch of arrogant, ignorant, Dunning-Krueger dummies who are aggressively wrong and right only by accident. And yes, this includes you, so take your brainless commentary about what I said to somebody else, shine it up, put a nice little bow on it and shove it up your ass.

Its fine the way it is, stop bitching about it and concentrate on making better threads/OP’s.

:lol:

cor·rect
/kəˈrekt/

adjective
free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.
"make sure you have been given the correct information"

Ok, gotchya. :up:

Well you said “truth is human description”, you also said truth is also human misdescriptions which you said are false. So if you are just saying truth and falsity are human descriptions then there is no contradiction, but it sounds like you are also equating truth with description and thats whats peeked my curiosity because once you equate the those two things it becomes contradictory. Did I misunderstand that, are you not Intending to equate the two?

Well misdescribing something is a type of description, so if descriptions are truth then you cannot also then say that misdescriptions false....at least not without contradicting yourself.

That sounds like something can be truth and false. That seems like a contradiction. Do you mean something being true in one way but not true in another way? (For example it can be true that a car is red because it has red on it but at the same time it can be false because the car also has yellow on it.

But both are subjective or intersubjective. Only dogmatists and platonists put forward theiropinion that truth Is seperate from human assertion. — Asif

Could you expand on this? Does it also mean human assertions are true or does it only work in the one direction?

Frank Apisa and 3017amen seem like trolls who not only contribute nothing but also derail/flood/pollute discussion. I dont use the term troll lightly here, its clear they are here to wind people up and entertain themselves at the expense of others.
Are they on mod radar at all?

You enjoy wasting your time dont you? Lol
No amount of reasoning or patience will avail you sir, you are dealing with a troll and in Franks case, dementia. Neither are interested in actual discussion, just FYI.

None of that has to do with the topic at hand. I didnt complain about it being personal, or that you were grouchy.
You havent said anything of substance on the topic at hand, nor made an argument. Youve made some assertions and assumptions but no argument. You want to claim you’ve heard everything im saying word for word 72 billion times, yet all of your comments were directed not at what I said but rather at this phantom internet atheist philosophy monster youre determined to battle. Not much I can do with that...you clearly aren’t interested in discussion (why would you right? You already know everything I have to say on the matter lol) and when your rhetoric doesnt land (cuz its incoherent) you get “grouchy” and take your ball and go home. Now your back, trying to...i dont know what, in that last post.
There is another old fart who thinks he knows everything, and forgotten how to learn and listen on this forum, Frank Apisa. Maybe you guys can get together to yell into the wind together and pat yourselves on the back.
Smile and be happy Hippyhead.

Constructive? In what way is that constructive?! :lol:
Intellectual cowardice more like. You cant defend your assertions and have failed on every level of engagement.
Your poorly thought out criticisms and comments have failed and now youre taking your ball and going home.

Yes, we do have good reason to suspect that the highly imperfect reasoning ability of a semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat (an ever present threat it finds too boring to discuss) just might not be capable of generating credible answers to the very largest questions about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, an arena which said species can not define in even the most basic manner. — Hippyhead

No, we have good reason to think we have no better alternative. Imperfect reasoning sure, but what else fo we have? We b do the best with what we have.

Apologies, but you are merely chanting atheist ideology dogmas. — Hippyhead

Lol, oh youre a real gem. What is an atheist ideology dogma?
Can you name one, so I know what you mean by that?

I don't need to provide an alternative, that's not my burden. As an salesman for logic and science it is YOUR burden to prove that such methodologies are qualified for the tasks which you are applying them to. You're advocating the universal qualifications of reason, without actually doing reason yourself. Classic atheist error. — Hippyhead

Well, if you are telling me im not allowed or shouldnt use my current tools then Im asking you which ones you would like me to use. If you cant, then I dont see anything wrong or unreasonable about using the best tools I know of and I will do so without making assumptions or by blind faith to logic/science. Happy to discard my tools the second you provide a better one.
You continue to argue against a strawman. Maybe you have in mind some rabid, Idealogical atheist...thats not me so calm down.
And where have I lacked reason? Id like you to point out my lack of reason.
Also, im not a salesmen for logic and science. They dont need a salesmen, they sell themselves. They are our most powerful tools for determining truth...but since im interested in the best tools i would just love to hear about better ones. Even if its just a better tool for this one question about whether there is a god. Do you got one?
Also, logic and science arent only used by atheists on the god question, they are also used by theists and apologists to make their case aa well, so im sorry to say your whole premiss fails before it even starts.

Yes, logic has proven useful for too many things to list at human scale. That is certainly true. But that does NOT automatically equal logic being useful for EVERYTHING, no matter how large the question. — Hippyhead

I didnt say it does. I’m merely pointing out that we have no reason to think logic would fail at any particular thing. Until we do, the proven reliability of logic means its our best tool. Can you offer anything that shows the limits of logic at the “scale” of god? Or anything where abandoning logic in favour of another tool is the better way?
No one is reflexively using logic in this unthinking way you suggest. If you have something better, Id be happy to use that. I just want the best tool for the job, if you have a better one then please share its wonders.

Here's an example. Holy books have provided comfort and meaning to billions of people over thousands of years, an astounding accomplishment which science can't begin to touch. Holy books have proven themselves beyond any doubt to have this ability in very many cases. But that does not automatically equal holy books being qualified for any claim they might make. We can't blindly leap from one proven ability to any claim whatsoever, no matter how large, and label that logic. — Hippyhead

Holy books providing comfort and meaning is irrelevant to making claims about things. Providing meaning/comfort is not something that qualifies anything about claims about existence.
And again, no one is blindly applying logic. This is a strawman. You are asserting with no evidence that logic is being blindly, dogmatically applied.

I'd be happy to question science in general, but let's save that for another thread. Start one if you wish, and I'll try to join you there. — Hippyhead

You miss the point. You dont have a better tool to offer, so with science as with logic you have no substance to your argument. All you got is “hey, maybe logic or science isnt the best tool for so and so”. Ok, sure, maybe, but you have nothing to offer as an alternative so now you are just asking people to not rely on logic for no real reason (because you can imagine the possibility it might not be the best tool...no substance).

I'm attempting to replace your logic with real logic. Real logic, not ideological assertions made from an emotional attachment to some ideology which perhaps makes you feel superior to somebody else. — Hippyhead

Lol, who are you talking to? You’ve created this phantom strawman. How did you determine what logic I use, how did you determine Im operating on an emotional attachment over “real logic” and what have I said that makes you think I might be trying to exercise a feeling of superiority to anyone else?

I'm just joining them in leaving nothing above inspection and challenge. — Hippyhead

I dont think you are. Certainly you arent challenging anything, you havent provided any real argument Im sorry to say.
Its pretty clear you have an axe to grind here...did you have some bad experiences with philosophers?

But aren't you assuming, without questioning or any evidence, that logic is qualified to address topics the scale of gods? More to the point, isn't such an unexamined assumption extremely common, not just on philosophy forums, but among philosophy professionals as well? — Hippyhead

No its not an assumption. Logic has a proven reliability and usefulness. Its something you can study academically. I dont see how you can defend your statement “assuming, without questioning or any evidence“. Thats clearly not the case, there has been plenty of study on logic.
This is like questioning science (in general, not to include questioning IN science which is part of its method of course).
Ok, sure. What else you got to replace science? What about to replace logic? What do you think would be a better tool than logic in order to determine the existence of a god that's not detectable by science?
So whats this gripe you got with philosophers?

why? who said so? and why? — Augustusea

Humans.

would skinning a cat live be moral in this case? would torturing any none human be moral? — Augustusea

I wouldn't say moral no, though to me it always depends on why something is being done as a determinate of whats moral or immoral. I would call that ammoral.

and what makes us different from animals other then our moral judgement (which not all of us even have) — Augustusea

Well many things, but moral judgement and all that is required for moral judgements (cognition, reasoning etc) are all thats relevant here.

Sure, in underdeveloped humans you dont find the same kind of agency. It has yet to develop moral agency, but it will. Thats not the case with most animals, so I fail to see where that point lands.

and even then they are living creatures what would make us be moral to humans and not them? — Augustusea

...because morality is made by humans, for humans. Its not made by living creatures for living creatures, its not made by humans for living creatures. Its a human thing, for humans.

As far as sharing or applying human morality to non-humans...sure, there are certain criteria that qualify humans for moral agency. If enough of these traits were found in something not human then we could suggest to this potential moral agent our human morality and they could operate within the parameters perhaps. I see no problem with that.
Most animals are not like that however, so it still doesnt make the case for veganism on that basis. It might make the case for not eating certain animals (something already done culturally) though, maybe we could find common ground there.

Ive noted you didnt speak to a point I actually made but instead moved on to make another point about human babies. You asked why it would be incoherent, I answered. Was there some wrong with my answer? If so, you should explain what it is, and if not you should concede the point. Anyway, I will answer your new point.
A baby isn't a moral agent because it hasnt developed yet, as it does it learns many things one of which will be some sense of morality. They can be taught to understand a social/moral contract. Animals generally do not and cannot.
Remember, I said morality is made by humans, for humans. Babies are humans.

I dont think it is coherent. You said it yourself, animals are not moral agents. Is it coherent to treat non-moral agents morally? A rock? A tree? No. In order for you to include animals for special treatment over trees and rocks, you have to make a special pleading fallacy for animals or you will have to make some kind special exemption for living creatures/suffering. Neither have a rational basis.
Morality is made by humans, for humans.

Yes, I would agree with that.

Sure, either or.

I think there is a difference between something “having the quality of being different” and a “state of nothingness”.
“No difference” isnt the same as “nothing”.

No. No variance just means unchanging, static. That isnt necessarily “nothingness”, and its certainly isnt equal to it.

Yes, its all very hard to take seriously.

Well I wouldnt say the end is near...we functioned as a species for a long time on just emotion and tribalism. Even with reason dead, humans will be able to stumble through technological and social advancement so this all keeps ticking along. Its just the dark times that the absence of uniform reasoning that I dont think is possible to avoid right now. The wrong kinds of people are driving the car right now.

Its not just science, its the death of reason. Feelings and agenda over facts.

Ok ignoring the fact you havent refuted my counter points, Why would that be absurd? When they talk about what they see they are talking about the colour spectrum, retinae, light particles...any number of things they have no knowledge about yet are still talking about. They just dont know that they are talking about those things cuz they lack the words/concepts. Same with mental and brain states. They do t even need to know they have brains to talk about mental or brain states.

Its still just words. Its not restrictive (which is what you need it to be for your argument to work) because anyone can use shared vocabulary to add those “Scientific” words to the shared vocabulary.
There is nothing about scientific vocabulary that isnt also true about basball vocabulary, or music vocabulary, or texting vocabulary (“lol”, “lmao” etc) as far as communication goes.
Does not sharing baseball vocabulary with someone restrict anyone communicating about it? No, the person just goes “whats a homerun?”, gets a description and moves on with the discussion/communication.

Its just normal vocabulary, nothing about the vocabulary used for brain states is special. Its just words, with meanings, that some people know and some people do not and you communicate by using the shared vocabulary in order to clarify the meaning of the vocabulary that is not shared.

...Ive officially used the word “vocabulary” more times in a single day than ive ever used it....

1. Brain states are mental states.
2. Brain state vocabulary is scientific.
3. If brain states are mental states, then meaningful communication about mental states is meaningful communication about brain states.4. Meaningful communication about brain states is impossible if two speakers do not have brain state vocabulary.
5. Bob and Sheila do not have brain state vocabulary.
6. Bob and Sheila can meaningfully communicate about mental states.
7. From (3), Bob and Sheila can meaningfully communicate about brain states.
8. (7) is false (because Bob and Sheila do not have brain state vocabulary).
9. Therefore, meaningful communication about mental states is not meaningful communication about brain states.
10. Therefore, (1) is false. — RogueAI

Nobody can communicate about anything without shared vocabulary, this is a red herring and your whole argument depends upon it. Further, it is false to claim that brainstate vocabulary must be scientific, we are talking about it and neither of us are using strictly scientific vocabulary. Lastly, even if scientific vocabulary was the only vocabulary for brainstates it doesnt prevent communication, one would simply have to relay the meaning of the vocabulary being used.
Im afraid your argument is only clever semantics and structure and falls short of its goal.