But one must not then define necessary truths as a species of contingent truth, — Bartricks
Contingent is defined as possible but non-necessary. — bongo fury
God exists? Not by any standard of existence, thus not true. — tim wood
But one must not then define necessary truths as a species of contingent truth, which is what one would be doing if one made the very notion of a necessary truth identical to the notion of a truth that is true in all possible worlds. — Bartricks
2. All of the imperatives of Reason have a unitary source — Bartricks
The existent mind whose imperatives constitute the imperatives of Reason will be omnipotent — Bartricks
6. The existent mind whose imperatives constitute the imperatives of Reason will be omniscient — Bartricks
7. The existent mind whose imperatives constitute the imperatives of Reason will be omnibenevolent — Bartricks
Bartricks
2. All of the imperatives of Reason have a unitary source
— Bartricks
False. There have historically been multiple. — khaled
False because it wouldn’t be able to do anything to someone who chooses to ignore it’s imperatives. Nor would it be able to lift a rock, just make the reasonable believe it was lifted. Last I checked, rocks don’t bow to the edicts of reason. — khaled
6. The existent mind whose imperatives constitute the imperatives of Reason will be omniscient
— Bartricks
No premise leads to this. — khaled
7. The existent mind whose imperatives constitute the imperatives of Reason will be omnibenevolent
— Bartricks
Definitely doesn’t follow from the above. — khaled
Silly me. — Bartricks
Truth is constitutively determined by Reason. So Reason determines what's true. — Bartricks
Thus Reason would be able to do anything to anyone. — Bartricks
Those who choose to ignore Reason's imperatives are doing so because and only because she allows it. — Bartricks
'It' is a premise. — Bartricks
Again, it is a premise, not a conclusion. Sheesh. Go to school already. — Bartricks
Because for a proposition to be known is for there to be a reason to believe it. And guess who's in charge of what there's reason to believe? Yes, that's right - Reason. So Reason will be all knowing — Bartricks
Reason's values constitutively determine what is morally valuable. — Bartricks
And Reason is omnipotent. So she won't be any way she doesn't want to be, or so it is reasonable to believe — Bartricks
And thus Reason will fully value herself. And that's what being morally perfect involves. — Bartricks
Thus Reason would be able to do anything to anyone.
— Bartricks
Doesn’t follow. — khaled
How exactly would she go about disallowing it? The only power she has is the ability to determine the imperatives of reason. So what can she do to those who don’t listen to those such as yourself? — khaled
Can’t tell with the quality of reasoning you’re displaying. — khaled
“If you know something -> You have reason to believe it”. Sure I’ll take that, but it is NOT the same as, and doesn’t lead to: “If you decide what counts as a reason to believe -> You know something/everything”. — khaled
Reason's values constitutively determine what is morally valuable.
— Bartricks
Evidence? In this instance we can very much doubt our moral intuitions if we believe they are being dictated by someone else. Whereas we can’t doubt our logical intuitions without a logical argument, making it stupid to do so, doubting our moral intuitions producers no such contradictions. — khaled
Let’s go back to the source shall we? What your God can do, is determine the imperatives of reason. How can determining the imperatives of reason, allow God to change herself, or give herself certain virtues? — khaled
I value myself. Guess I’m morally perfect? — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.