There are no limits to how many premises a syllogism can have. The basic syllogism is three terms, but if you feel it commits a fallacy, I'd be happy to re-arrange them if you like! — 3017amen
F*** you," every time you hit it, like some kind of obscene squeeze toy. The which, alas and unfortunately, just makes me want to hit it again. Tar-baby is another term. I have trouble even imaging why anyone would want to be, aspire to be, work to be, such a thing. But I think I'll try to keep course with you and keep away. Maybe there's a Bill for this problem. — tim wood
One side or the other almost certainly is correct. — Frank Apisa
Unfortunately or fortunately its not pointless — 3017amen
Could you clarify here space's properties of non-existence? — tim wood
tim wood
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa You confuse - conflate may be the better word - actuality with likelihood. To paraphrase someone, there's the known, the unknown, the unknowable, and that that cannot be known. You're positing the latter two as knowable and that which can be known. As to private and personal theology, you can believe what you like - and that's been acknowledged repeatedly. But like pigs and parlors and camels and tents, you want in where you do not belong. And that's a failure in your thinking. Believe what you like; is not that enough? — tim wood
Hippyhead
31
One side or the other almost certainly is correct.
— Frank Apisa
Oh dear, sorry, can't vote for that one. Seems much more likely to me that nobody has the question right, let alone any answer. — Hippyhead
Aside from believing the truths of a given history book (the Christian Bible), logical inference from cosmology, phenomenology, existentialism, cognitive science/consciousness, metaphysics, et. al. points to the concept of a God for its meaning. — 3017amen
An edited collection of a whole lot of writings by different people at different times in different languages for different purposes. Do you understand that history is largely a modern invention, and is itself its own science - when done right.
tim wood
an hour ago — tim wood
history is largely a modern invention, and is itself its own science - when done right. — tim wood
Does it look like I said that? Where did you get that?Do you mean the history of science? — 3017amen
About what the editors wanted it to be "about." As to history, I don't think there are two words together in the Bible that would pass as history. As to what else, lots of else. What's you point?1.Okay, good. And what was this edited collection about? — 3017amen
As to history, I don't think there are two words together in the Bible that would pass as history. As to what else, lots of else. What's you point? — tim wood
tim wood
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa Your whole argument as I understand it is that the existence of X is unknown, therefore X could be or X might not be. But many things could be substituted for X. If you like g/God(s), for example, then with equal justice and likelihood there could be anti-g/God(s), or anything else.
As it sits, then, a useless exercise of almost logic. The details matter, and that devolves to defining existence, knowledge, even likelihood and possibility. The only force left to you is a claim of belief, which I, at least, do not challenge. And you're correct, you can oink your way into the parlor if you choose, but there it's just particularly clear that you're a pig. — tim wood
180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa :yawn: — 180 Proof
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.