What if one experiences meaning? Would that still be considered a leap of faith? — Tzeentch
There's no real comparison to be made, since an objective meaning to life is a chimaera. The subjective meaning is all we have — S
I don't see how you know objective meaning doesn't exist yet you know subjective meaning exists. — Andrew4Handel
I think when people say they find meaning in X they are referring to an emotional state they have and likewise some people find no meaning in anything. — Andrew4Handel
I don't think that an emotion or belief that X is meaning equals meaning. I enjoy certain foods but do not have a meaningful experience when eating food. It is verging on solipsism to rely solely on your own feelings and perceptions. — Andrew4Handel
Rank Amateur has an agenda. — S
How can a society be based on subjective meaning? — Andrew4Handel
What would it be? — Andrew4Handel
thank you for the opinion - I made an argument - please again feel free to show which premise is false or the conclusion does not follow - or again if you wish to support your position with argument I would be happy to address. — Rank Amateur
Your reply is too hasty and dismissive. That was actually a reductio ad absurdum, which is a form of argument. — S
1. You misuse the word "fact". A fact is what's the case or a state of affairs. You seem to mean something else, like knowledge. Based on the correct usage, whether or not God exists is a matter of fact. That is, it is a matter relating to what's the case or the current state of affairs. If we don't know either way, then that doesn't mean that it's a) not a matter of fact, b) not a fact that God exists, c) not a fact that God doesn't exist. Moreover, if we don't know either way, then your conclusion that theism isn't in conflict with fact is unwarranted, as it may well be, and it is if God doesn't in fact exist, unbeknownst to us — S
. Arguments based on reason aren't necessarily reasonable. Even fallacious arguments are based on reason, but they're obviously not reasonable. I accept that there are arguments for theism which are based on reason. Whether any of them are reasonable is open to debate. — S
That is as much an opinion as the first, only in latin. — Rank Amateur
Beautifully written. — Rank Amateur
However if:
A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist — Rank Amateur
again - thank you the lesson - and agree - if your point is they are unreasonable - as i have on many occasions please make the argument - — Rank Amateur
A. is false, and B. & C. together is not logically possible. — S
There you go again, trying to goad me into making an argument to that effect when the burden doesn't lie with me. — S
A is either True or False - if A is True - neither B or C have meaning — Rank Amateur
If A is False - Either B or C but not both are true — Rank Amateur
So for theism to be in conflict with your definition A would need to be false and B would have to be true. Please feel free to make that argument — Rank Amateur
there you go again looking for the argument you want - instead of the one I am making. You want an argument where I am forced to prove God is, I have never made such an declaration. In fact I most specifically said when starting this engagement that is not the case I was making. — Rank Amateur
Yet again - I made an argument with premises i state are true and a conclusion that follows - and await your reasoned objections. — Rank Amateur
Another attempt to shift the burden. — S
Even though you do not grant me the same courtesy in relation to my argument, which you deny is even an argument. Here's some more Latin for you: quid pro quo. — S
Otherwise you might just as well say "theism is reasonable because it's reasonable". — Isaac
I have not seen you make an argument yet. Please do. — Rank Amateur
If it is necessary to justify, with argument, the claim "x is reasonable", then why have you not done so for the subsumed arguments? If, on the other hand, you find it satisfactory to simply declare that an argument is reasonable, then why have you provided justification at all for the claim that "theism is reasonable"? — Isaac
Okay - your original point was
A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or
If that is false, then God's existence is a matter of fact
and either
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist
I am making no claim that as a matter of fact that b or c are true, in fact my original proposition was
that we can not say either a or b are true.
You in you challenge to this proposition are now claiming A is false and take you pick b or c are true to defeat my proposition - which if you can make either case would defeat it.;
So I ask you to make the case - and then we go back into your no need to make any case do loop — Rank Amateur
I was referring to the one that you've evaded addressing, and deny is an argument. I know that you know what I'm talking about, and the issue is whether or not you're going to do what would be fair and actually address it, or whether you're going to continue to play dumb and be evasive. — S
How about we take this step by step? Do you agree that A is false? Yes or no? That still isn't clear to me. — S
I have addressed this point at least 3 times in this latest exchange - you are now just trying an argument ad nauseam -
I put the argument in form to avoid a twitter argument and exchange honest ideas - you seem to resist this - — Rank Amateur
If theism were reasonable, then there would be no need for the faith that you like to harp on about. You can't have your cake and eat it, so you need to make your mind up and pick just one.
And if you repeat that stupid slogan again... — S
just did that - in detail show that you actually take 2 minutes to understand the points made back to you before arguing them -
it seems your only tactic is argument ad nauseam - — Rank Amateur
If theism were reasonable, then there would be no need for the faith that you like to harp on about. You can't have your cake and eat it, so you need to make your mind up and pick just one. — S
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.