'concludes' — Bartricks
conclusion — Bartricks
'concludes' — Bartricks
conclusion — Bartricks
The problem you have with my argument is twofold: a) you don't understand it, b) it's a proof of God. — Bartricks
I explained. The laws of Reason are prescriptive laws, not descriptive. That's why you can flout them. — Bartricks
A directive requires a mind to issue it. Take this "give me all your money!" If I'm a bot, is that a directive? No. If I'm a mind, then it is. If I'm not, then it isn't. — Bartricks
but you can't shove its muzzle into the water and say "drink it you stupid horse!!" — Bartricks
But it doesn't matter, because I take it that you agree that you ought to believe them and that if you do not you are irrational? — Bartricks
Let's say I'm playing chess. I "ought" to avoid moving my knight, because that can lead to a checkmate. I "ought" to consider other moves that improve my position. Those oughts are prescriptive; they are a consequence of a teleos in my own human mind... the desire to win... and the ways in which the artificial laws of chess unfold on the board. That I ought not move my knight does not require an omniscient mind commanding that this be the case. All it requires is that there is a move by my opponent that can checkmate me if I do so.If you 'ought' to draw the conclusion, then you are bid draw it - that's what the oughtness 'is'. — Bartricks
Give an example of an imperative of reason that requires an omnipotent mind.The imperatives of Reason are imperatives (hence the name). — Bartricks
Give an example of an imperative of reason that requires an omnipotent mind. — InPitzotl
Let's say I'm playing chess. I "ought" to avoid moving my knight, because that can lead to a checkmate. I "ought" to consider other moves that improve my position. Those oughts are prescriptive — InPitzotl
They are directives. — Bartricks
I'm having problems understanding whichever of these things are true:Are you slow? The. Imperatives. Of. Reason. See argument above. — Bartricks
You saying it doesn't make it so, but even assuming this: — khaled
Anyone giving directives on how you should reason becomes omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent by your premises. — khaled
I'm having problems understanding whichever of these things are true:
(a) That "Are you slow? The. Imperatives. Of. Reason. See argument above." is an example of an imperative of reason requiring an omnipotent mind.
(b) Why you bothered to waste my time replying to me if you're uninterested in a conversation with me. — InPitzotl
Can God commit a fallacy? Yes. Can I? Yes. How absurd would it be for me to be able to do what God cannot? How could you, with a straight face, describe as 'all powerful' a being who couldn't do something I can do? — Bartricks
You still didn't give an example.Of course you are (see a). — Bartricks
In the example I gave, a desire not to be checkmated, my understanding of the rules, and my ability to model the consequences of my actions.And what are you following when you reason, if not some kind of directive? — Bartricks
Why did you bother with the thread then?As for b, I have my reasons. — Bartricks
I wondered how long it would be before the bibleos came along and started discussing the God of the bible rather than thinking for themselves.
This thread is about whether an all powerful being can do anything - which is a philosophical question that can't be settled by appeal to the bible or anything else. — Bartricks
God can make you commit fallacies. — Philosopher19
You can't make God commit fallacies. — Philosopher19
God can't make God commit fallacies. — Philosopher19
No, but I have provided you with arguments for thinking them so. — Bartricks
They are directives — Bartricks
So, they are directives. — Bartricks
They are directives and simply saying they're not won't alter that. — Bartricks
Even if Plato had not pointed it out, two contradictory statements still could not be true in the same sense at the same time. — khaled
If I order you to do X, you do not thereby have a reason to do X, right? — Bartricks
And that mind will, by dint of that fact, be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (see argument above for the explanation). — Bartricks
Another way to make the same point: the mind whose instructions are the instructions of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (see proof above of that). I am not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Therefore I am not the mind whose instructions are the instructions of Reason. — Bartricks
Yes he can. I can make me commit fallacies, yes? So God can make God commit fallacies if he so wishes, otherwise I'd have a power that God doesn't have, namely the power to make oneself commit fallacies. — Bartricks
In the example I gave, a desire not to be checkmated, my understanding of the rules, and my ability to model the consequences of my actions — InPitzotl
An omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent being cannot do anything; which is to say they could not do anything at all - because they would understand the long term implications of their actions. Any intervention would necessarily imply further interventions, to account for the consequences of the first, and so on and on until they had to do everything. — counterpunch
Yes, I didn't say that I have the power to make God commit fallacies, I said that I have the power to make myself commit fallacies. — Bartricks
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.