Why wouldn't it be obvious that it would be up to each person to decide for themselves?

If the argument is solid it's the argument that decides — Christoffer

Even if it were somehow possible for an argument to "decide for itself," we'd need to be able to recognize this, wouldn't we?

Because it's based on facts outside of Bill's and Joe's opinions, biases, and past down doctrines. — Christoffer

And so who decides?

have you considered if the inevitable end to most of your assertions on this thread lead to a form of destructive Nihilism? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I'm not sure what definition of nihilism you'd be using (especially so that it would be "destructive").

No, deduction bypass personal opinion, that's the point. — Christoffer

And we non-personally figure out if we've deduced a correct conclusion via?

If the arguments lead to a justified conclusion, that's how we decide. If not, then no decision, except a random one, seems possible. — Pattern-chaser

To Joe, they lead to a justified conclusion. To Bill, they do not. Now what do you do?

The problem is that that's your opinion, and you incredibly seem to be assuming that we're all going to agree if we just, well, whatever aside from simply stipulating that we must agree (and then who takes the lead to agree with?)

We don't all agree though. Not at all.

So someone has to make the decisions about what counts and what doesn't, etc.

Who gets to make those decisions and why do they get to make them? (And what do we do with the folks who don't agree with those decisions?)

How do we get to "This isn't factual and reasonable" if someone doesn't decide that?

By deduction of the validity of what someone says is meant to stir up hate as in point 3, or is valid criticism, as in point 4. — Christoffer

One thing at a time for a moment.

Not how. Who? Someone has to decide these things. Who is going to?

Then we compare A and B, and make the inference A is different from B. Why would you say that this is not a logical inference? — Metaphysician Undercover

You asked if "A is different than B" is logical/illogical. The answer is that no, it isn't. "A is different than B" has nothing to do with logic.

You could ask if "Just in case A isn't identical to B, then A is different than B" is logical. Would you like to ask something like that instead?

1. It's not about hurting one or more peoples feelings.
2. It's about creating a negative idea about a group of people.
3. It divides people into categories that through repetition may build hate/dislike between groups.
4. It is not based on factual sources that work as a foundation for reasonable criticism of a group. — Christoffer

One or more persons' feelings could be hurt by anything conceivable. Anything you might say, anything you might wear, any way you might look at them, etc.

Who gets to decide what's negative or not and why do they get to decide?

Dividing people into categories like "Folks who say prohibited things"?

Who gets to decide what's factual and reasonable and why do they get to decide?

When I say "A is different than B", would you say that this is illogical, — Metaphysician Undercover

It's alogical. Or in other words, it doesn't have anything to do with logic. Logic is about inference/implication--what follows from what, basically.

But the Multiverse structure is correct. — Inis

lol

Different elements are logically different, by the law of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Haha, no. How could you even do logic with variables then?

No. It's not a logical difference to plug different elements into variables.

There are certain space-time structures that make time-travel possible, i — Inis

Not any spacetime structure that's correct, though. I'm not saying that it's not a popular belief that time travel is possible, but the belief rests on not understanding what time really is.

I spelled it out. They have different premises. One argument proceeds from the premise that there are human experiences to the conclusion that there is a universe. The other proceeds from the premise that there is a universe to the conclusion of God. Do you, or do you not, recognize that this is a "logical difference"? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not a logical difference. Logically, both are simply that x implies the necessity of y.

What is wrong with you that you can't simply spell out/specify what you take the logical difference to be when I request for you to do that?

AJJ uses a premise concerning the universe, and proceeds to conclude the necessity of God. You use a premise concerning human experience and proceed to conclude the necessity of a universe. See the difference? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, not logically. You'd need to specify the logical difference. Spell it out. Show your work.

It wouldn't be "the same" because there would be different premises. But once the necessity of the universe is proven we can go on to prove the necessity of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

How specifically would the premises differ (and in terms of logic)?

Why couldn't the same logic say that if there is our experiences there is necessarily a universe?

So if we were to say something like "the universe is necessary for our experiences" that wouldn't be magical thinking re the universe (sans God) necessarily existing?

So no knowledge of a better philosophy board?

He’s necessary, which means that He can’t not exist. — AJJ

But that's magical thinking on your definition.

Time travel isn't possible period. Time isn't a "place you can travel to." Time is simply change ( including motion). Additionally, nominalism is true. You can't literally change from A to be back to an identical A. You'd have A' instead on the second "A" occasion.

Does anyone know of a philosophy board where it's not like talking to "educated morons"/"intelligent retards," regardless of whether people are really like that or whether they just like act like it because they think it's amusing or they're bored or whatever? I'd like to be able to talk about philosophy with people who don't have problems understanding kindergarten-level material. If you know of a board that's like what I'm looking for, then not only would you help me, but you could be rid of someone who thinks that almost everyone here (except for the person who points me to the board in question, of course ;-) ) is essentially a moron.

Promising something isn't speech? What is it, a rabbit? — Hanover

What happened to the part after the word "and"?

He’s eternal. I meant he’s posited as the explanation for the universe. — AJJ

That's fine, but weren't you talking about the reason for God's existence? Why/How God exists in the first place? You're not saying that the reason for God's existence is that He's posited as the explanation for the universe, are you?

Wait, so the reason that god that exists is that he's the explanation of the universe, so that his existence hinges on that? God didn't exist prior to the universe?

Magical because it exists for no reason, by virtue of nothing except its own inexplicable nature. — AJJ

So in the case of God, the reason is?

It’s magical, and God isn’t. — AJJ

So I have to wonder how you're defining "magical." What does that refer to, exactly? What are the criteria for a claim being magical versus not-magical?

Nothing. But that’s exactly what I’m calling magical thinking. — AJJ

If either side of the choice of "always existed" or "spontaneously popped into existence" is "magical thinking," then " magical thinking" is unavoidable, and what of it?

Your definition of “universe” makes it impossible to talk properly about God, — AJJ

You just said that we could talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." You can do that under the way I use universe, too--you can talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." So in that regard it's the same. My usage of the term would make no practical difference.

God is necessarily timeless, and has his eternality by virtue of this. The universe is not timeless, so if it has eternality then it just has it, for no reason, as if by magic. — AJJ

"The universe has always existed by virtue of its own, necessary, nature."--what does that have to do with "timelessness"?

Yeah. But you can’t talk properly about Him using your definition of “universe”. — AJJ

You could say exactly the same things sans the word "universe."

The universe, if it has such a nature, cannot have it necessarily, — AJJ

Why not?

It changes everything. As I’ve pointed out and demonstrated, it makes it impossible to talk properly about God. — AJJ

Wouldn't you be able to talk "properly" about God without even using the word "universe"?

Which is nonsense, because God as defined by classical theism is the source of the universe, all of it. — AJJ

That's simply using "universe" in a different way, which is fine. That's just not the way I use the term. The way I use the term doesn't change anything other than a word we're applying to things.

He is posited as the source of the universe, so necessarily exists, and is necessarily timeless, so He can’t possibly have begun to exist, and therefore must always have existed. — AJJ

Which is in line with the notion that either something always existed or that whatever exists spontaneously appeared.

To say the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed for no reason is magical talk. You’ll have to explain why it’s special pleading. — AJJ

How is it "magical talk" when those are the only options?* If you introduce god, either he has always existed (maybe in timeless existence if you think that makes sense), or he suddenly appeared at some point.

(*footnote: it's more "spontaneously appeared" for the first option)

You're either trolling or you're unbelievably dense.

I'm probably not going to talk about anything else until you answer that, no? You could ask again, as if that might make me not think that you're trolling, lol

Seriously, are you trolling?