Philosophy Now Forum

how to understand the responses You don't know if you are using the same words they are in their response though. You'd have to know how exegesis works to understand. I think it will be difficult to explain to you without that. That involves far too much interpretation for you to have any reliable ...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 3:42 pm how to understand the responses

You don't know if you are using the same words they are in their response though.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 2:48 pm [cue cricket sound effect again]

Wait till he finds out about quus.

Well, there's the truth about God, and everything else is obviously not-truth or less-than-truth. If what a person believes is according to Scripture, which is God's revelation of Himself, then it's the truth. To the extent it varies from that, it's not the truth. It's that simple. How do you valid...

There's no variance. I just don't make my own current level of knowledge the benchmark of rightness. Like other people I've got lots still to learn. But the benchmark is the Word of God. And anybody who will convince me of something with reference to that benchmark is my friend, and will make me a ...

What do you think it the chance of the Bigfatorangebabyman spending any time in gaol? Negligible. He won't win the election, and the Supreme Court has nothing to work with on the NYC case he just lost, so he'll probably end up getting house arrest for that. But after November his defence will chang...

Sounds cool, tell us more about what sort of game?

I'm not an educator so I probably can't help, but this sub forum will bury your topic before it gets noticed unless it gets a bump.

On a seperate note, this is a video in which prof Jeffrey Kaplan discusses Frege's On Sense and Reference which explains why meaning is not a matter of ostensive definition, as assumed by Mister Can with his obsession for definitions but is split across sense and reference https://www.youtube.com/wa...

I think a nice searchable record of your contempt for re-wording other people's points and paraphrasing in general might come in handy one day. Y'know, we're going to get along a whole lot better if you say what I said, rather than saying what you wish I would say. :? I'm not making any new point ab...

"firstly, to get the broad strokes correct according to Scripture, and secondly, to be corrigible by the Word of God." You are suddenly allowing variance, why the rule change? There's no variance. I just don't make my own current level of knowledge the benchmark of rightness. Like other p...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:24 pm It is likely that every statement you’d make will come from a prejudiced, tendentious position — a determined one held by a specific faction. Your assessments cannot likely be trusted for much.

You should invest in a mirror of some sort

I didn't write that. Go back and look again, I guess. People only need to share two characteristics... Yeah, I didn't say that either. It's not just "two." It's all the broad strokes. Y'know, we're going to get along a whole lot better if you say what I said, rather than saying what you w...

It doesn't have to. It simply has to have two characteristics: firstly, to get the broad strokes correct according to Scripture, and secondly, to be corrigible by the Word of God. My own view is the same. So anybody on that path is with me. People only need to hold a broadly similar thing in mind t...

If they have the Biblical conception of God, they do. And plenty do. Not just Christians, either. My conception of God is not extraordinary; but it isn't the only version of "god" that human beings have ever had. how could you possibly know that somebody else's conception exactly matches ...

Nobody but you has your conception of God. If they have the Biblical conception of God, they do. And plenty do. Not just Christians, either. My conception of God is not extraordinary; but it isn't the only version of "god" that human beings have ever had. how could you possibly know that ...