Philosophy Now Forum

If you want to argue that there is also, in addition, a form of morality based on objective moral truth, then go ahead, but I don't think it can be done convincingly. Please yourself; I'll listen to your argument if you have one, or draw my own conclusions if you decide not to attempt one. I'm not ...

The whole world hates America and it's certainly not for its 'freedoms' (whatever that's supposed to mean). "Hates"? Or "envies"? If it's "hates," then why do so many people so desperately want to get in there? :shock: In case you hadn't noticed mass immigration is hap...

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 8:40 pm The whole world hates America and it's certainly not for its 'freedoms' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

"Hates"? Or "envies"?

If it's "hates," then why do so many people so desperately want to get in there?

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience. What "personal experience" convinces you that you've encountered what morality is, and how have you established that it was "subjective"? And what do you ...

You say that's "clear." I know of nobody but you who thinks that. So I think I'm justified in asking you what you think makes that "clear" to you. But the sequence of cause and effect that we now observe on every side had to have a starting point, too. The way that we understand...

Polanyi was influenced by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Knowledge which came out four years after Personal Knowledge. That's very funny. I don't know how many people there ever were who were writing BEFORE the person who allegedly influenced them. Isn't it usually AFTER? I know Polanyi was a great...

Okay, I haven't seen an argument, and I doubt that you could come up with an even slightly persuasive one. Well, as soon as we dispatch with Subjectivism, maybe we'll talk about that. But let's see Subjectivism stand on its own feet, first -- if it's a credible view, it really should be able to do ...

You haven't got an argument. You haven't read much of what I've said. This isn't my first rodeo here, you know. :wink: Okay, I haven't seen an argument, and I doubt that you could come up with an even slightly persuasive one. Well, as soon as we dispatch with Subjectivism, maybe we'll talk about th...

Clearly, cause and effect, as we understand it, does not apply to the origins of the universe. You say that's "clear." I know of nobody but you who thinks that. So I think I'm justified in asking you what you think makes that "clear" to you. But the sequence of cause and effect ...

You have said absolutely nothing to change my view, and you have said absolutely nothing to support your own. The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality. You haven't got an argument. You haven...

You have said absolutely nothing to change my view, and you have said absolutely nothing to support your own. The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality. But I understand the desperate rush to...

We don't have any pre-BB observations so we don't know which mathematical equations are applicable before the BB. We don't need any. You're trying to make a demand for us to introduce a necessity for empirical information into an argument that proves conclusively that the very theory of an actual i...

In your P1 you assume [without proofs nor justifications] there must be starting cause, Hmmm...you're not a very good reader, are you? :? It does not say "there must be a starting cause," or anything like that, though indeed the conclusion shows that there would have to be. But that's onl...

The basic is very simple: Premise 1: an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist, because in an infinite regress, the causal chain never starts, but rather "recedes" into a supposed infinite past. (Mathematical and deductive) Premise 2: the universe is a product of a chain of causes...

So abortion is murder, but abortion for good reasons-- like a godly married couple getting rid of unwanted embryos-- is godly and good. If IVF involves the implanting of offspring fertilized by a husband into a wife, it would be hard to find a grounds for objection. But if you know one, I'll hear i...