Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:38 am
P1 DNA wise all humans are programmed to strive to
survive with a will-to-live at all costs till the inevitable or an instinctual trade off.
P2 To ensure one
survive with the will-to-live one has
avoid death.
P3 To
avoid death, one is programmed
to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
C4 Therefore to
survive with the will-to-live, one has
to fear death [subliminally or consciously].
P1 is now completely incoherent and ends with a vague exception clause that weakens any possible claim.
I welcome your above counters.
You did not explain how my P1 is incoherent?
Re the exceptions, how can the certainty of mortality be vague??
What other exceptions I can provide justifications for them.
E.g. Isn't suicide a rare exception and is due to a mental illness?
P2 is still a tautology. It says "To survive, one has to avoid dying." True, but totally circularly so.
Nah how can that be circular?
What is not true is false is not circular.
Thus to live is not to die is not circular.
P3 still has the "is programmed" problem of passive voice and "programmed" nonsense.
I believed you are stuck with 'is programmed' need an active programmer, like God.
There is nothing when I state it is programmed via nature.
The whole process from DNA-codes and RNA executions to a series of result is representative of being "programmed".
If you don't like 'programmed] I use terms like unfold, emerge, manifest and the likes.
Hey! Principle of Charity!
C is still obviously untrue anyway.
So nothing connects. It does not follow correct deductive form. It also has erroneous content. Logicians call the former "invalid" and the latter "untrue." In total, they call your argument "unsound."
My logic is proper the only counter you can give is the argument is unsound i.e. not realistic.
But my premises above are supported by empirical evidences or inferred from empirical evidences, that qualify as realistically possible.
My argument do not include non-empirical element like "God [illusory] did it"
The next question is whether my argument leads to real empirical activities that can be verified empirically.
When I dare to raise that next question, I will have answer to it.