"In the beginning God created ...."

[tillingborn]

This guy massively overestimates his wit.
This guy is an idiot.
This guy is boring.

Apparently that's circular.

According to the rules of your religion... it baaaaad.

But true.

[Skepdick]

But true.

All truth is interpretation so, who cares?

In 2021 believing in truth is a quite like believing in God.

[tillingborn]

But true.

All truth is interpretation so, who cares?

In 2021 believing in truth is a quite like believing in God.

Truth is validity rather than soundness. We are presented with a range of propositions, such as 'God exists' or 'killing your enemies is wrong', which are entirely subjective opinions. We listen to a variety of arguments built on those propositions and decide which one we like best for reasons that are fundamentally the same as the reasons we might have a favourite book or film. Truth only applies within a context. You think you are the only person who knows this, but philosophers have been saying as much for the past two and a half thousand years.

[Skepdick]

Truth is validity rather than soundness.

What you are describing is called a tautology, not truth. True in every possible interpretation.

A valid argument is always valid, even when it's unsound.

We are presented with a range of propositions, such as 'God exists' or 'killing your enemies is wrong', which are entirely subjective opinions. We listen to a variety of arguments built on those propositions and decide which one we like best for reasons that are fundamentally the same as the reasons we might have a favourite book or film. Truth only applies within a context.

Both validity and soundness require a point of departure: premises.

I am curious how you obtain ANY of those except via induction, and if your deductive premises are obtained via induction then... how could they be true when they aren not even wrong? Garbage in - Garbage out.

You think you are the only person who knows this, but philosophers have been saying as much for the past two and a half thousand years.

I don't think anything of that sort. I know I am not the only person who knows it, I am just wondering why all the other people who know this stuff like to pretend it's not true.

Q.E.D you insist on using deductive reasoning. But deductive reasoning only works in axiomatic systems. And reality isn't one of those. You know this, right?

[tillingborn]

Truth is validity rather than soundness.

What you are describing is called a tautology

If that is what you call a tautology, then you do not understand how everyone else on the planet uses that term.

, not truth. True in every possible interpretation.

That would require a tautology: you would have to define 'truth' in some way that is synonymous with 'is true'.

A valid argument is always valid, even when it's unsound.

Apparently this is so new to you, you believe it is worth mentioning. Welcome to the club; you now know something everyone else does.

Both validity and soundness require a point of departure: premises.

Another TA-DA! moment for you. Don't get too excited, a premise is just a proposition that has found its way into an argument.

I am curious how you obtain ANY of those except via induction,

You shouldn't be: I have made my point that many premises are adopted pretty much for their flavour.

Q.E.D you insist on using deductive reasoning. But deductive reasoning only works in axiomatic systems. And reality isn't one of those. You know this, right?

That you still have to ask is further evidence that you massively overestimate your wit, that you are an idiot and that you are boring.

[Skepdick]

If that is what you call a tautology, then you do not understand how everyone else on the planet uses that term.

And I don't think you have a criterion for assessing understanding, but hey...

Apparently this is so new to you, you believe it is worth mentioning. Welcome to the club; you now know something everyone else does.

Why are you welcoming me only now? I've known this about as long as everybody else.

This isn't the point. The point is why aren't you using your knowledge in practice?

Another TA-DA! moment for you. Don't get too excited, a premise is just a proposition that has found its way into an argument.

A premise is a proposition? And so now that you've likened it to something else what does that change?
The premise found its way? What it just got lost?

No. The person making the argument chose that premise. Lets not trip over anthropomorphism here.

You shouldn't be: I have made my point that many premises are adopted pretty much for their flavour.

Ah, but choice! Why that flavour and not another one?

That you still have to ask is further evidence that you massively overestimate your wit, that you are an idiot and that you are boring.

How do I respond to this when it's not even wrong?

For somebody who brings grater wit, less idiocy and far less boredom to the table, you sure can't say much about WHY you make the choices that you make. You describe your qualitative entirety in a word: aesthetics.

Heh! The poverty of your vocabulary speaks to the volume of your knowledge.

[tillingborn]

Heh! The poverty of your vocabulary speaks to the volume of your knowledge.

I'm here to learn Skepdick. What have you got?

[Skepdick]

I'm here to learn Skepdick. What have you got?

Top Gear top tip: Know-what (facts) are inferior forms of knowledge to know-how and know-why.

Facts are useless if you don't know what to do with them and why. Reason is a slave to passion...

[Immanuel Can]

If I make a decision not for objective reasons that you can share, and to which all rational people would be bound to subscribe, my reasons must be subjective. Call such reasons what you will; my word is aesthetic.

No, if "all rational people would be bound to subscribe" to something, then you must be rational, not aesthetic. If you are aesthetic in your thinking, then nobody is "bound" to "subscribe" to it at all.

[tillingborn]

I'm here to learn Skepdick. What have you got?

Top Gear top tip: Know-what (facts) are inferior forms of knowledge to know-how and know-why.
Facts are useless if you don't know what to do with them and why.

If you had to sum up David Hume in a couple of sentences, that's a pretty good job. If you stick with philosophy long enough what you will find is that after thousands of years and billions of thoughts, the people who think their ideas are unique are just ignorant. The people whose ideas really are unique are mental.

Reason is a slave to passion...

Hume says passion, I say aesthetic; whatever floats your boat.

[tillingborn]

If I make a decision not for objective reasons that you can share, and to which all rational people would be bound to subscribe, my reasons must be subjective. Call such reasons what you will; my word is aesthetic.

No, if "all rational people would be bound to subscribe" to something, then you must be rational, not aesthetic. If you are aesthetic in your thinking, then nobody is "bound" to "subscribe" to it at all.

Brandolini was right. You are too stupid, too vain, too fearful, too insane, too something to realise, or acknowledge that what we believe is a matter of choice. The same choice you insist your God endowed us with. You choose what to believe then you are rational.

[VVilliam]

If I make a decision not for objective reasons that you can share, and to which all rational people would be bound to subscribe, my reasons must be subjective. Call such reasons what you will; my word is aesthetic.

No, if "all rational people would be bound to subscribe" to something, then you must be rational, not aesthetic. If you are aesthetic in your thinking, then nobody is "bound" to "subscribe" to it at all.

Brandolini was right. You are too stupid, too vain, too fearful, too insane, too something to realise, or acknowledge that what we believe is a matter of choice. The same choice you insist your God endowed us with. You choose what to believe then you are rational.

I see that it appears people have experienced the same type of behavior as I recently have from Immanuel. "Too fearful" is what my impression of him mostly is, with a propensity to obsess about the 'proper' use of language with the addition of a superiority complex. Hard to reach out to he is.
I do doubt that any real god taught Immanuel to behave the way he does...but acknowledge the shame/shadow cast by his behavior has on the very notion of a creator.

[Immanuel Can]

You are...

You are ad hominem. And you are fearful of logic, apparently.

[Skepdick]

If you had to sum up David Hume in a couple of sentences, that's a pretty good job. If you stick with philosophy long enough what you will find is that after thousands of years and billions of thoughts, the people who think their ideas are unique are just ignorant. The people whose ideas really are unique are mental.

Oh. You are still pursuing ideas for their uniqueness? As if that's a heuristic for anything of value.

Indeed, that is an ignorant pursuit. Alas go forth with the neomania.

Ideas are instruments for solving problems. If you don't have any problems - you don't need any ideas. Yes, the instrumentalists said that already - yet you are busy re-discovering it.

[tillingborn]

If you had to sum up David Hume in a couple of sentences, that's a pretty good job. If you stick with philosophy long enough what you will find is that after thousands of years and billions of thoughts, the people who think their ideas are unique are just ignorant. The people whose ideas really are unique are mental.

Oh. You are still pursuing ideas for their uniqueness?

Seriously? Do you really think that is implied in what I said?