Limitation defines existence, because existence is defined by limitation. Limitation exists because it has to exist. Classic examples of circular logic.Astro Cat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:01 amLimitation exists because it necessarily existsImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:30 amThat doesn't really help. It's ex post facto. It means, maths and logic have to be real, because we see they're already real. It doesn't really explain why they exist in the first place, or how they can be are part of an (allegedly) random universal beginning.
No, the fact that something exists...and that it's coherent, and describable by rationality and mathematics, and that there exist creatures capable of realizing it...all of that is wildly unlikely in a random universe. It's far more unlikely than you winning the lottery six times in a row. And yet, you take those odds?
Better not play poker.
You don't have to "ensure" that nothing "exists." Nothing is non-existence. It's the non-thing that should be expected, so it doesn't have to be explained. That's why the classical philosophical question is, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" not "Why does nothing exist?"Put colloquially, if nothing exists, not even "rules," then there would be no rule ensuring that nothing exists
Nothing doesn't "exist." It means "doesn't exist."
Well, that's just another way to say that if moral realism is objective and true, then it would be "discoverable" (as in, different thinkers from completely different backgrounds could independently come to the same conclusions in the same way mathematicians do).Immanuel Can wrote:Oooh. A challenge! I love it.Astro Cat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:12 pm I’m not worried about the tactical element, though: I can defend the ontology of mathematics and logic as a consequence of limitation in reality; the moral realist won’t be able to defend “moral law” as a discovery. Or at least I’d love to see someone try.
What do you mean by "as a discovery"? I want to make sure I hit your benchmark, if I try.
Hmmm...no good.
Things are discovered at particular places at times, by particular people, working within particular suppositions. For instance, despite all the briliant people in China and India, neither country discovered science. Why not, if people all come to the same conclusions?
It's only now, after the discovery, that the Chinese and Indians (or Africans, or South Americans) have science. And they have it by using the same methods and suppositions discovered by Westerners.
So if discoveries have to be universal in order to be confirmable, then science cannot be confirmed. And I'm sure you don't think that...well, reasonably sure.
True, but the messages are getting so long that I can only reply when I have a long period of time to work on it. So that's limiting my ability to respond. I have obligations.But our debate here is mostly about this. We've covered what "good" is, but the answer you've given has decoupled "good" from "ought," so we're just waiting on when you have the time to reply about that.
So far, this other discussion is much shorter and more manageable, at least in message format.
Yes, I've said that. Atheism is bare-bones negation. (But mere "skepticism" is properly "agnosticism," not Atheism. It has to be rejection or denial to be "Atheism.")Atheism isn't a worldview, it doesn't have a full ontology other than rejection, denial, or skepticism of theistic propositions.
Atheism is one wish-based claim. That's true. But it has corollaries. Being so minimal on its own, it can't get by without certain kinds of other suppositions, among which are things like Materialism or Physicalism. Because if there are metaphysical entities in the universe, be they ghosts or angels or souls or even such things as genuine identities and consciousnesses, then Atheism gets really, really shaky. There's no reason to disbelieve anymore, unless you can convince people that the whole idea of a transcendent God is contrary to science or something. So you have to define science down to Materialism or Physicalism to obtain that. By banning metaphysics by fiat, right at the start, supppositionally, the Atheist can continue to claim that others are "irrational" and "unscientific." He can get it no other way, so far as I can see.
So I'm asking how an Atheist can avoid committing to such ontologies. And you point to yourself, and say, "I"m one." But you've said nothing about how you manage to pull that off, rationally speaking. But I'm listening.