Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 4:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:34 pm
The real point was that you should be able to evaluate that argument and find flaws in it without my assistance.
I can do the work for you, but if you are ever to be a top philosophical miond, you really ought to be able to do this unassisted.

Do you really need my help to find out that an argument which asserts natural impossibility for a supernatural entity misses the mark?
I am confident of my argument and that you will not be able to put any dent or discover any holes in my argument. You should consider your own limitations and ignorance as well. Btw, I have not read any impressive presentations from you at all. All you do is making noises due to the pains in your ass.

If you make any claims against my argument, then the onus is on you to provide the justification of your claim, this is typical of what is going in the philosophical and intellectual community.
It is your discretion whether to do so or not.
I had already told you what is fundamentally wrong with the argument in question. Saying that the creator of the universe cannot have a property because the contents of the creation cannot have it is a failure.

And that has been my point in this thread. Not that I should waste my time on that "impossibility to be true" argument, which doesn't deserve my effort. My point is that you don't need to know which great philosopher Pete is channeling, you are out of your depth with just the people on this forum. You are not in competition with the greats, you aren't taking on Hume and winning. You are just this fatuous little man who can't even work out what is wrong with that glaringly bad argument.
You think your are right [smart whatever] but I know you are wrong and you have never shown nor displayed any philosophical competence anyway, except getting irritated out of your own ignorance and making all sort of noises.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6214
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:38 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 4:53 am
I am confident of my argument and that you will not be able to put any dent or discover any holes in my argument. You should consider your own limitations and ignorance as well. Btw, I have not read any impressive presentations from you at all. All you do is making noises due to the pains in your ass.

If you make any claims against my argument, then the onus is on you to provide the justification of your claim, this is typical of what is going in the philosophical and intellectual community.
It is your discretion whether to do so or not.
I had already told you what is fundamentally wrong with the argument in question. Saying that the creator of the universe cannot have a property because the contents of the creation cannot have it is a failure.

And that has been my point in this thread. Not that I should waste my time on that "impossibility to be true" argument, which doesn't deserve my effort. My point is that you don't need to know which great philosopher Pete is channeling, you are out of your depth with just the people on this forum. You are not in competition with the greats, you aren't taking on Hume and winning. You are just this fatuous little man who can't even work out what is wrong with that glaringly bad argument.
You think your are right [smart whatever] but I know you are wrong and you have never shown nor displayed any philosophical competence anyway, except getting irritated out of your own ignorance and making all sort of noises.
Yeah. I'm pretty obviously right in my analysis of that other argument. And it should be fairly obvious that I referenced it not only because I knew that you aren't good enough at this stuff to spot the problem yourself, but also because you aren't flexible enough to deal with any errors you have made either.

So once you realised that applying the limitations of the natural world to a supernatural object cannot support a conclusion that therefore the object cannot exist at all it really just becomes a race of you against you. You would have outperformed your usual limitations by quickly realising that the argument at the very least needs some work. But the only way for you to ever become a worthwhile philosopher is for you to learn how to analyse arguments for yourself. You have no talent that makes it easy for you, so will have to do a lot of work instead.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:52 am Yeah. I'm pretty obviously right in my analysis of that other argument. And it should be fairly obvious that I referenced it not only because I knew that you aren't good enough at this stuff to spot the problem yourself, but also because you aren't flexible enough to deal with any errors you have made either.

So once you realised that applying the limitations of the natural world to a supernatural object cannot support a conclusion that therefore the object cannot exist at all it really just becomes a race of you against you. You would have outperformed your usual limitations by quickly realising that the argument at the very least needs some work. But the only way for you to ever become a worthwhile philosopher is for you to learn how to analyse arguments for yourself. You have no talent that makes it easy for you, so will have to do a lot of work instead.
I am well aware my argument is against the basic fallacy of equivocation and conflation.
This fundamental fallacy is applied by all theists in their argument, i.e. they will typically jump from scientific facts [& other basis] to a theological fact based on a FSK of very low credibility.

Whatever counters and refutations that had been presented therein, I have already counter them, in my view, successfully.

My logical arguments relied heavily on Kant's 'It is impossible to prove the existence of God'
  • "We do not have intuitive knowledge of God, we see him as if in the mirror, not into the face" Kant says in his post-death works.
    Therefore, it is impossible to infer the existence of God from the concept of God.
    This concept is a product of pure reason, and an example of transcendental perfection (author)
However, my approach is not merely a straightforward logical argument but it has to include other considerations, e.g. neurosciences, psychology, anthropology, etc. which I am aware is beyond you.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6214
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Peter Holmes, Who are Your Supporting Philosophers?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 7:24 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:52 am Yeah. I'm pretty obviously right in my analysis of that other argument. And it should be fairly obvious that I referenced it not only because I knew that you aren't good enough at this stuff to spot the problem yourself, but also because you aren't flexible enough to deal with any errors you have made either.

So once you realised that applying the limitations of the natural world to a supernatural object cannot support a conclusion that therefore the object cannot exist at all it really just becomes a race of you against you. You would have outperformed your usual limitations by quickly realising that the argument at the very least needs some work. But the only way for you to ever become a worthwhile philosopher is for you to learn how to analyse arguments for yourself. You have no talent that makes it easy for you, so will have to do a lot of work instead.
I am well aware my argument is against the basic fallacy of equivocation and conflation.
This fundamental fallacy is applied by all theists in their argument, i.e. they will typically jump from scientific facts [& other basis] to a theological fact based on a FSK of very low credibility.

Whatever counters and refutations that had been presented therein, I have already counter them, in my view, successfully.

My logical arguments relied heavily on Kant's 'It is impossible to prove the existence of God'
  • "We do not have intuitive knowledge of God, we see him as if in the mirror, not into the face" Kant says in his post-death works.
    Therefore, it is impossible to infer the existence of God from the concept of God.
    This concept is a product of pure reason, and an example of transcendental perfection (author)
However, my approach is not merely a straightforward logical argument but it has to include other considerations, e.g. neurosciences, psychology, anthropology, etc. which I am aware is beyond you.
That was all utterly besides the point. Try again.
Post Reply