|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« Reply #105 on: January 05, 2008, 09:08:30 AM » |
|
1. The definition of Necessary is that the terms holds. It is philosophical convention: accepted by Naturalists and Anaturalists alike.
2. You guys are welcome to argue for a non-material source for these things, but I honestly don't think you'd gain much purchase.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #106 on: January 05, 2008, 09:14:35 AM » |
|
1. The definition of Necessary is that the terms holds. It is philosophical convention: accepted by Naturalists and Anaturalists alike. Why then do you change the meaning in your proof? The fact that you have changed the meaning of necessary is the reason your proof fails. If you claim the meaning has not changed then you must show how human understanding makes F both irrefutable and independent as the definition for necessary requires. You have only shown that F is apparently irrefutable in this universe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #107 on: January 05, 2008, 10:16:48 AM » |
|
Perhaps you can show me where I changed the defintion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #108 on: January 05, 2008, 04:34:08 PM » |
|
Already did. See my previous posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #109 on: January 05, 2008, 05:10:40 PM » |
|
Already did. See my previous posts.
Then we agree you don't know what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #110 on: January 05, 2008, 05:22:23 PM » |
|
No, you still have not substantiated your proof. It contains a assumption where it should not be and uses two different senses of the word necessary. You have established that logic is irrefutable but you have not shown that it must stand on its own independent of or on anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #111 on: January 05, 2008, 06:51:27 PM » |
|
I see little reason to continue. You are simply making unsubstantiated claims. You claim "Magic man Could Have Done This or That" and now you claim that there are two different definitions of Necessary.
Back it up.
I'll wait until you read some basic philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #112 on: January 05, 2008, 07:22:23 PM » |
|
I have made no claim in this discussion. I have only asked you to follow the rules of logical proofs to substantiate the statements #1 through 4. You are unable to do so and your logical proof has gone down in flames. Meanwhile you frantically try to divert the conversation away from your failings by asking me to prove claims I have not made in this discussion.
Your proof requires that you show that F is both irrefutable (I am willing to stipulate this) and independent as implied by #3 and #4. You have not shown that logic (your example) must be independent of anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #113 on: January 05, 2008, 07:57:36 PM » |
|
RF, I have addressed all your concerns and more. You are done. If you have nothing to add, just man up to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #114 on: January 05, 2008, 08:10:28 PM » |
|
Yes you did and you fell short of the mark. You set the bar too high and couldn't clear it. It is as I said a couple of pages ago. You have failed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #115 on: January 05, 2008, 08:36:41 PM » |
|
Yes you did and you fell short of the mark. You set the bar too high and couldn't clear it. It is as I said a couple of pages ago. You have failed.
RF, are the universe's laws dependent on the universe that exists? If the Universe is Contingent, then the Laws in it can't be Necessary. We are speaking about Ontological truths, and you don't have the capacity to discuss this. You are hopelessly lost. It doesn't matter what you do, how you hem and haw, you can't get out of this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #116 on: January 06, 2008, 06:27:24 AM » |
|
Yes you did and you fell short of the mark. You set the bar too high and couldn't clear it. It is as I said a couple of pages ago. You have failed.
RF, are the universe's laws dependent on the universe that exists? If the Universe is Contingent, then the Laws in it can't be Necessary. We are speaking about Ontological truths, and you don't have the capacity to discuss this. You are hopelessly lost. It doesn't matter what you do, how you hem and haw, you can't get out of this. I am quite capable of discussing such things but it makes very little sense to discuss them seriously with someone who refuses ever to admit any error and grant that the proof he offered has fallen short of the mark. One possibility you may not have considered is that physical laws existed first making the universe dependent on them. Another is codependency. A third is that they were part of the nature of the cause and were drawn out of the cause. The Universe could have inherited the characteristics you observe from its cause. None of this matters though because you still have not shown how something that humans understand and perceive to be irrefutable therefore must be independent of anything else. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #117 on: January 06, 2008, 12:09:51 PM » |
|
You are making things up as you go along. Forget 2500 years of philosophical development, eh? Perhaps you can explain your codependency thing. Is this like IC, but the opposite? That two things can spontaneously exist as long as they need each other to exist? Really, RF!   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #118 on: January 06, 2008, 05:17:20 PM » |
|
barney, start a new thread for answers to these diversionary questions or admit you can't complete your proof so we can move along.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #119 on: January 06, 2008, 06:41:45 PM » |
|
I am asking you to expand on your idea.
I would also ask that you stay on topic and address the issue in Philosophical terms, not "RF'isms".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
