Philosoft

This again? Do you have anything other than pure sophistry this time, theo?

Bill Snedden

I like this and intend to use it on the first opportunity that presents itself.

I heartily agree; at least insofar as the "most people haven't got a clue..." bit. But, isn't it funny, when I investigate or ponder the meaning of "meaning", it leads me ineluctably not only to naturalistic answers, but to the profound conviction that non-naturalistic answers, in and of themselves, are insufficient.

I mean, it may be the case that the universe owes its existence to a supernatural cause, but it seems to me that "meaning" has an inextricable subjective component. If "meaning" isn't at least partially derived by the subject, it doesn't seem to me that it can be connected to the subject.

In other words, if "meaning" doesn't derive its meaning at least in part from us, then it just can't be meaningful to us. Of course, if the universe is supernatural in origin, that could very likely have been the most efficient way for the "cause" to work its "magic." On the other hand, it fits in with a naturalistic explanation as well.

Regards,

Bill the recovering non-traditional Catholic (with apologies to Albert for stealing his sig...)

theophilus

theophilus

Thanks for playing, but no cigar. This is a tautology, at best, i.e., "bachelors" = unmarried men.

I thought about this on the drive home (I post from several different locations so the "proctology-obsessed aliens" can't get a fix on me) and I gave you too much credit.

It's partly my fault; I should have said "it is impossible to prove a universal negative PROPOSITION." Your statement is not a proposition but a cleverly disguised version of the Law of Contradiction.

"A (bachelors) cannot be A (unmarried males) and non-A (married males) at the same time and in the same sense."

However, even if I credit your "proof," you've failed to provide a non-theistic epistemology (or metaphysic for that matter) which requires the Law of Contradition to be normative. So, according to my "conventional logic," which denies the Law of Contradiction, I deny your proof, i.e., There are married bachelors.

theophilus

No, not "again," but still. Do you have anything better than mere ejaculation?

Demigawd

Back-peddling to your original objection. I like it. You would make a fine politician.

Quote:

Well, as I have stated many times on this website, those who post should read carefully before responding; I did NOT assert anything as to the existence of supernatural powers and you obviously missed the point of what I did say.

If you have a point, please state it plainly for us "ignorant boob" infidels because we're slow on understanding rhetorical evasiveness. This is your assertion, not mine:

Since I'm an agnostic, I have to be open to different opinions. However, that does not mean I'm "open" to all opinions being equal. Give me observable evidence, or STFU, is my motto.

theophilus

Since your an agnostic, you can't know anything as being true or false, so take your own advice.

theophilus

Pay attention!

I was refuting your mischaracterization of what "Christians believe." I'm not here to give a theology lesson; well, I guess I am, but only indirectly.

Philosoft

It's not a tautology, it's a logical contradiction. And of because said logical contradiction, a priori there are no unmarried bachelors. Thus, Bill's negative statement, while trivial in the utmost, is universally true.
Heh. Better than "mere ejaculation" for what? Making babies?

In any case, presuppositionalism is sophistry because no worldview is more externally valid than another, despite your protestations otherwise. Your reasons for rejecting naturalistic explanations for knowledge are wholly inadequate. Alas, this is probably off-topic, and would be better suited for its own thread, if you intend to continue with it.

Demigawd

Brilliant! Theophilus the self-proclaimed apologetic stands beside his stance of "I know you are, but what am I?"

BTW: I mean exactly what I have written. If you can't stand direct criticism of your mythology, then stay away from direct contestation. Being an agnostic doesn't mean "woe is me! He may be right so I'd better keep my trap shut!" It means "put up or shut up." You have not put forth anything other than "I must proclaim my faith no matter what". So, your stance is nothing other than of a fanatic.