The Philosophy Discussion Forum

- The truth can generate a pleasure/pain reaction for both the transmitter and receiver. - The receiver’s reaction to the pain is often resentment against the transmission, or if small-minded, resentment towards the transmitter. - This can nip the pleasure of truth in the bud before it can blossom ...

Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all. There are things that all views cannot deny. What can be deduced is that there can be multiple right answers, depending on the angle one is looking from. The one thing you can know for certain, by pure logic, i...

I'm sure you agree with that. Here's something quite different. It deals with God, and with quantum theory, among other things. So it does address our topic. It's not advocating my view. It's not advocating your view. It's advocating its own view. Nevertheless, why don't we consider what it offers,...

I'm astounded that anybody can think something so obviously wrong. But let me see if I can explain. No need, I accept that I put that clumsily. This is less misleading: That's fine. Let's see if we can get your point, together. Mr Can, if the likelihood of a quantum fluctuation being the cause of t...

...nothing can be deduced from the fact that people disagree, except that people can be wrong. What can be deduced is that there can be multiple right answers, depending on the angle one is looking from. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two genuinely opposite answers cannot possibly both be...

That's a no then. Good; so we agree that any argument which includes a premise that assumes a particular uncaused cause is unsound. So...you didn't read what I said. Okay. You don't have to. Mr Can, if the likelihood of a quantum fluctuation being the cause of the universe is anything but nil, any ...

Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all. That never implies that there's no actual answer, or no actual truth. According to who? Again, logic. Person A, B, and C believe different things. Person D believes the truth. Aristotle, Locher and the Pope bel...

You'll have to make it explicit. Why? Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all. There are lots of views about lots of things. That never implies that there's no actual answer, or no actual truth. That's not a logical conclusion to draw from that eviden...

The problem is that you cannot apply a quantitative system to a qualitative event and then claim that the quantitative data proves a coincidence. They are different categories. Do we use rulers to measure how good books are? I'm not talking about a "qualitative event." I'm talking about q...

There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence for God from people's experiences, whereby rare or extraordinary events are reduced to coincidence. Sure. But what about the scientific and rational evidence? How come skeptics never seem to remember all that? Answer: because they don't want to. It messes up the ...

If that's all you can learn, that's your problem. No, that's all anybody can learn... Says you No, says logic. ...assuming that person to be logical. According to who or what? Logic. Do you not know that logic is a discipline, and has particular rules? One is that one's premises must be adequate to...

There is no universal foundation of human morality. What's your evidence for that claim? Simple observation: multiple belief systems do not create unity but contribute to disunity. Are you denying humanity shares a common biology? I'm pointing out that disagreement among humans is very common in al...

Does it take care of the fact that the universe might have been caused by an uncaused quantum fluctuation? Well, I suppose you'd begin by providing the evidence for this "quantum fluctuation" having taken place, and add the evidence for it being "uncaused," estimate the likeliho...

Any argument that includes a premise that could or could not be the case is unsound. Is that not so, Mr Can? Well, that takes care of the idea that the "might" of quantum theory presents any "challenge" to the very observable fact of causality, I would say. Does it take care of ...

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2026 12:17 am There is no universal foundation of human morality.

What's your evidence for that claim?