For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Do you mean the "joke" is that I wrote what I wrote, or the content of what I wrote?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:52 amAfter everything that's been said in this discussion? This has to be a joke.
The claim that the theists' god - for the existence of which there's precisely the same evidence as there is for the existence of the pantheists' god-or-nature - ie zero, zilch, nada, tipota - makes or even could make morality objective - that's the joke - given how often and how thoroughly I and others have shown that morality can't be objective. But perhaps I missed your convincing refutation of what we've argued.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 12:35 pmDo you mean the "joke" is that I wrote what I wrote, or the content of what I wrote?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:52 amAfter everything that's been said in this discussion? This has to be a joke.
So it is the content of my proposition you object to. Please bear in mind my remarks about God and God-or-Nature are hypothetical.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 12:47 pmThe claim that the theists' god - for the existence of which there's precisely the same evidence as there is for the existence of the pantheists' god-or-nature - ie zero, zilch, nada, tipota - makes or even could make morality objective - that's the joke - given how often and how thoroughly I and others have shown that morality can't be objective. But perhaps I missed your convincing refutation of what we've argued.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 12:35 pmDo you mean the "joke" is that I wrote what I wrote, or the content of what I wrote?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:52 am
After everything that's been said in this discussion? This has to be a joke.
In which case, please phrase it as a hypothetical: if the theists' god exists, then... (But anyway, that doesn't follow.)Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:38 pmSo it is the content of my proposition you object to. Please bear in mind my remarks about God and God-or-Nature are hypothetical.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 12:47 pmThe claim that the theists' god - for the existence of which there's precisely the same evidence as there is for the existence of the pantheists' god-or-nature - ie zero, zilch, nada, tipota - makes or even could make morality objective - that's the joke - given how often and how thoroughly I and others have shown that morality can't be objective. But perhaps I missed your convincing refutation of what we've argued.
You asked for proof of realism. But you're admitting that "there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false."Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:23 amNot sure of your question?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:02 pmSo if that's the case, how are we asking for proof of realism?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:16 am
The generally accepted philosophical view is there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false if verified and justified to be so. That of course would include any scientific claims.
Did you just mean any evidence for it, evidence that is not absolutely certain, and where it's possible for it to be false?
I believe what I posted somewhere is relevant here.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:42 pmYou asked for proof of realism. But you're admitting that "there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false."Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:23 amNot sure of your question?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:02 pm
So if that's the case, how are we asking for proof of realism?
Did you just mean any evidence for it, evidence that is not absolutely certain, and where it's possible for it to be false?
So I'm asking you, with respect to asking for proof of realism, if you're just asking for any evidence of realism, evidence that is not absolutely certain, where it's possible for it to be false.
That's a yes or no question.
The maxim is 'There is no Absolute Certainty'
thus, "whatever is impossible" cannot be 100% absolute certain,
so, 'whatever is impossible' can be possible,
but that is only in theory.
For you to bank on the above possible-impossibility is merely to fall into a loop, i.e. whatever you claim 'impossibility is possible' is not of absolute certainty, thus can be wrong and so onto an infinite regress.
Philosophically but we must be realistic.
We have discussed the most realistic and credible knowledge we have on hand is from the scientific FSK which is based on the empirical and the philosophical.
The Scientific FSK is the Most Credible
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333
Thus my claim, God is impossible to be real within the most realistic and credible FSR/FSK, i.e. the scientific FSR/FSK.[/list]
Therefore when I ask for proofs of [philosophical] realism, then the evidence must at least meet the requirement of the most realistic and credible FSK plus any relevant philosophical justifications for it to be realistic.
What is real to you, i.e. philosophical realism, i.e. objects-reality is mind-independent is merely an assumption within the scientific FSK.
When somebody asks for "evidence for realism" they are probably asking for evidence that justifies ONLY realism without ALSO justifying rival theories.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:42 pm You asked for proof of realism. But you're admitting that "there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false."
So I'm asking you, with respect to asking for proof of realism, if you're just asking for any evidence of realism, evidence that is not absolutely certain, where it's possible for it to be false.
That's a yes or no question.
Okay. If the theists' god exists, and the theists' god is that which reifies goodness, then the theists' god objectifies goodness.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:48 pmIn which case, please phrase it as a hypothetical: if the theists' god exists, then... (But anyway, that doesn't follow.)Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:38 pmSo it is the content of my proposition you object to. Please bear in mind my remarks about God and God-or-Nature are hypothetical.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 12:47 pm
The claim that the theists' god - for the existence of which there's precisely the same evidence as there is for the existence of the pantheists' god-or-nature - ie zero, zilch, nada, tipota - makes or even could make morality objective - that's the joke - given how often and how thoroughly I and others have shown that morality can't be objective. But perhaps I missed your convincing refutation of what we've argued.
No - I haven't used the words 'objectify' or 'reify' so far, let alone as synonyms.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:47 amOkay. If the theists' god exists, and the theists' god is that which reifies goodness, then the theists' god objectifies goodness.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:48 pmIn which case, please phrase it as a hypothetical: if the theists' god exists, then... (But anyway, that doesn't follow.)
NB I presume that by 'objectify' you intend 'reify'.
You keep telling us not to confuse what things ARE with what we SAY about them.
I'm only interested in your directly answering the question I asked, as I asked it. Is this something you're capable of?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:09 amI believe what I posted somewhere is relevant here.You asked for proof of realism. But you're admitting that "there is no absolute certainty, therefore any claim is possible to be false."
So I'm asking you, with respect to asking for proof of realism, if you're just asking for any evidence of realism, evidence that is not absolutely certain, where it's possible for it to be false.
That's a yes or no question.
Are you capable of demonstrating what that looks like in practice?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:45 pm I'm only interested in your directly answering the question I asked, as I asked it. Is this something you're capable of?
If you understood the words you would understand what they commonly mean.I haven't used the words 'objectify' or 'reify' so far, let alone as synonyms.