Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'arguments'.
Found 5 results
-
Here's my argument: Arguments that appeal to the emotions of other people are valid arguments. Why? Because they CAN be used to convince people, which is the purpose of an argument. The problem is that Emotional Arguments often violate other clear rules of philosophy, but they can be constructed to actually point to the truth. Thank you for reading, let me know if you have any ideas or comments below.
-
Hey Guys I have a quote that I filtered out of one or a couple of Stefan's Podcasts. I'm not sure if he said it or talked about it, if it was once or a couple of times. First the quote, second my attempt to defend it. *sorry that should say Paraphrase: quote and filtered out. Be wary, Be very Wary of people who say that morality doesn't matter, because they do get to enjoy the spoils of other people's morality. If you believe in morality and I don't. I still get to enjoy your believe in morality. Meaning you not punching me. You not stealing from me. Whereas I can hit you, punch you, steal from you and so on. Enjoy is a value statement and if I say morality doesn't matter, then that is a contradiction. Because morality does matter to me insofar it matters to others. In order for me to hit, punch, steal from them. Please can someone point out where I made mistakes?? Thank you
-
A response to a criticism I see all over the internet.
-
Hey everyone, I have read Stefan's book against the God's on three different occassions. I accept the arguments but I do have a problem with this argument as I do not believe it to be valid: Omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow. I consdier myself to be a rational empiricist and I am not an athiest anymore than I am an agopherist(someone who believes in an invisable gopher in the sky with no mass) or aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky with no mass). I am an athiest but I do not think the word is nessisarry as a word isn't needed for the acknoledgement of not believing in the non existent as being rational and empirical fits the bill. Your just not dillusional. If I have missed something in my critque or made an error please let me know and I would love to be corrected. If however you believe my critique to be rational and on point please let me know. I have attached it in the file: Omnipotent vs. Omniscience Rebutal.pdf
-
I asked 15 question to Libertarians, this is the breakdown of the answers I received.
