To defend the OP on two points though...
(March 17, 2016 at 1:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You cannot prove the existence of something in reality via argument, particularly not through a philosophical argument: you can't, essentially, talk something into existence. Philosophy has its uses, but nowhere among those is the ability to demonstrate objective reality.Well, no, not really... I mean the whole purpose of philosophy is to demonstrate objective reality. That's what reason basically amounts to: beginning with a set of axioms that are known exclusively to the intellect and deducing from these more particular concepts to intelligibly explain the structures that make experience possible.
Quote:You're really doing nothing more than playing word games, and worse still, they're all negative word games anyway, as I'll soon show, but for now, there's this: logic is only as good as the data you feed into it. You have included no data here, and thus cannot come to a conclusion that shows anything about reality. Only about some hypothetical reality where everything works exactly as you've said; you've done nothing to demonstrate that our reality is that reality.Again, I couldn't disagree more. To the extent that he's attempting to construct a metaphysical worldview based on simple axioms from which further propositions logically follow, he's not obliged to "demonstrate that our reality is that reality." He simply has to show that his reasons are both valid and consistent with the data. While that doesn't mean that his proof describes our reality--a challenge that no worldview can successfully meet--it establishes it as an alternative to which reasonable people can ascribe, granting that human reason is fallible.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza