(August 15, 2019 at 1:12 pm)Acrobat Wrote:(August 15, 2019 at 1:05 pm)Grandizer Wrote: And he hit the reply button already ... sigh ...
This sounds like something a philosophical version of Trump would say "I have eliminated all naturalistic explanations here, believe me"
By the way, your argument to be successful should not rely on my agreement with any of your premises (on in this case, your twisting my words into appearing to agree with you). The argument should be able to stand on its own and have sound, well-demonstrated premises.
But of course, rather than make that attempt, you'll just respond promptly to this post and not say much of anything.
My argument relies on people who agree that goodness and badness are objective truths, and it's not reserved for those who reject this. It's reserved for those who accept that statements like the Holocaust is bad, is objectively true, like 1+1 = 2, or the earth is round.
It's reserved for those who share the recognition, who see the objective badness and goodness of things, as I do.
So your argument is not objectively true then?
