Conversion

[Jon Paul]

Sorry but I see semantic arguments. I don't see where you provide extraordinarily concrete evidence for an objective mind, a 'God' actually existing.

That an argument is "semantic" can mean many things. For instance, any propositional argument or evidence has semantics, which means the definitions contained in the variables which are only more than semantic insofar as they refer to things outside of themselves. But I am sure you mean now, that my arguments are merely meaningless words, that is, do not express actual propositions about reality and about the differrent targets to which they predicate things. Which is a fallacious tactic of debunking them, that doesn't actually achieve anything without showing why.

How is the transcendental argument, in the several forms I have given it, merely semantic? Do you deny that the things it refers to, such as the conceptual reality of logic, are realities which go beyond the merely semantic definitions of it, and intuitively into our empirical experience of reality, and hence that our viewpoint of this is really one of the things that determines whether we are coherently in accordance with reality in our epistemic affirmation of the world? How is the argument from potentiality/actuality merely semantic? Do you deny the reality and distinction between the potential and the actual?