RE: Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God
October 16, 2014 at 9:56 am
(This post was last modified: October 16, 2014 at 10:17 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(October 15, 2014 at 8:00 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That being said, my argument with you isn't about the merits of theism-- only about whether all ideas need to be supported by empirical evidence. In my opinion, many do not, in particular philosophical questions where we not only don't have the means to make empirical observations, but have no reason to think we ever will.Then we have no knowledge of such a thing. Full stop. No amount of "pure argument" will change that. Being unable to determine whether or not an argument is sound does not excuse that argument from the requirement.
Quote:My point is that if we can acknowledge we're talking about a context that reaches beyond our normal frame of reference, appeals to evidence come with a caveat: that the person making the appeal also shares some burden-- of showing that evidence means anything in the context being talked about.There's no point in appealing to logic in that context either. Demonstrate that it applies, and then demonstrate that it's useful without any way of determining that it is sound.
Quote:I think that logical extension of philosophical ideas used in our everyday context can and should be used to generate philosophical ideas for other contexts (again, like cosmogony).Why? You want to throw empiricism out based out context but retain logic? LOL...of course you do.....Because what you're about to -propose- is silly. It's not silly to ask for evidence of some mind that created this place. Or why you think that like creates like applies (and aren't you appealing to empiricism now.....). You're trying to cut off one of logics legs because it's giving you shit relative to some claim you'd like to call reasonable - but I don't think that you can actually do so....because you're still going to invoke that leg in any argument you make. Logic is now and has always been an exercise in evidence and the relationships between things in evidence in the first place. It's how the universe appears to behave, it's descriptive - and this will invariably be based in some empirical claim.
It bothers me that I even have to say this.....but you're calling a gap argument reasonable........
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
