Klorophyll,
I had written: I became convinced by means of reason, Klorophyll. I'm not a skeptic, I'm an Objectivist.
You responded: That's not an answer, pal. Objectivism, by the way, is heavily rejected by contemporary academic philosophers.
It is in fact a direct answer to your question. You asked me how I knew something. The method is reason. It's always going to be the same answer. I did not elaborate because I sensed that the question was not being asked honestly. As we'll see below, I was right. I don't waste my time with dishonest questions.
As for your unnamed contemporary academic philosophers, why should I consider anything they have to say since they reject reason and reality. If you want to take your cue from them, go ahead, but watch out for those stolen concepts.
I had written: If by a deity you mean some kind of supernatural being, then I don't think such a thing is possible, to begin with. The notion of the supernatural is fraught with contradictions and stolen concepts.
You replied: It's not fraught with anything, it's your skeptical urge that tends to overcomplicate. Once you think clearly about an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal deity, you can't find a contradiction.
Hmmm, again you charge me with skepticism. How would one "think clearly about an omnipotent, eternal deity" except by using one's imagination? I can't perceive it directly and I can't infer it's existence from rationally informed premises. All that's left to me is imagining it. But, the imaginary is just that, imaginary. One can ascribe any characteristics that one wants to something that one is imagining such as omniscience, omnipotence, and eternality. But how can we reliably distinguish between something that is merely imaginary and something that is real since you reject reason as a propper method?
I wrote: If you really want to know my reasons, you'll find them in the Objectivist Metaphysics and the Objectivist theory of concepts.
You replied: Yeah, sure. I was even planning to call Ayn Rand herself to share with us these reasons on your behalf, but it turns out she's dead.
See, I knew you weren't really interested.
I had written: I became convinced by means of reason, Klorophyll. I'm not a skeptic, I'm an Objectivist.
You responded: That's not an answer, pal. Objectivism, by the way, is heavily rejected by contemporary academic philosophers.
It is in fact a direct answer to your question. You asked me how I knew something. The method is reason. It's always going to be the same answer. I did not elaborate because I sensed that the question was not being asked honestly. As we'll see below, I was right. I don't waste my time with dishonest questions.
As for your unnamed contemporary academic philosophers, why should I consider anything they have to say since they reject reason and reality. If you want to take your cue from them, go ahead, but watch out for those stolen concepts.
I had written: If by a deity you mean some kind of supernatural being, then I don't think such a thing is possible, to begin with. The notion of the supernatural is fraught with contradictions and stolen concepts.
You replied: It's not fraught with anything, it's your skeptical urge that tends to overcomplicate. Once you think clearly about an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal deity, you can't find a contradiction.
Hmmm, again you charge me with skepticism. How would one "think clearly about an omnipotent, eternal deity" except by using one's imagination? I can't perceive it directly and I can't infer it's existence from rationally informed premises. All that's left to me is imagining it. But, the imaginary is just that, imaginary. One can ascribe any characteristics that one wants to something that one is imagining such as omniscience, omnipotence, and eternality. But how can we reliably distinguish between something that is merely imaginary and something that is real since you reject reason as a propper method?
I wrote: If you really want to know my reasons, you'll find them in the Objectivist Metaphysics and the Objectivist theory of concepts.
You replied: Yeah, sure. I was even planning to call Ayn Rand herself to share with us these reasons on your behalf, but it turns out she's dead.
See, I knew you weren't really interested.
