A quick thread I've been putting off making on the future of Organised Chaos (and associated accounts):
A personal project is indefinitely (minimum a few months) eating up all my hobby time including content creation. As such, besides me appearing on Media Musings (and other
1/
@AStrasser116 From a consequentialist pov, you could take a more long term view of 'best', as in the best you can sustainably do over a prolonged period as opposed to best you can physically do in any given moment.
@worldviewdesign I might be missing something but if S being true is a contradiction, we can just say it's false, so even if S were infinitely old how does it existing and being false entail a contradiction?
Given the amount Paul has talked about the methodology of historical studies and more theological philosophical discussions like divine hiddeness and the problem of evil, it seems to me he does care about philosophy even if it isn't the main focus of his content
@isaCatholicGuy@SecularOutpost could you distinguish between an item or concept that possesses no form and an otherwise identical item/concept that possesses form?
Even granting all of the other points you made, how do you tell that the concepts we've assigned the words good and evil to have to possess form?
Static structures of power lend themselves to being manipulated by nature of changes external to the structure over time combined with human tendencies to think about power structures as manipulatable systems, ergo my anarchism
@worldviewdesign I know I'd certainly like to see some better laid out distinctions too (but then I'm still doing my undergrad so I'm getting familiar with the literature just yet ๐)
@worldviewdesign I'm not familiar with the specific argument you're referencing but couldn't an eliminativist respond to such a critique that it would be expected we'd have to rely on mental state terminology until we have a more accurate description of the brain states they mean?
@divecndr@VicedRhino That's possibly because one of the narrow contexts in which evidences is acceptable is specifically Christian historical evidences, I've seen it in multiple dictionaries but I'll cite OED (III.6.c. of the below link for the specifically Christian usage)
https://t.co/mPxGMfoHTv
@divecndr@VicedRhino While evidence is the more common pluralisation of evidence, there can be contexts where evidences is correct (like certain academic instances where its a countable context)
Some of the people responding to this really aren't ready for the conversation that atheism and theism are polysemic and someone can be both an atheist and a theist