Remi | Philosophy Guy

Lover of debate, dialogue, and high school and collegiate speech and debate. Anti-eristic discourse
Founder of @forensicfunnel | Philosophy | Agnostic

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

The second impact:
https://t.co/FXXsaHoz4J

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@beerandtrump This has made me finally remember why I am barely on Twitter any more

[Azad @woarna_is_right]

There’s an entire genre of tweets that have become popular on this site that are some variation of “now that I have a child I’m ok with killing everything” and it’s incredibly bizarre.

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@patternscreamr2 @hzrnvm To be honest, I am still skeptical about math being reducible to formal logic even on a neo-logicist picture

[florence 🦐🏳️‍🌈 @morallawwithin]

Please read Rawls. The Veil of Ignorance is an ILLUSTRATION meant to reflect the fact that justice has to be reasoned about in abstraction from your particular conditions. It’s not a metaphysical thesis about persons being separable from their circumstances or whatever.

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@woarna_is_right @MartinTweats Indeed there are only some theories in FOL which are both syntactically and semantically complete. Although I doubt the quoted commenter knows all that much about metalogic this is true. In any case there are several logics which are syntactically *and* semantically complete

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@aquavitae96 @fiercepatricks Neither you or any other theist will ever provide any good argument against gay marriage or homosexuality. Sorry to say

[Azad @woarna_is_right]

Ibn Sina was actually a generational genius Metaphysician. Apparently, 10 centuries ago he proposed a principle on the interaction between quantification and possibility that was independently rederived by modal metaphysicians and logicians during the 20th century.

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

At a glance, this argument will need a lot of motivation since it rests on many premises that aren't self-evident and quite controversial, to list, why should we accept a distinction between "essence" and "existence" (
assuming there is an essense), I have various gripes with act-potency but the next natural question is why we should accept such a heavyweight metaphysics. In any case, going from “no infinite regress in per se causal series” to “a first uncaused cause that is the theistic God” relies on assumptions about causality and per se series that are-- in my perspective-- far from demonstrative once you press them logically

I think it would be fair to start with those before we even begin to scrutinize the premises

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@AleMartnezR1 @CatholicCo200 @philobrossuckdi @BrandonTheAdams @EllenFantasmic Will respond in a bit

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@woarna_is_right Me

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@leslieginlewes I don't see how someone's purposes in reading changes whether an author's work is boring

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

No one talks about how unbelievably boring reading Aristotle is as compared to reading Plato.

It's day and night

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@itsallstraw @AleMartnezR1 Fair enough

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@Ben_Jobe85 What's the YT? Perhaps it is not much with just myself but any support is good support

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

> I also struggle to see naturalism in general as a coherent idea independently of physicalism - after all, if God/angels exist then in what sense are they "unnatural" unless we're defining natural to be the same as physical? And idealism opens the door to causal closure being broken, and I would think naturalism would require causal closure?

Naturalism doesn't entail physicalism, some versions may be incredibly close to it though, naturalism is more inclusive. Naturalism itself leaves conceptual room for non-physical entities—as long as they’re still “natural” in some broader sense e.g. everything could be fundamentally mental so the natural world is fundamentally mental and then you would have to cut up some demarcation for what supernatural would be. As far as angels and God goes I think it would also depend on how the naturalist is characterizing supernatural (assuming it is in an informative way) I also don't think naturalism requires causal closure

But the idealism part was moreso about what atheists could be simpliciter since the presupp is not just arguing against naturalists but non-theists broadly

> I was specifically referring to our "truthsensing" faculty, which I liken to like one of our physical senses. In the same way that I can tell the leaf is green and the sky blue through immediate apprehension, I can immediately apprehend that 2 + 2 = 4 or that killing children for fun is morally wrong.

Got it, I do think intuitions and other epistemic faculties are fine if epistemic circularity is valid or invalid, in the case of the latter I think the discussion would revolve around reliability and what justifies these epistemic faculties, it would be laborous to get into any one specific view but I think the library of views there is rich enough to substantially provide the atheists with options contrary to the presupp's claim that it is impossible

Although, I will say-- which I am sure you would disagree with-- I think atheists and everyone else are better off becoming relativists about anything anyways but that is only a tangential point

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@PrayPuffPlay Well, I mean, this seems unrelated to the argument, no? Whatever world you were talking about I'd say

[Remi | Philosophy Guy @Remithephilguy]

@BrentHeren86685 @LatFilosof I don't think you answered any of his questions, how are you characterizing "Truth" here?