@craigwarmke Well you forgot to be a commander and legislator. Rookie mistake, really. Should've taken "PHIL501: Will to Power" at UNC instead. Maybe you'll be a real philosopher one day
@boreddeleuzian@PhilWMagness Aren't you the same person who admonishes people for not having read Marx? You just admitted you haven't read him, yet you still march out the trope when convenient
https://t.co/MrWvtxdBKs
@KellMorrHK Ah, what a serious interlocutor! Peddling talking points everyone has heard a million times before. Iโd tell you to read Marx before embarrassing yourself like that, but I suspect you donโt have that capacity.
@ortho_michael@ErickYbarra3 Well, belief about a proposition doesn't necessitate anything about it's truth. Eternal generation is true whether you believe it or not. But I think I understand what you are getting at
Nevertheless, what you said didn't address my question, which was for Erick anyway.
@dwaldenwrites Imagine insulting someone over the rigor of their work when you are too lazy to do a simple Google search. You didn't read @craigwarmke CV or his published work in logic or metaphysics. Instead you took one look at his current title and posted this slop for everyone to suffer
@BobMurphyEcon@DineshDSouza Bob, do you believe middle knowledge is compatible with the (i) doctrine of premotion or (ii) the proposition that undetermined free action is impossible?
@Acolyte83349490@ChristandGuitar Agreed, on both fronts. Maybe a better way to express my question is whether suspension of belief is tantamount to disbelief in this case.
Usually, withholding judgement is not the same is holding a proposition to be false.
@ChristandGuitar He might elsewhere, but he doesn't reject eternal generation in this clip. He said he doesn't believe it; nor does he disbelieve it.
He actually said "I am skeptical of this doctrine ... I don't want to deny [it] outright"
So didn't you mischaracterize his view?
@Acolyte83349490@ChristandGuitar At the end, Craigs says he neither believes nor disbelieves it. I took that to mean his attitude is closer to agnosticism. He doesn't believe it's true, but he doesn't believe it's false either. He just witholds judgement. Is that quite as serious as outright denying it?
@Protestia To be fair, he said he doesn't disbelieve it either, meaning he does not believe it to be false. So he isn't rejecting it per se; he's refraining from taking a position. He lacks a belief on the proposition's truth. That's not good, but agnosticism isn't the same as denying it
@CatholicTheist@BibleRollApp@BishopJaxi@BruceSaiFun Not saying he's right, but it sounds like @BruceSaiFun believes there are biblical reasons to oppose moral evils like these, but Trent (and Powers) don't understand scripture well enough to know what they are. And this leads Mulsims to think there are no such reasons
@LizzieMarbach@Trent_Horn > People with full mental capacity will be damned unless they believe in Christ
> It's possible some 5 year old children have full mental capacity and do not believe in Christ
> Therefore, it's possible that God damns some 5yo children to hell
That's your argument?
@bkogel89 Ostrom and Bloominton school work on common pool resources might be of interest. It's a little different than what you're asking, but that research is full of examples infering how untried, large-scale institutions could work by looking at existing, self-governing local commons.