The conclusion Kenny is working towards is agnosticism. But with this piece, from the second page, he seems to be assuming the virtue of the middle path between credulity and scepticism - to be assuming agnosticism.
SO arguably the article is an exercise in question begging; he assumes his conclusion. But isn't it reasonable to seek this middle ground, rather than to believe without warrant? — Banno
If religious stories are taken to be allegories that profess metaphorical truths then I think the difficulty disappears — Janus
Ultimately, theism is not a theory about some purported being that either exists or doesn't exist, and about which science might have something to say. It's a theory about the nature of reality itself, not about some purported super-engineer or director which might or might not exist. The fact that justification is cast in these pseudo-empirical terms is an indicator of a deep misconception about the nature of the question. — Wayfarer
You are trying to argue for life when the reasons of so many have been shown to be fallacious. — Darkneos
Well, only Wayfarer has had a go. Disappointing, but not surprising. — Banno
It is. You are arguing it’s only natural to do so so it’s appeal to nature. I’ve already said why it’s not logical to want to do it. Stop repeating the same debunked arguments. Desire and emotion are not reasons for doing something, they are simple feelings that come and go. We choose to assign meanings to such things when in reality they don’t mean anything. Take away what we attach to them and they are pure sensations, not reasons for doing anything. — Darkneos
We choose to assign meanings to such things when in reality they don’t mean anything. Take away what we attach to them and they are pure sensations, not reasons for doing anything. — Darkneos
Both those points are false. Life is not worth it. Nor is it fun. It just is. There is no logic to doing something because it is fun. Why can’t people see that? Just because most people believe that doesn’t make it true or logical. — Darkneos
And simply asserting that doesn't make it so. Life may not be so enjoyable for you at the current moment. But I'm certainly enjoying it! Am I lying or broken?
People can't see it because it is not true. It makes no sense not to do what you like. In your view, I should just sit and wait for time to go by while I come home after a long day of school. Because apparently wanting to have fun doesn't count as a reason to play a game with my buddies. It doesn't compute to people who truly do get enjoyment out of the things they do. Perhaps you can't but that doesn't mean I can't either.
— Darkneos
I know I can’t expect to convince folks of this because they are too attached to life and can’t see clearly. — Darkneos
Again just because many people say something doesn’t make it true. I have already shown every argument for living to not be logical and rooted in fallacy yet people want to believe otherwise. — Darkneos
I’ve already explained why pleasure is not a reason to live. — Darkneos
ppeal to nature argument. Just because something is natural doesn’t make it good to follow. And I have already explained why not. As I said if you take it further then there is no reason to do anything at all. — Darkneos
It’s not. It just shows that death is the only option left. Life requires to a reason to exist, at least for people. We are past the point of being unquestioning animals. Yet there is no ultimate reason for existence or living. Reproduction is what live does but that doesn’t mean it should. Therefore there is and never will be a reason for living (that isn’t rooted in appeals to emotion or nature, AKA fallacies) making death the only logical choice. — Darkneos
Again it isn't but I'm tired of repeating myself. There is no reason for me to eat ice cream even if I like it, me liking it is not a reason to do it. Why is that so hard to grasp? There is no reason to pursue a feeling either by the same logic. — Darkneos
So you deny that there can be a reason to do anything and then go on to say that life needs a reason to continue which by implication means that death is the only option. This seems fallacious at worst and requiring justification at best. Or did I misunderstand? If so, sorry.Nothing, because there is no reason to really do anything. However in doing nothing by extension of this you eventually reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore (death). Life needs a reason, death doesn't. Life only goes if you upkeep it, death will come one way or the other without your help. — Darkneos
Again, emotion. All I can say about eating ice cream is that I like it, but that doesn't mean I do it. — Darkneos
They can't see how that does not follow. — Darkneos
What is good theology? I believe that some posters here have a good grasp on natural theology but they dont make posts about it.bad theology — Banno
You may as well ask for a justification to eat ice cream, or any other pleasant thing. If you don’t like ice cream, then it makes sense to ask “Why should I eat this? What do I get out of it?” But if you do like ice cream, you just want to eat it, and you may be willing to go through some hardships to get it, but you don’t need any further justification for eating it: it’s an end in itself. — Pfhorrest
Because it does not follow. Your chain of reasoning does not compute. You need to stop at "happiness feels good", that's all logic can tell you. None of that is logically justified. Just because something feels good doesn't mean you do it. Come on I already shut this part down. — Darkneos
Humans aren't driven by logic, they're driven by emotion and logic usually just accommodates how people feel. I don't think suicide is illogical, I think it's motivated by negative emotions which cloud judgement. — Judaka
Happiness from what I can tell has no logical justification. People believe that just because something feels good they should keep doing it even though that is not really logical. — Darkneos
But society is scared to accommodate them because we have this paranoia about death and encouraging people to live when they clearly don't wish to. — Darkneos
You clearly didn’t read the part where I said that stuff dies too. My mother doesn’t remember the dreams of her grandparents and my grandmother with dementia doesn’t remember her family’s either. As I said everything ends and you can’t seem to accept that. Your ego dies to because eventually people will forget. Think of all the people who have lived and only a handful are written of in books while the rest are lost to time. Even the current ones will only last as long as we do or as long as we remember them. But everything dies, nothing lives on. We are not immortal. The only ignorant one is you who can’t see the reasons so far aren’t good ones for living and are rooted in fallacies. I mean you have hope which is by itself illogical and privileged. Open your eyes. — Darkneos
More like you have serious death anxiety and can't accept that oblivion is the ultimate fate of everyone eventually. I have heard other versions but they don't address the issue just skirt around it. Like so many others you cower before the void. — Darkneos
Perhaps I am greedy for wanting more lives and bodies. — Jack Cummins
What about eternal return? — Merkwurdichliebe
I just mean that there is a diversity of opinion when it comes to exotic imaginary scenarios involving personal identity. Our intuitions don't seem to deliver a uniform verdict. Some have strong (and divergent) opinions, others are uncertain. — SophistiCat
Well, your thought experiment shows only that if you assume dualism at the outset, then dualism is what you will conclude. Same with identity thought experiments: they need not pose problems for physicalism unless you have already assumed that they do. — SophistiCat
I don't know if it is merely a language problem. We don't have the technology of course, but it still outlines a problem hypothetically, doesn't it? If we are nothing more than our physical body or its arrangement then there is no soul and thus if one were to make 2 of me then I should be both. But since that is impossible there has to be something else a pointer or whatever else extra you can get? It's not merely about continuity alone. It's about what constitutes the self in its entirety. So this problem is close to but not the same as the ship of Theseus.The broken teleporter is a nice redux of the ship Theseus paradox which concerns continuity of identity. It is essentially a language problem as far as I can see. In everyday scenarios, we don't need to worry about discontinuities of form alongside continuities of physical constitution or vice versa: my physical constitution gradually changes but I remain me albeit with a time-dependent physical constitution. — Kenosha Kid
The linguistic issue is that, based on our experience with language, we have one word to describe two things that we can easily differentiate. One simply has to choose more careful language if this becomes a real problem. For what it's worth, the "identical parts" idea of identity seems like a non-starter, since when I say "I", I am referring to a continuous thing that does not have static components. The "original you" or the "original Theseus" does not have any relevance in that case. — Kenosha Kid
I for one, do not share this intuition.Yet it seems to me that psychology and dogs are physical phenomena — Manuel
By saying "mental", I'm following Galen Strawson here, we merely want to say that within physical reality, which encompasses all reality, we are focusing on the mental aspects of the physical, instead of the chemical aspects. This emphatically is not "eliminitavism", or anything like that, the physical is not physics, it's everything. — Manuel
You'd need to explain why there needs to be something else besides the physical. So I don't see any inconsistency here. — Manuel