No, because "majority" is not the same as "universal". You can't declare a unanimous verdict with 51% of the opinion, for example. And that still provides no foundation, which makes the fact that the majority find one thing bad nothing more than an ad populum.
There's no foundation for it. The only possible foundation would be a God of sorts, but the ambiguous nature of such a being means proof of a universal morality would also be hard to come by.
Clearly this phrase is deliberately designed to place subjects in a catch 22; either deny X and prove themselves of being X, or accept X and also prove themselves of X. It is a false dichotomy, and a huge presupposition on the part of the question that both choices lead to the same outcome, one that has not been proven sufficiently.
Would love to hear an argument for its truth though.
Some of them do, some of them don't. I'm not afraid to call it luck that we have a universe we can survive in.
Fuck me, an "outstanding case with infallible logic"? Give me a break...
Because I can't be bothered to backtrack all your arguments, and because I haven't debated religion in a while, give me your best argument for the existence of a Christian God please. I can assure you that just like any argument for anything, it is not infallible, as I will hope to prove.
As far as I'm concerned, the majority of languages are perfect. If we take perfect to mean:
The most efficient possible at fulfilling a task/role
Then what can't English, French or whatever do efficiently? There is a word for everything imaginable, and a grammatical structure to go with it; that is perfect from a linguistic view.
I've never bothered to look up the details, but that just seems ridiculous. Call it an argument from incredulity, but the creation of a global disease that kills millions every year by a national government for "killing minorities"?
I call bullshit.
Also, in regards to the two above me, we can't have such an aggressive definition. The probability of the existence of a God is irrelevant when defining it, all that matters is the nature of its existence.
An entity that exists personally in order to give someone's life a higher purpose or meaning.
Or;
A supernatural being that personally interacts with humanity.
I prefer the first one, it includes more abstract concepts like Chakra and whatnot.
Querection, I like it .
By the way, my fiendish grammatical nuances appear to be influencing you as well .
Muahahahaha .
Oh yea .
Come on, call me a whore again .
Tell me what a bad little grammar rebel I've been .
Are you gonna need to spank me to teach me a lesson ;)
Brother I've known that since before you were on the site, but I do it that way because it's seductive .
And yes, I did it then when I didn't even need to. Come at me .
I'm gonna need more on this.
One can both have the belief that they reject/accept a statement and concurrently have a lack of belief in the subject of the statement, I think. Exempli Gratia, I believe that I reject the existence of God, thus I consciously lack belief in God. The belief or the lack thereof in God follows necessarily from the belief in the statement beforehand.
However, I feel, quite aptly, as if I didn't fully understand that.
One of the best philosophical thinkers we have on the site. I always at least check out his debates, as they are some of the most thought provoking available.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM DAT BIG ARETHA FRANKLIN.
We wish you a merry new year
We wish you a merry new year
We wish you a merry new year
And a happy Kwanzaa.
I don't follow. I say that the past exists, but the future doesn't, because the future is uncertain. How do we know there will be a tomorrow? The point is that there isn't a tomorrow today, because the universe is reactionary. The entire universe could collapse in on itself in 30 seconds, and tomorrow would never happen, making the future never existent.
The future is merely a set of possibilities as opposed to an existent part of the space time continuum.
What model? I've not heard a model proposed, I've just heard that the future exists only as a human reference.
Do you remember what will you eat tomorrow?
No...
OK, so some of them do, some of them don't, I think I need to lie down or something...
This, it must include relevance to the supernatural to distinguish it from other ideologies, and most include relevance to well being to distinguish it from Deism.
But C didn't exist in any metaphysical state until you made C exist, which puts it into the past immediately. You don't have any kind of future there, you just have a more recent past compared to B. The Dinosaurs died out after the Earth was created, it doesn't make the extinction of dinosaurs the future.
Now if you wish to make the future contingent on a point of reference (IE, the dinosaur extinction is the future in reference to the Earth's creation), how is that not making it a subjective fact? While the event still happens in the same order if no-one categorises it, it takes us to observe and reference the event to categorise it, making it subjective by default. Stars would be in the sky if we weren't here (well, not necessarily, but an axiom for this debate), but they wouldn't be "future" stars or whatever unless we categorise them; they would just be different points of the past.
I also disagree on a syntactic level. Saying "The dinosaur's extinction was the future in reference to the Earth's creation" makes no logical sense to me. It's not the downfall of the argument, but something I find a little absurd.
As an individual game, Fallout 3. As a series, Pokemon or the WWE games (not because they're particularly exceptional, but due to a lot of fun times had with friends on them).
