Of course MacIntyre uses the word qua, since he reverted back to Aristotelian ethics and politics after Marxism.
Look, no need to get worked up and defensive; I was simply asking you if a rutabaga can be objectively defined. Can it? And a secondary question... Can you define rutabaga in a way where it will be processed through my mind in the same exact way as it is processed through yours?
Anddddd I think this further supports what I'm getting at in the first section of our exchanges... Apparently you and I can't agree on how the word 'fact' is defined... That fact (hahaha) is hindering our correspondence with each other...
That is referring to how identity (P = P) works... Since it is true that P = P, it is perfectly rational to assert a "P, therefore P" argument, since the argument's conclusion logically follows from its predicate. Then it comes down to whether or not God exists in reality... If so, the argument is true. If not, the argument is false. This can't be proven, since religion is an open functional system and doesn't have the power of proof.
Irrelevant to me providing a definition for the word God.
I don't believe in magical things; I don't believe in magic... I believe in the Christian God, that he exists in reality, and I practice the religion of Christianity. Just because you don't share that belief doesn't make that belief "magical"...
No it is not... I have demonstrated why above... And it's not "blindly"; there is evidence involved...
No it is not... I have shown why... If you think it is irrational because of that, then the theories of evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, etc. etc. are all "irrational" as well, since they are also religions and NOT science.
Without the singularity, the big bang would not have happened... So what?
Google is our friend, and makes for some of the funniest posts on the Internet.
Oh gee its the "don't get worked up" tactic. FFS dude that fallacious crap is way overdone and just plain ignorant. Its up there with the dog ate my homework.
Yea and the word fact is tackled early on by every two bit philosopher, so nothing Earth shattering there.
That is a a mighty big IF that you threw in there. If there is no god, which as it stands it appears there isnt, then the entire thing goes out the window. Of course be honest there is not one shred of evidence or even anything near a coherent hypothesis for the existence of so called gods. SO your little attempt to make it look rational fails.
People believe whatever they want. But you need to realize that you cannot actually define something that you know nothing about.
I do not care what you believe.
lol religions, that is just stupid bias, not too mention an ignorant understanding of science. I find it interesting that Christians treat science like a competing religion, it just shows how the religious right has been successful with the political propaganda.
And everything built on that type of irrational circular reasoning is pointless. Sure you can believe such crap or whatever but there is no rational reason that I or anyone else has to believe that crap. From here though I can see that this conversation will probably follow the Christian cookie cutter anti-science arguments since science is Christianities biggest threat to date. Which has only substituted Rome for science.
Obviously you wish to play in the splash pool instead... That's fine with me... splash away...
Then why do you deny philosophy?
No, not really...
Exactly what I asserted. We both agree here. Religion can't be proven, so the "soundness" (as you use the term) of the argument depends solely on one's religious faith...
Honestly is my goal in fruitful discussions...
False. Evidence for God is everywhere... The Bible is evidence... the vast majority of the world believing in the spiritual realm is evidence... various historical accounts are evidence... and on and on... There's also much evidence against God as well... The issue with this section of our discourse is that you are conflating 'evidence' with 'proof'... Religion CAN make use of evidence, but it can NOT make use of proofs, since religion is an open functional system...
Religion does not make use of 'hypotheses'... Religion is not science. One can't test the null hypothesis of something that is non-falsifiable.
No, it doesn't... Religion is rational because religion is essentially a (P, therefore P) circular argument, and circular arguments themselves are rational through the proof of identity.
I know about the Christian God through the Holy Bible... God is easily definable. I have already defined him for you.
Nor I, you.
I understand science just fine... science is a set of falsifiable theories... Those theories are not falsifiable, so they are not part of science.
Science is not religion, and religion is not science.
The circular reasoning is not pointless, nor is it irrational in any way... I have already shown you why that is.
We all can believe whatever religion we want and be just as rational as the other person in believing it... I have already explained why this is...
Science doesn't threaten Religion in any way and vice versa. They both stem from philosophy.
It is nowhere claimed, except in the straw-man fantasy you've been plying throughout this thread -- I repeat, nowhere claimed by anyone but you that my P necessarily leads to Q, or Q to R. The claim, which you have ignored or have failed to understand, is that P hypothetically leads to Q, and Q to R, and therefore P to R.
That is the entire point of a conditional argument they MUST follow but you havent gotten to chapter 2 yet have you?
Please look up the word "if" and stop the pointless caviling.
Angel is following logic just fine... I don't believe that Angel is the one who is riddled with logical fallacies, mantras, and paradoxes... I believe you are up to eight noted and uncleared paradoxes at this point... You must clear them to argue rationally.
His argument is just fine as is.
You are the one adding in the 2nd "if"... You are the one who is arguing irrationally. Angel's hypothetical syllogism is perfectly logical...
I have yet to see it... All I've seen are logical fallacies, unsubstantiated mantras, and paradoxes...
Inversion Fallacy.
Yes, you've been committing Argument of the Stone fallacies, but you haven't ever explained WHY mine and Angel's positions are "deluded and inane"...
You dont believe its Angel because you make the same logical errors as him and have your own unsupported mantras you refuse to deal with. Instead preferring to make up strawmen.
It is worthless as it is
I'm adding the if so that the argument reflect what Angel is actually trying (and failing) to say in his "argument". To simplify even more Angels "argument" could be written thus
If I were saying what you say I'm saying, which I'm not, but if I were, my argument would be true by definition.
Then you should stop posting logical fallacies, unsubstantiated mantras and paradoxes or just stop reading your own posts.
Yup that's what you just did
I have repeatedly explained, you just refuse to actually read what I post instead preferring to make up strawmen.
No, what I'm saying is:
Not in the slightest, Quag... I explained my position quite well regarding our dictionary/word definition discussion... You, on the other hand, argued yourself into multiple paradoxes regarding dictionaries and word definitions... Then when I called it out for what it was, you retorted with repetition and various other logical fallacies instead of directly addressing what I asserted...
No, it is logically valid as it is.
Not in the slightest... You have been shown why you are wrong.
That's not the way his argument simplifies... You don't understand logic at all... His argument is already as simplified as it is ever going to get (If A, then B... If B, then C... If A, then C)
No you posted some logical fallacies and made no attempt to back up your mantras
I wasn't talking about the validity I said it was worthless and explained why, stop making strawmen
No I am correct Angels argument remains worhtless and unsound
Yeah you can simplify it to that
he irony
That's doesn't work if the THEN doesn't necessarily follow the IF which is the problem with Angels "argument" (this isn't very complex anyone with even a high school comprehension of logic should be able to see this.)
I said worthless not invalid, another strawmen on your part. You just love making logical fallacies dont you?