Retired Boards (Archived)
Ontological Argument
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:45:08 PM »Posted by: cnearing
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:41:25 PM »Take care.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:17:59 PM »Anyway. I didn't start the thread to be subjected to personal attacks, and though I have decided to respond politely rather than simply report you, I think I am donr talking to you unless you decide to offer something substantive along with an apology for your many unwarranted, unprovoked personal attacks.
I´m happy if we don´t ever talk to one another, again. Have a great life.
Posted by: cnearing
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:10:48 PM »Anyway. I didn't start the thread to be subjected to personal attacks, and though I have decided to respond politely rather than simply report you, I think I am donr talking to you unless you decide to offer something substantive along with an apology for your many unwarranted, unprovoked personal attacks.
Posted by: cnearing
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:08:09 PM »You don't have to give citations, but don't say you have given citations when you haven't. Every accusation you level at me is true of yourself. The reverse, however, is not true.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: May 06, 2016, 02:59:07 PM »Typically, a citation requires that one actually pick out the portion of their writing that comes from or is a reference to some other work. Not simply listing a list of alleged maybe sort of related texts.
And you don't really have any room to talk. I am engaging at, well, actually, a more substantive level that you are.
I am doing other things while posting. And I would be more than happy to carry a long conversation, bring in citations, but, that usually depends on the treatment I receive,there is so much one can explain in writing, at one go, and, I am always interested in furthering my explanations, except when I perceive bad attitude and condecension from the start. You could have only said, in the beginning I don´t understand, could you expand on what you mean by this or that other point.
So far, I have been giving the explanations and you have been the one challenging explanations, for the most part, aside from this, you have been mostly making assertions, with out even trying to justify them.
You ask questions and then give yourself the answers, and just uncharitably attack others, with out even trying to come to an understanding.
Posted by: cnearing
« on: May 06, 2016, 02:47:34 PM »Typically, a citation requires that one actually pick out the portion of their writing that comes from or is a reference to some other work. Not simply listing a list of alleged maybe sort of related texts.
And you don't really have any room to talk. I am engaging at, well, actually, a more substantive level that you are.
And you don't really have any room to talk. I am engaging at, well, actually, a more substantive level that you are.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: May 06, 2016, 02:30:58 PM »So you don't know what a citation is. Fair enough.
So you are really not interested in fruitful conversation, just misstreating others.
ci·ta·tion
sīˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work.
Posted by: cnearing
« on: May 06, 2016, 02:24:10 PM »So you don't know what a citation is. Fair enough.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: May 06, 2016, 02:09:45 PM »You're about halfway there. Which is better than where you were before, but still not terribly close.
Who died and made you judge?
Posted by: cnearing
« on: May 06, 2016, 01:58:10 PM »You're about halfway there. Which is better than where you were before, but still not terribly close.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: May 06, 2016, 01:47:45 PM »Again no, you haven't cited any research. That is flatly false. Do you know what a citation is?
Assuming you won't answer that,
"Since, you haven´t said anything of substance, thanks for the exchange."
Likewise.
1. Laurence Bonjour’s (1998) In Defense of Pure Reason
2. George Bealer’s (2002) The Rationalist Renaissance
3. Keith Hossack’s (2007) The Metaphysics of Knowledge
4. Jonathan Ichikawa and Benjamin Jarvis’s (2011) Rational Imagination and Modal Knowledge
5. Christian Nimtz’s (2012) Conceptual Truths, Strong Possibilities, and Metaphysical Necessity.
Posted by: cnearing
« on: May 06, 2016, 01:24:09 PM »Again no, you haven't cited any research. That is flatly false. Do you know what a citation is?
Assuming you won't answer that,
"Since, you haven´t said anything of substance, thanks for the exchange."
Likewise.
Assuming you won't answer that,
"Since, you haven´t said anything of substance, thanks for the exchange."
Likewise.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: May 06, 2016, 01:08:06 PM »Your intuition does not lend weight to <>G even for you.
You are looking for justification in a place that is conceptuall unable to provide justification for your claim. Digging for gold in a sandbox.
The fact thay G is coherent does not lend any support to <>G
If you think it does, demonstrate this logically.
It is just an assertion to say "Your intuition does not lend weight to <>G even for you.", I am citing current research on Modal epistemology.
Demonstrate logically that your perceptions lend support to anything as true.
Demonstrate logically that your grasping of 2+2=4 lends support for accepting as true.
If you know all the answers why even ask?
Actually, you haven't cited anything. Though the idea that there even *can* be "research" on "modal epistemology" is pretty hilarious. Tell me,h ow do you "research" modal epistemology?
My your first question is imprecise and your second question is actually gibberish.
I understand your need to lash out here, but perhaps taking a moment and actually collecting your thoughts and trying to provide some semblance of justification for your own assertions might work better than substituting poorly-planned offense in the place of defense.
I cited on my 1st post reseach on modal accounts on my 1st point (in parenthesis).
Since, you haven´t said anything of substance, thanks for the exchange.
Posted by: cnearing
« on: May 06, 2016, 01:05:36 PM »Your intuition does not lend weight to <>G even for you.
You are looking for justification in a place that is conceptuall unable to provide justification for your claim. Digging for gold in a sandbox.
The fact thay G is coherent does not lend any support to <>G
If you think it does, demonstrate this logically.
It is just an assertion to say "Your intuition does not lend weight to <>G even for you.", I am citing current research on Modal epistemology.
Demonstrate logically that your perceptions lend support to anything as true.
Demonstrate logically that your grasping of 2+2=4 lends support for accepting as true.
If you know all the answers why even ask?
Actually, you haven't cited anything. Though the idea that there even *can* be "research" on "modal epistemology" is pretty hilarious. Tell me,h ow do you "research" modal epistemology?
My your first question is imprecise and your second question is actually gibberish.
I understand your need to lash out here, but perhaps taking a moment and actually collecting your thoughts and trying to provide some semblance of justification for your own assertions might work better than substituting poorly-planned offense in the place of defense.