These are statements, but not really arguments. All I said was that I cannot predict whether or not the principle of reason and logic will change, morph, or be cast aside for something else 100,000 years in the future. As I said earlier, this doesn't keep us from having a discussion about morality now.
You argue against abstract, immutable universals, not because your autonomous reasoning can rationally account for or justify your rejection of them, but simply because your worldview does not permit them.
I haven't argued against "abstract universals", in fact you could say I've been arguing for one in particular. You are a master in the sophisticated argumentative technique known as "putting words in other people's mouths". You might be used to getting away with it, but not with me.
Stop right there! It is evident that you don't even understand the unsolved problem of induction and the problem of the uniformity of nature.
Induction is broader than just the scientific method. You and I ostensibly don't believe in Santa Claus or Vishnu; that's an induction. We don't have to have experienced every single moment in time to make that induction. The same can be done for a theistic creator, and the evidence points to my conclusion, not yours.
I have enjoyed reading this rather exhaustive thread. You have the patience of a saint. Unfortunately, you can’t argue logically with faith. Faith, by definition does not have proof, nor does it require logic.
I was disappointed by the ad hominem attacks of one particular self professed Christian. It seems to me that name-calling is not particularly useful.
My "if" "then" statement that if the laws of logic are not absolute, invariant and universal then they reduce to relativistic preferences for thinking rather than prescriptive requirements is in the form of an argument.
I cannot predict whether or not the principle of reason and logic will change, morph, or be cast aside for something else 100,000 years in the future. As I said earlier, this doesn't keep us from having a discussion about morality now.
Why wait 100,000 years?
All change, morality now. All I cast aside future. As I said was the future. As I said earlier, this doesn't keep us from having else 100,000 years in thing a discussion and logic will change, morph, or somethis doesn't keep us from having else 100,000 yearlier, the principle of reason about morality now. All change, morality not predict whethe for somethis doesn't keep us from having a discussion and logic will I said was thing a discussion about morph, or be cannot the for now. All I said was
I haven't argued against "abstract universals", in fact you could say I've been arguing for one in particular. You are a master in the sophisticated argumentative technique known as "putting words in other people's mouths". You might be used to getting away with it, but not with me.
As I said, if the principles of reason and logic can change, morph or be cast aside for something else then they reduce to relativistic preferences for thinking rather than prescriptive requirements. I think I have proved the point and I think you have too, no doubt inadvertently, by attempting to hold to a world view that you yourself are demonstrating in your posts as self-contradictory.
I haven't argued against "abstract universals", in fact you could say I've been arguing for one in particular.
Not in a coherent, consistent manner. The laws of logic are presuppositions of coherent thinking but people break them regularly. If they are not invariant then a statement can be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. Then a baseball player can be on the field and not on the field at the same time and in the same manner. There is no room in your postulated ever-changing universe of matter in motion governed by chance for anything invariant, abstract and universal.
You are a master in the sophisticated argumentative technique known as "putting words in other people's mouths". You might be used to getting away with it, but not with me.
"Putting words in other people's mouths" or "getting away with something" presupposes a fixed criterion for what does and does not constitute acceptable argumentation, which makes no sense unless it is objectively wrong to argue in certain ways. Based on your own finite reasoning, which is limited in the scope of its use and experiences, you are in no position to pronounce on what is universally true or to dictate prescriptive, universal laws of thought, especially in an ever-changing universe of matter in motion governed by chance. You are refuting yourself by stating on one hand that the laws of logic can change and then on the other hand, relying on them not to change in order for me not to "get away" with some allegedly improper manner of argumentation.
Induction is broader than just the scientific method.
I know. But you don't even understand the problem of induction. If you have found a solution to Hume on the matter please appraise the world of it.
Cordially,