Philosophy Discussion Forums

Eduk wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 3:11 am Syamsu. Regarding the potentially unsafe toaster. Imagine it was your toaster. What would you do to prove to yourself if it was working properly or not?

Test it under safe conditions.

What tests would you run? How would you ensure they were safe?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 4:32 am One can explain beauty via Materialism.

If one were to explain beauty on materialist terms, then one would assign beauty material attributes, and the existence of material attributes would be fact, so then materialism would still not validate opinion.

Eduk wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 5:32 am What tests would you run? How would you ensure they were safe?

Put bread in, turn it on.

Syamsu wrote:Excellent post.

Mmmm. I'm not sure whether you're saying this with a sense of contented satisfaction or cruel sadism. Or maybe even lustful anticipation? Although I hope it's not that last one.

Put bread in, turn it on.

Do you want toast right now? Seems a waste to bread in the toaster if not.

Where's all this toast-talk leading? Are we going to conclude that toasters have free will? Because If Amazon have their way, they soon will.

Syamsu -

I am going to LOCK this thread soon. I suggest you leave the term “Creationism” out of your post title and think of something more appropriate. By all means use the term in your OP but not the title - it’s disingenuous to use a well known term in a completely different way.

If you want help rewording your thoughts PM me.

I am trying to demonstrate the meaning of the word fact through a practical example.

If we let it get to the point where we have to persuade our toaster to choose to make us some toast, you know where it's going to end don't you? Here:
That's where it's going to end. Just saying.

Eduk wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 5:49 am

Put bread in, turn it on.

Do you want toast right now? Seems a waste to bread in the toaster if not.

To bread in the toaster, that seems to say putting the toaster in a bread.

Burning ghost wrote:I am going to LOCK this thread soon.

Are you going to choose to lock the thread? Or will your actions be inevitably determined by the poor quality of the posts herein?

Eduk wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 5:56 am I am trying to demonstrate the meaning of the word fact through a practical example.

I have already explained the meaning of the word fact in the OP.

A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it.

To say the words "there is a mango tree by the river", in principles these words provide a 1 to 1 corresponding model of said tree, forced by evidence of such.

But you cannot apply that procedure to the agency of a choice. One cannot make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of fear, hate, love, joy etc.

Search for the word "forced" in Syamsu's previous posts and you will see him making this point 326 times.

Burning ghost wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 5:55 am Syamsu -

I am going to LOCK this thread soon. I suggest you leave the term “Creationism” out of your post title and think of something more appropriate. By all means use the term in your OP but not the title - it’s disingenuous to use a well known term in a completely different way.

If you want help rewording your thoughts PM me.

There is nothing disengenious when basically all words are defined. The term creationism is defined in a generalized way, the general structure of a creation theory. Should we define gravity in a generalized way, or have it defined such as that it applies to the sun only?