geye1234

45 ms·

241.
by geye1234 3y ago
I understand that. But if I own something that's only notional, it would seem to be saying that I own something that doesn't exist. Which is impossible. Obviously I have claimed a right to $200k of future revenue streams Bob is ab
242.
by geye1234 3y ago
But these 'assets' are entirely notional. They may not really exist. They may start existing at some point in the future, or they may not. How can I claim ownership over something notional?
243.
by geye1234 3y ago
Sure, I know what the accounting says. I just don't know what it means. If I own stock in Microsoft, it means I own a percentage of all its assets (real estate, intangibles, etc), along with a right to a percentage of its revenue strea
244.
by geye1234 3y ago
Yeah, I agree it has an interest in it. It's just I can't name what the bank's asset actually is. What should go on the balance sheet? It gave cash to the borrower (ok, I know it's more complicated than that, but for the
245.
by geye1234 3y ago
I'm not sure that the bank owns a share in a piece of real estate. If the house burns down in a fire, the bank is still owed its $200k, assuming it's a full-recourse mortgage. Same if the house's value drops to zero for some
246.
by geye1234 3y ago
It goes back much further than that. GP linked to the Wikipedia article on universals. During the late middle ages there was a furious debate about whether species (taking the term in its very broad philosophical sense) could be said to exi
247.
by geye1234 3y ago
I just pulled out my copy of Oderberg (disclaimer: I've only read about half of it, and it's the first half that doesn't discuss biology much), and can't find any mention of Maritain in the index, so it must be Gilson, w
248.
by geye1234 3y ago
Very interesting, thanks!
249.
by geye1234 3y ago
> Most definitely. Though I do think (hope?) we humans can rise above our limitations to grasp the actual Truth quite a bit. Sure. I don't mean to imply I'm a subjectivist or that the situation is hopeless. But seeing things as
250.
by geye1234 3y ago
"But each time I become more convinced religious arguments are simply wish fulfillment." Funny, I feel exactly the opposite, but of course everybody, whether religious or not, sees what he wants to see :-) "For instance, the
251.
by geye1234 3y ago
This is a specific example of the general point we are discussing in the other thread, so it would be better to focus on that, unless you think strongly otherwise.
252.
by geye1234 3y ago
"If something isn't explicable in terms of current science, it means God must be doing it" is undoubtedly a ridiculous argument. We agree there. But the assumption behind this argument is "God is a hypothesis on a par wi
253.
by geye1234 3y ago
> Augustine, since you're apparently a fan, was pretty confident that the problem of pestilence was the product of a literally occurring Fall involving two actual First People, which doesn't square very well with evolutionary b
254.
by geye1234 3y ago
> Nope, the "god of the gaps" critique has nothing to do scientific discovery being a route to omniscience, something only some religious figures have ever claimed to have even the possibility of access to. It's the set of
255.
by geye1234 3y ago
I think there's a difference though. The examples you cite relate to artificial things, where reductionism makes sense. Quantum physics describes natural things, where I don't think it does, even at a macro level. A natural thing&
256.
by geye1234 3y ago
Thanks for clarifying. Anyone, of any belief, can have immediate, apparently self-evident experience that validates or defines their worldview. But we need good reason to believe our experiences are about reality, and are not just a bunch o
257.
by geye1234 3y ago
Again, all your objections can be answered, and if I were either rich or childless I would do so myself. But I'm neither, so all I can do is provide you with a book recommendation: check out Edward Feser's work, especially Aqui
258.
by geye1234 3y ago
"All propaganda is a lie, even when it is telling the truth" "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it." "It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do
259.
by geye1234 3y ago
FWIW, I'm a Christian (convert to Catholicism) and I respectfully but completely disagree with the GP when he says: >> If Christianity was a conclusion reached after a set of rational arguments, you would be right. But belief in
260.
by geye1234 3y ago
This is false. There are thorough proofs (or, to avoid the success-word, attempts at proof) for God's existence. They are ignored or misunderstood by the popular atheists like Dawkins and Dennett. They are impossible to summarise in a
261.
by geye1234 3y ago
> What evidence (or counter-evidence) do you suggest I present to show that my disbelief in Thor or Odin is wrong? There are no attempts at proof (that I'm aware of) for the existence of these mythical deities. There are several for
262.
by geye1234 3y ago
> As for me, I've got what I consider to be more objectively sound reasons to believe; but "“I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which however [this comment] is not large enough to contain.” Hopefully at some poi
263.
by geye1234 3y ago
This recipe looks most substantial, which is not what you'd expect.
264.
by geye1234 3y ago
I think the initial problem with your argument remains. If the 'laws of physics' (honestly I'm not keen on that term except for casual use -- can we say 'way things behave'?) only exist in the human brain, and not i
265.
by geye1234 3y ago
Let's work out precisely where we disagree: 1. Do you agree that it is rational to think that burning hydrogen in oxygen will produce water and heat (prediction A), and irrational to think that it will produce a juicy stake that can pl
266.
by geye1234 3y ago
> You're making a fundamental mistake in comprehending this. You're confusing the map for the territory. When I say the laws of physics I mean the map, and you're thinking about what they point to, the territory. I agree w
267.
by geye1234 3y ago
> A correctness of a thought isn't a function of thought itself, it's a function of thought and reality. I agree with this, although I think it's more precise to say a thought is correct insofar as it conforms to reality.
268.
by geye1234 3y ago
Clearly, we know reality through our senses and our ideas. That is uncontroversial. The problem is when one says (as I think you are) that our sensual perceptions and ideas are all we know, and that we can reasonably doubt that they ever
269.
by geye1234 3y ago
> So two hydrogen atoms bonding with an oxygen and forming a water molecule and releasing 'heat' only happens when a conscious observer is around? The GP's arguments lead to greater weirdness than that. If the laws of scie
270.
by geye1234 3y ago
Belated thanks for the reply.

More ›