Recent content by Tisthammerw

Take this scene from Blade II I suspect most of us have heard the phrase (or something like it) "enough to level a city block," but how much is that? Is Blade’s remark realistic? (Semtex is a real explosive by the way.) How much Semtex or TNT would it take to do the job? I imagine it...

In post #107 you said this: Which is false, or at least not entirely true. It is analytic given my definitions. Of course, the statement is not necessarily analytic for other definitions. Whether or not the statement “understanding requires consciousness” is analytic cannot be answered...

I never said you claimed that. Again (I have said this earlier) I'm just illustrating what your idea sounds like to me. My point is that your supposed mechanism to create consciousness (man + rulebook) sounds a lot more like magic than science. You took what I said here out of context. I...

I see, so it is only analytic depending on how one defines the terms, something I have been saying from the beginning and yet you continued to ignore and misconstrue my words. Anyway, let's move on. With respect, what part of "I DID describe the computer I had in mind and I left it to you...

So does that mean that “all bachelors are unmarried” is not necessarily analytic in this instance? That's not true. I believe it can be answered by our current understanding, but the subject area is still metaphysics (Just as the existence of Abraham Lincoln is in the subject area of...

Nonetheless from what I've read Ratzsch accurately represented contemporary philosophy of science when he described it. Incidentally, Dembski’s book The Design Inference was heavily peer reviewed before it was published. You need to brush up on your history. ID in its modern form is only a...

Earlier: That is not the question I asked. You said in post #252, "Analytic statements are ONLY analytic if we AGREE ON THE DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS." My question: Suppose I disagree with the word “bachelor.” Does it then logically follow that “bachelors are unmarried” is no longer an...

So is that a yes? If so, doesn't there seem to be something wrong with your claim if this would mean that the statement “bachelors are unmarried” is not an analytic statement? But we are not referring to the “scientific” definitions; we’re referring to definitions in general of...

...that has often been exaggerated (Galileo, Darwin etc.). Anti-religious stories often leave out important and relevant facts. One example: beginning with the recovery of ancient learning in the twelfth century and continuing through the Copernican upheavals and on even into the...

If it’s the best explanation, yes. My own belief after thinking about such matters is that God is the best explanation for: the caused beginning of the universe the existence of objective moral values the existence of the human soul etc. Whether you agree with this or not, note that...

Something I have been saying for quite some time. That does not logically follow. Whether or not “understanding requires consciousness” is analytic depends on how the terms are defined. You seem to be saying that for a statement to be “properly” considered analytic it needs to be analytic...

How about this: “It is not the case that this sentence is true.” Is this sentence true or not? And what implications does this have for the law of the excluded middle?

But normally that is what is implied when it comes to philosophical discussions e.g. “I do not agree with ethical relativism.” Yes we did, but at the time I was not aware you knew this. It is not clear why “understanding is a synthetic statement” logically follows form this. “Synthetic”...

Fine, but completely irrelevant to the point I was making here. The definition of understanding I refer to requires consciousness. You may “disagree” with the definition in the sense that you mean something different when you use the term, but that is completely irrelevant. Since I was...

In the interest of space, I'll combine posts. You implied it when you said that you do not agree that my statement was analytic statement and did not agree with my definitions. In these circumstances, “disagree” usually means believing that the statement in question is false. In any case...