Lord Logic response

[indigoskrubz]

it could do alot!!!

[darrakis]

You need a better mic.

[Technate1]

Or a computer program to filter out the static.

[LaughingMan0X]

I'm probably nitpicking, and making a moot point (in the context of this argument) but the claim: "for the truth to be true presupposes a mind" is necessarily false. Unless your going to claim some sort of mystical substance dualism...

-A is A

-A cannot become ~A upon being subjected to or removed from a mind.

-The fact that A = A is not contingent upon a mind.

This = non-sequitur

I'm a philosophy major so I'm anal about this stuff lol

[darksiderollerchick]

"you're saying, 'for truths to be true presupposes a mind'" is what i said.

or, if you prefer,

my claim is that zach's assumption that a mind (in this case god) is the necessary background or condition for truth.

is an example of "begging the question"

in fact, your correction of my argument is a summary of my argument.

[LaughingMan0X]

Oh I wasn't arguing FOR god at all, and your point was certainly correct; He was totally begging the question.

I was just nitpicking the semantics of a key sentence and its implications. Also, I admitted already that this (my point) was a vacuous point in the greater context of the argument.

[NitaBMe]

she said "for a truth to be true presupposes a mind and uh that's not necessary"

[soultorment27]

@LaughingMan0X

Hi you claimed the proposition "for the truth to be true presupposes a mind" is necessarily false. You said "A cannot become ~A upon being subjected to or removed from a mind" & I agree. But I dont think that is what was actually meant. I think what was meant was that something cannot have a truth value, if it's independent of a mind. If so, then you're just mistaken to say it's necessarily false. *If truth bearers are beliefs or sentences, then truth WILL depend upon a mind!!!

[darksiderollerchick]

i didnt want to jump to the assumption that you were putting forth a godless universe, in that case youre absloutely right, you have made your stance. good hustle.

[TheoreticalBullshit]

Thanks, for the response, I enjoyed watching your thoughts on both our videos.

As for poking holes in other arguments, but offering nothing of my own views: I had thought that I was doing so, when I offered a more "direct" answer to Zach's question by illustrating what laws of logic mean in a godless universe. Or am I misunderstanding you?