Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philpot123

  1. I'm not saying my contributions are going to be brilliant. My point is that the internet provides an easy avenue for everyone (including me) to believe that their self-published opinions hold some merit, even when they're based on nothing but pure speculation. Are people allowed to make ridiculous claims that have no basis in fact or in economic theory? Sure. This thread is clear proof of that. Just micro and macroec, and further studies in historical economics and economic theory. Yes, I pay attention to real life. Small businesses may not be able to directly compete with
  2. So many outrageous claims, so little practical economic theory to back them up. Such is the way of the internet. That's a lot of big words, but behind them is a completely false statement of basic capitalistic theory and practice. Capitalism encourages competition. Competition drives the market. In regards to monopolism, true monopoly can only happen when someone either has complete control of a specific good or product by natural consequence (owns all the land X mineral is found in), or when the government interferes into the free market and grants a monopoly (only Y company can le
  3. Have you ever taken a logic class? I don't mean this in a derogatory way, this is just basic stuff. If I make a statement that is CLEARLY relative (it is raining), it can only be true in the relative sense. If my "it is raining" statement is universal (it is raining everywhere), I would be wrong. If I intended my statement to be relative to my current state and observation (it is currently raining where I am at), then it would be a true statement. This difference in absolute claims vs. relative claims adds NOTHING to the discussion of whether or not two truly contradictory things can coexist.
  4. Yeah, I'm aware of what it is. I just find it amusing that we have to introduce theoretical concepts as a rational justification for why we can be irrational.
  5. Multiverse? Really? That's because the statement "it is raining" has an implied "it is raining in my current location." It is not an absolute universal statement. That assumes a discontinuity of being within the deity, doesn't it? ETA: That is to say, the apple can be both red and green because those things do not conflict, and can exist in the same fruit. But can your vast, transcendent deity be both just and unjust, faithful and unfaithful, good and evil, etc? Can opposing character traits exist in the same divine person? I suppose that depends on what your co
  6. That's a poor analogy to draw on. Light behaves both as a particle and as a wave, but those things are clearly not contradictory, or they could not coexist in the same "thing." Simply because we lack understanding of it doesn't mean it's contradictory. I can justify absolute knowledge of truth within my worldview, but you and others won't accept the answer we'll just end up in another foundationalism discussion, and I don't recall that ever resolving well the last time I brought it up. But not having the whole picture does not necessitate contradictions. Everyone seems
  7. My inability to see the relevant characteristics of the apple doesn't change its nature, does it? Right, obviously. That happens all the time. But I'm saying that the evidence represents an objective truth that doesn't change by virtue of my interpretation (or misinterpretation) of it through my subjective biases. And regardless of subjective biases, two contradictory "truths" STILL cannot both be objectively true.
  8. Isn't it, though? nice to see you around! In what sense?
  9. Apparent contradictions are not necessarily actual contradictions. The truth would be that the apple is green, and if you said that it WAS NOT green, then you would be objectively wrong. Saying "the apple is red" =/= saying "the apple is not green." If I said "the apple is red" and you said "the apple is not red," then we have a problem. An actual contradiction. Philosophy and religion are terribly closely linked
  10. Both are true statements, because they are not contradictory. Two things that are not contradictory can both be objectively true. If one of us said that the apple is exclusively red, and the other said the apple was exclusively green, we would both be wrong, because those are contradictory. The apple can be both red and green. Jesus cannot be both the only way to have access to God and not the only way to access God. You're definitely free to believe that, but I don't see support for that in scripture.
  11. I don't walk around saying "let's talk about your beliefs so I can tell you how wrong you are." I'm talking about when people want to publicly trumpet their beliefs, but somehow expect that everyone should sit back and not challenge it. Let's change roles here. If I started quoting scripture at you and telling you how wrong abortion and homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is, would you not challenge me? wouldn't it be unreasonable of me to cut the conversation short at that point and say "hey! I don't want to defend this, I'm just as right as your are, stop bothering me!" ? You'd think I
  12. Define truth. Because I think we're working with different definitions, here. You guys seem hung up on this "conversion" thing like all I do is quote Bible verses or something. I'm not talking about when I'm actively proselytizing. Me saying "what about this glaring flaw in your worldview" is not trying to convert someone. And I'm not talking about cornering someone in an awkward situation where they don't want to talk. I'm talking about people who just want to trumpet their opinions and don't want to deal with being challenged, because everyone is right after all!
  13. I guess I just don't understand what you mean by saying that it could "be true for someone else." Can you explain that a little further?
  14. That's because the apple is both green and red. Those aren't contradictory statements, because they can both be true. However, the statements "every person must be saved through faith is Jesus Christ alone or suffer punishment" and "there are multiple ways to salvation/a good afterlife" are absolutely not compatible. I should have clarified. I love learning about other people's religions. I've had entire lunch conversations with people that consisted of my asking questions and them expositing their faith (or lack thereof). I love those sorts of conversations. They're fruitful for
  15. If this is aimed at me, I hold to a Reformed Christian worldview.
  16. It's my opinion that it isn't possible for two contradicting thoughts to both be correct. Stop forcing your opinion on me, I'm just as right as you are. (Also, not just my opinion. It's kind of what the word contradiction means.) But they are CLAIMS about fact. I hold opinions because I think they ARE factual. I wouldn't hold them if I didn't. Again, I've conceded that everyone's opinions are "right" to them. That's tautological and useless to say. It doesn't need to be said. You wouldn't believe what you do if you didn't think you were right. But those things aren't ju
  17. And the human factor is such that even if the abdication of private property was an ideal state of existence (which it's not, in my opinion), it could still never work.
  18. Statements regarding food and food allergies are not logically contradictory, because they are necessarily subjective. I, myself, am allergic to eggs. I make no statements about the objective quality of the egg by saying that I am allergic to it. If I was to say that eggs contain protein, that would be an objective statement about an egg that happens to be true. If someone was to say "that egg has no protein," logically contradicting my statement, one of us would be right, and the other would be wrong. When one makes claims about religion, or God and His nature, it is not a subjective sta
  19. Because it's better than a country that systematically murders its citizens like every established communist nation has.
  20. I can discuss what you believe and be informed about what you think is right, sure. But the instant someone who says "everyone is right" tries to convince me, who disagrees with that proposition, that their opinion is preferable to mine (which they do by virtue of making the previous statement), they're being inconsistent. Essentially, you have two options here. "Everyone is right, and if you think differently, you're wrong." (self-defeating) "Everyone is right. Therefore, you who think everyone is NOT right is actually right, too." (also self-defeating) Do you see the problem h
  21. I don't think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think beauty is an objective quality that is appreciated differently by different people. Taste is in the eye of the beholder. Preference is in the eye of the beholder. But the nature of beauty does not change by virtue of my observation of it. This is what I take issue with. If I and someone else both make contradictory statements about the nature of the supernatural, one of us or both of us must, by logical necessity, be wrong. Might my statement SEEM right to me? Yes. Might my statement make me happy? Yes. In that sense, it
  22. Then you're misusing the word "right." A better word to use would be "taste" or "preference." X religion suits my tastes, or fits my preference. It isn't "right" for me and "wrong" for someone else. It is either right or it is wrong. Either I am right/correct/accurate in my worldview, or I am wrong/incorrect/inaccurate in my worldview. Yes, the way in which I view the world and things like religion is subjective, but my act of viewing it and forming opinions on it doesn't change its nature of objective rightness or wrongness.
  23. I don't know if Mohammed would have agreed... But in any case, there are many religions that claim to possess real, objective truth. If two such religions disagree over what that truth is, they cannot logically both be right. To say they are is to give up rationality.