Abstract The problem is how freely we are ‘allowed’ to define things. In this essay I will address a definition similar to “x is the source of …”. I conclude that we ought not to allow such definitions. the-source-of-e280a6-and-definitions

Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous. Source: A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40) Part 4 Of the sceptical and other systems of philosophy, Sect. 7 Conclusion of this book

I was just discussing this over at FreeRatio.org. I made the claim, which seemed intuitively true to me, that knowledge (JTB+) is a kind of belief. This caused some controversy. I made this simple illustration clarify how I intuitively grasped the idea. A flaw was discovered in the above. It implies (wrongly) that there are […]

Link to the debate Link to the peanet gallery viz. the thread to discuss the debate. Wiploc’s Third Post Deleet characterized my argument like this: Quote: 1. God is omnipotent. 2. God is omniscient. 3. God is omnibenevolent. 4. God exists. 5. If (God is omnipotent and god is omnibenevolent and god is omniscient and […]

This is a translation of my earlier article on the subject. Link. The modal fallacy By Emil Kirkegaard, Deleet.dk This fallacy is rather common among persons who are not well versed in logic (especially modal logic). Consider these two not logically identical sentences: I) If there exists at least one subject S that knows which […]

Wiploc’s second post I love these debates. My sincere thanks to FRDB, to the moderators, to the peanut gallery, and to Deleet. I completely concede that if, as Deleet suggests, we change all of my definitions to mean other things, then the LPoE (logical problem of evil) would fail. It would fail dramatically. It would […]