The Best Arguments of All Time: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The Best Arguments of All Time » The Best Arguments of All Time

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The Best Arguments of All Time

ChrisR
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/12/08 - 03:46 PM:	#51
I have a few - some of which may break the rules - but, this is all in good fun. One- Moores argument (or something like it). 1. I am standing here now. 2. If I am standing here now, then I am not a brain in a vat (or, the skeptical hypothesis is false). C. I am not a brain in a vat Two- Skeptical argument. 1.If I don't know that I am not a brain in a vat, then I don't know I am standing here. 2. I don't know that I am not a brain in a vat. C. I don't know that I am standing here. Three- An ontological argument. 1. If mereological essentialism is true, then composition does not occur. 2. Composition occurs. C. Mereological essentialism is false. Four- Argument for the Existence of God via reference. 1. When I utter 'God' either I refer to God or I do not. 2. If I do, then God exists. 3. If I do not, then either I refer to my idea of God or everyone's idea of God. 4. If I refer to my idea of God, then God is an idea in the mind. 5. If I refer to everyone's idea of God, then God is an idea in the mind. IC. God is an idea in the mind. 7. If God is an idea in the mind, the God is mind-dependent. IC'. God is mind-dependent. 9. I only perceive ideas. [or 'irrealism is true,' or 'realism is false'.] 10. I perceive ordinary objects. IC''. Idea's are Ordinary objects. 12. God is an object. C. God exists. Five- A Cartesian Argument 1. I conceive of myself existing while no physical things exist. 2. If I can conceive that 'p', then 'p' is possible IC. It is possible for me to exist while no physical things exists. 4. If physicalism is true, then I cannot exist unless physical things exists. C. Physicalism is false. Six. An Argument for nonphysical thoughts. 1. All physical events necessarily have causal powers. 2. My thought that 's' does not necessarily have causal powers. C. My thought that 's' is not a physical event. Seven. Freewill Dilemma, note: compatibilisim is still a form of determinism, yet, they (compatibilists) reject the view that determinism implies no free-will. 1. Either determinism is true or indeterminism is true. 2. If determinism is true, then I don't have free will 3. If indeterminism is true, then I don't have free will C. I don't have free will. for fun we could add: 4. If I don't freely choose my actions, then I cannot be morally responsible for them. C. I am not morally responsible for my actions. Eight: The 'gist' of the Cosmological Argument 1. If I exist, then a necessary being exists. 2. I exist. C. A necessary being exists. Nine: 1. If '1+1=2' is true, then '1' must exist ..... 2. If '1' exists, then nonphysical things exists. 3. Nonphysical things don't exist. 4. '1' does not exist. C. '1+1=2' is false. Note: I do not really endorse all of these arguments - if an explination is needed for any of them, just say so, as I don't wan't the post to be very long. Hope you enjoyed!

Corit Demus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: The Netherlands

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/14/08 - 01:53 AM:	#52
This is interesting. I came up with this (not sure if it's correct though): 1. I think, therefore I am. 2. I can never know anything about the world for sure, except #1. IC1. My thoughts are the only thing that I can be sure exists. IC2. I can never know whether I can think rationally, I might or I might not. 3. If I can not think rationally, this argument is senseless. 4. If this argument is senseless, I would not matter if it was incorrect 5. I can think rationally. 6. If #5 is false, this argument is incorrect. 7. If #5 is false, this argument is senseless (from #3). IC3. If #5 is false, it would not matter (from #4). C. I can think rationally. Edited by Corit Demus on 05/14/08 - 02:30 AM

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 05/14/08 - 02:36 AM:	#53
Mereological essentialism is false? You mean the weather might not have been the weather? Oh, mereo... not meteoro... ..logical. Still, I wonder whether composition occurs. Maybe parts are still just parts however you put them together. It's a depressing thought, but it's possibly true. **** If I can't know that I'm standing here, then I can't know anything. If I can't know anything, then I don't know what a brain is. Or a vat. Edited by Cuthbert on 05/14/08 - 02:43 AM

silverback
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/14/08 - 09:06 AM:	#54
Ok so nobody responded to my previous post, maybe it wasn't right for this forum. However I thought i would post this argument. p1. Everything exists. p2. Nothing does not exist. p3. Nothing is a negative. p4. Nothing balances everything. c. The existence of the negative aspects of our society is not necessary to have a balanced healthy society. You can have a balanced diet that consists of positive and negative things, however you do not need to have the negative things to have a balance. Therfore there is both heathy and unhealthy balance. Criticisim and new ideas welcome.

7
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 337

Posted 05/15/08 - 12:39 PM:	#55
Silverback, I don't understand your argument. How can nothing balance everything? Nothing is not a thing. You can't apply predicates to nothing. I don't see how the conclusion follows either.

silverback
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/15/08 - 02:46 PM:	#56
By not existing nothing gives everything all the space it needs to exist infinitly. Perfect roommates.

Corit Demus
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2008
Location: The Netherlands

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/15/08 - 10:17 PM:	#57
Your conclusion does not follow rationally. I'm still wondering whether my argument can actually hold.

mark71
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 13, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 05/18/08 - 10:58 PM:	#58
yes but you cannot prove there is nothing...as nothing does not exist wfafd
http://24isaiah.net/Lord-Will-Destroy-America.htm

silverback
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 12, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 05/19/08 - 06:04 AM:	#59
Lol you just proved it yourself.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/19/08 - 05:45 PM:	#60
coolazice wrote: Aren't there some philosophical arguments, any arguments, which we can pretty reliably apply to reality, in other words, stuff that's just true no matter how you look at it? So basically you are asking whether or not there exists an argument that is impossible to be sceptical of? Literally impossible? The downfall of fallabilism approaches at last... This notion of 'just true' sends shivers down my nihilistic spine. What the hell does 'just true' mean?
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.