*singing* “If anyone can empirically show me how empirical evidence is the only way we can and should believe something, or provide empirical evidence that sentient life which has a pre-commitment to rationality using abstract, absolute, universal meanings can come from non-sentient life which doesn’t have a pre-commitment to rationality where’s there’s only non-abstract, non-absolute, non-universal, non-meanings… then I’ll give you my Rolls Royce. Wait I don’t have one. Who cares.
Cameron, there is a whole series on youtube about that. Look up CDK007. Thank you and goodnight.
Also, if we were Yeast(!!!) then your argument would hold just as much weight. becasue the survival instinct exists is irrelevant to God’s Existence. Non Sequiter par excellence.
Also, you assume there IS ultimate rationality, when in fact all we have at our disposal are a list of arbitrary rules for manipulating symbols. None of which have fixed meanings. You have to assume there is a universal standard in order to Prove a universal standard, which is Special Pleading.
There’s a whole article about it on my blog also. Thank you and goodnight. You’re making the “what we do” = “what we SHOULD do” fallacy. And “nature” doesn’t always have us want to survive b/c many commit suicide and kill others, and “nature” has us dead way longer then alive, so even if we’re going to arbitrarily us the “what happens” = “what should happen” standard, we’d have to conclude we should all die then. Congratulations.
None of which have fixed meanings.
So this sentence doesn’t have fixed meanings according to your reasoning. Therefore, there are fixed meanings! Thanks for proving my point!
"I don't know. Isn't that brilliant? Love not knowing, keeps me on my toes. It must be awful being a prophet. Waking up every morning, 'is it raining? Yes it is, I said so.' Takes all the fun out of life."
- The Doctor ("Doctor Who")