In life, the christ believer wasted millions of hours praying to an invisible friend, letting all the wonders of the universe slip by in a stubborn and pointless attempt to believe he could make sense of the world.
In death, he rots in the ground like everyone else, though can claim the dubious distinction of being mocked by future generations for holding to his primitive beliefs against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Hmm, your signature says jesus (deliberate lower case spelling) is love. Yet, his followers seem to take a perverse pleasure in thinking about eternal torment ? Contradictory much ?

Mr. Athiest Extreme  you aksed: What is supernatural waka?     The laws of logic.

you also asked:

 What is supernatural waka? Could you explain its existence using some empirical measurement or will you admit your naked assertion?

Yes I fully admit it, and I have explained those presuppositions already.

Furthermore you say: 

How can you at once demand consistency of reasoning and then base your 'reasoning' on a fallacious appeal to the unknown? 

The laws of logic are known.  They are immaterial, abstract, universal, absolute, and you use them everyday, or at least attempt to.  What is fallacious is using them and not being able to account for the abstract given your world view.

you said: Exactly what is it you are claiming human logic is based on?  The laws of logic.

lastly you aked: Define this concrete unknowable.     

ok: The claim that empirisim is the only way to obtain knowledge.  In other words how can you know empiricism is the only way to obtain knowledge??? Empirisicim being concrete and the unknowable being the statement as a whole.  hmmm

Mr. JCgadfly  you said: 

As your system of logic includes magic, can anyone describe a  real system of logic to you?

I am not asking for a definition or description for system of logic.  I never have. I am asking you how you account for the laws of logic.  Let me help you:

Physics can be accounted for by--->mathematics, which can be accounted for by--->numbers, which can be accounted for by concepts/reasoning, which can be accounted for by---->the laws of logic, which can be accounted for by____________? Please feel free to fill in the blank.

No - I said that it is not 'accounted for' by Logic, not that rigorous reasoning does not follow the basic principles of logic. The only Law of Logic that really says anything vaguely worth calling a Law is the Law of Non-Contradiction, but that, and the Law of Identity, really are just expressing axioms in a formal mode to prepare the grounds for the the formal system of Logic. The principles they formalize are really so basic and obvious that requiring them to be 'accounted for'. That demand has just become an empty chant of the apologetic.

Of course we 'use' things that are 'immaterial', IOW not actual objects themselves, but attributes, properties, descriptions, etc of stuff associated with objects, of arrangements, patterns, structures, that require material objects as their substrate. Atheism only rejects God, not abstract thought.

And knowledge does not require 'absolutes', and Universals are discoverable properties of Reality.

There is no way to 'account for' or even gain any real knowledge of, anything 'supernatural'. 

Since you presuppose the Christian God, which requires an assumption with zero preceding justification, you have no grounds for asserting knowledge of anything folowing from that assumption.

Your whole position has zero foundation.

No.

Making an argument only requires that we can identify separate entities and concepts to refer to, which only requires that reality is neither a featureless void, nor a totally chaotic one.

The law of non-contradiction is simply a formalization of the trivial fact that if our argument assumes or leads to a conclusion that A is both true and not true, we have a problem.

You are reifying a couple of trivially true observations.

It is an empty argument based on the assumption that the laws of logic have some Platonic existence, independent of our conception of them, as essentaily empirical observations.

You have 'accounted for' nothing, just made a series of naked assertions, commencing with an error. 

No - I said that it is not 'accounted for' by Logic, not that rigorous reasoning does not follow the basic principles of logic. The only Law of Logic that really says anything vaguely worth calling a Law is the Law of Non-Contradiction, but that, and the Law of Identity, really are just expressing axioms in a formal mode to prepare the grounds for the the formal system of Logic. The principles they formalize are really so basic and obvious that requiring them to be 'accounted for'. That demand has just become an empty chant of the apologetic.

Of course we 'use' things that are 'immaterial', IOW not actual objects themselves, but attributes, properties, descriptions, etc of stuff associated with objects, of arrangements, patterns, structures, that require material objects as their substrate. Atheism only rejects God, not abstract thought.

And knowledge does not require 'absolutes', and Universals are discoverable properties of Reality.

There is no way to 'account for' or even gain any real knowledge of, anything 'supernatural'. 

Since you presuppose the Christian God, which requires an assumption with zero preceding justification, you have no grounds for asserting knowledge of anything folowing from that assumption.

Your whole position has zero foundation.

No.

Making an argument only requires that we can identify separate entities and concepts to refer to, which only requires that reality is neither a featureless void, nor a totally chaotic one.

The law of non-contradiction is simply a formalization of the trivial fact that if our argument assumes or leads to a conclusion that A is both true and not true, we have a problem.

You are reifying a couple of trivially true observations.

EDIT: Actually, your argument is worse that - you are attempting to prove the validity of a formal system (Logic) using Logic. That is a self-referential argument and is therefore not valid. See Kurt Goedel. /EDIT

It is an empty argument based on the assumption that the laws of logic have some Platonic existence, independent of our conception of them, as essentaily empirical observations.

You have 'accounted for' nothing, just made a series of naked assertions, commencing with an error or two.

EDIT: Your 'argument' amounts to the non-sequiter ; The Universe has some order, therefore God exists'.

When in fact, some degree of 'order' in Reality would be a pre-condition for any entity above a quark,. IOW, your God, assuming It made any sense, would be as dependent on the basic order which allows US to exist and formulate the Laws of Logic as we are. 

Order is primary to any entity, not the other way round.

Mr Rednef you asked:  Can you explain why you think that is? 

I have many times already but I will do so again.  Because without the preconditions of intelligibility you cant make a valid argument and you can simply choose different standards of reasoning.

you said: What constitues 'having reason' in your opinion?     The mere fact that you have to ask this question.
 

you asked: Are you basing these arguments of yours on the TAG argument?  Never heard of him or his TAG argument.  Though you do raise my curiosity.
 

you also said:  Isn't the law of identity the sound conclusion of what the argument for 'a' is?
Are you trying to say simply defining 'a' as not anything but 'a' is not 'rational' unless we can explain why that should be considered the best way of distinguishing 'a' as itself?

I am not asking about the details and definitions of the law of identity.  I am asking you how you account for the laws themselves.  You are focusing on definitions and descriptions rather than focusing on accounting for them.

next you say: An explanation of the explanation is required, according to you?  An accounting of how your able to explain may be more accurate.
 

next you say:  How do you know this is the case? Are you claiming that we reach a point where there can be no more questions asked, or no more explanations that can be given?

If it goes on forever the argument could never be completed.  Moreover, we cannot know an infinite number of things.

Next you say:  Are you asserting that the law of identity is contingent, instead of necessarily so?
Is the reason why 'a' is 'a' and not 'not a' contingent instead of necessarily so?

I am asserting that the laws of logic are a reflection of how God thinks.  You use,live and believe in these immaterial, absoulte universal laws which relflect an immaterial, absolute universal being, but you cant account (given your world view) for something that is immaterial, absolute and immaterial.

next you say:  I don't know how you think we got to this level of science and technology then, but I'm interested to hear how you claim we did.

Because we all borrow from the Christian World View which accounts for the supernatural laws of logic.  Your world view cannot account for the supernatural eventhough you are subject to it.

you said: The preconditions are in how we distinguish 1 thing from another. It isn't difficult. We label things and isolate them from each other so as not to mix them up. We do it everyday.

I know you do this everyday and thank you for proving my point.  See my answer directly above.

you said: I never argued that we won't find out that our observations were flawed, or innacurate. The salient point is that for 'all intents and purposes' they are accurate enough to make incredibly reliable predictions, and there's no reason to throw the baby out with thebath water in our methodology, because in practice our methods not only produce very strong yields, but they lead to better future methods. There's a strong 'snowball' effect, even when we find out we were wrong, it teaches us how to avoid errors in calculations and predictions by not repeating flaws in procedure.

The point is that everything you have mentioned (tests, predictions, methodology etc) would not be possible without the uniformity of nature. You have faith in this uniformity, you live it, but given your world view you cannot account for it.  I know you will say we know these things by what they have done in the past therefore we can predict and have a reasonable expectation.  But that logic fails in light of your own world view because you dont have any empirical evidence that the future will be like the past.  By that logic I could say that I will never die because I have never died in the past.

You said: At this point, you're just droning on and on, and I don't think you even understood my statement.
You talked right past the statement of mine that you quoted. If you disagree with what I stated, explain why it's fallacious, instead of talking right past it.

I am not sure what you are asking here.  Are you saying you dont have to give account for your explanation?  Then why sould I?

Next: 1- Even if that were the case, it wouldn't matter to me. It's not a personal requirement of mine.
2-You haven't given an argument to support your assertion that demonstrates why I (or anyone) should believe what you say is true, or why anybody should concern themselves with this 'truth' even if it were true.

I am not sure to what you are referring as you keep posting little bits and pieces of what I say to bring it out of context.

You said: Wrong. Necessity dictates that it's not practical to use anything but the most stable platform to build from.

Necessity dictates???? We all have different needs and I think you need to account for those laws of logic so that your arguments are not reduced to absurdity.

you said:  No. Knowledge is relative. Measurements are relative. It's relative to sample rate, bit depth, and non linearities, to use 'binary' terminology. By this token, everything we 'build', beit knowledge, or an aircraft, is based on a limited sample rate and bit depth.

This is how we function in our day to day lives, and the evidence of our level of science and technology at present demonstrates that in many instances we can eschew many 'bits' of knowledge and accuracy without sacrificing degrees of 'certainty'.
There used to be a saying in the aviation industry that once the drawings and plans for an aircraft weighed as much as the aircraft, it was good enough to fly. So, I don't think many people in this world would even give you half as much of an ear for your philosophical arguments as you are getting here. The only reason I even debate these kinds of obsessive compulsive thought experiments is to demonstrate how utterly absurd and impractical it is to waste the energy to extend arguments to these extremes.

Again you post a small tidbit of what I said and tatake it out of context.  Knowledge is relative????  Are you absolutely sure???

Next you say: You're strawmanning. Gravity is not constant because of 'worldviews'. It is constant according to the timescales that we've been observing it, and to the accuracy of our instruments used to measure it.
The 'truth' of gravity is the force that it exerts upon particles. We measure it with instruments.
Instruments that detect and measure do not have a worldview.

You are completely missing the point.  I never said worldviews affect constants such as gravity.  I said they affect how we interpret evidence. 

Then you say: So is the notion that 'logic supersedes science', which is why you don't see many 'help wanted' ads for philosophers.

We wouldnt even use science if it wasnt logical to do so.

next you say: This is the 'wrong' method?    You see, our worldview does determine how we interpret evidence.  You prove my point.
 

you then say:  And?
Is it your contention that this simply cannot be the case in reality?  So, are you going to attempt the simple ad hoc claim that a causal loop cannot exist as an argument that everything is derived from an uncaused 'causer', and then claim that that in and of itself is not an absurd?

Since we cannot know an infinite number of things an argument does not infinitely regress. Not all circular arguments are fallacious.  A true presupposition must use itself as part of its own proof.  The following argument shows this perfectly:

1. If there were no laws of logic we could not make an argument.

2. We can make an argument

3. Therefore there must be laws of logic

This is subtly circular but valid none the less.  Not all circular arguments are arbitrary not if they prove themselves.  This is a modus tollens syllogism as explained in earlier posts.

Wakawaka,

Any reality to which the Laws of Logic are applicable is necessarily prior to, more fundamental than, any entity within it, ie any entity which exists, which would include a 'God'.

The Laws of Logic are not contingent, they are necessary. Unlike any 'God'.

Your 'argument' is logically incoherent, makes no sense whatever.

because you insist any arguable truth position is always a presupposition, then there's definitely a supernatural god. And because the empirical method of testable explanation may not be 100 per cent the only way to know things then there's definitely a supernatural god that cannot be measured or even defined. Your fallacy of complexity is tottering, Mr Waka.  

As everyone keeps telling you, empiricism is not concrete. It's just the best system humans have for understanding reality. The whole idea of the scientific process is not that it is absolute but that our experience shows us it is the most valuable way to continue to learn things without the pollution of bias, the arbitrary and subjective application of divine influence to natural events, and the elevation of the human imagination to the lofty position of yardstick of the nature of truth. 

For fun, lets try to understand why an airplane wing provides lift. I will measure the air pressure above and below the wing and you pray for guidance. Which of us is most likely to be right? Further, next time you go up in a plane why not forgo routine servicing. Instead a group of nuns from Little Sisters of the Poor will come around and pray over those engines for ten years prior to your flight. Because empiricism cannot say anything about reality, can it?

I wonder that you can decry the profound capacity of something that impacts all elements of your material existence.

observations. I thought this was going to be hard.

One can see that if a thing/proposition is (x) it can't also be (not x).

Why do you need to have "God, who commands us to observe those laws in action as we could never do it ourselves" in that blank?

You said:You account for the laws of logic with a presupposition. That does not follow.

Yes of course I do, and it does follow.  We all have to start with certain presuppositions to meet conditions for intelligibility.  You have presuppositions too.  You presuppose things like the uniformity of nature and that your senses are valid.  WHy do you get to presupose things and I do not?  The difference is i have a foundation for my presuppositions and you do not because of your worldview.  And, since you have no foundation (accounting for the laws of logic) your argument is irrational.

you also said: 

You're putting the cart before the horse. You are using your argument to validate that your preformed notion (god), accounts for logic, and that logic is attributable to him, and then either refusing to give an account for your account, or asserting that by definition (yours and god's) there is nothing beyond god to account for god, or anything that could account for god.

You are simply asserting that you've reached 'the end of the line'. You (and ostensibly god) are defining that god is 'the end of the line'.

No im not putting the cart before the horse you are.     THe very argument argument you are using against me uses preconditions of intelligibilty which you have to pesupose. 

As far as my accounting for the laws of logic.  I have already given this accounting.  God tells us that he is the ultimate standard(a presup) and that without him you cant know anything (another presup).  He is the final regression and it is a circular argument, but not all circular arguments are viscious.  Some can go outside their own plane and are valid.  The battle my friend is not over evidence but rather over our starting points or presuppositions.

Lastly, without accounting for preconditions of intelligibilty ie laws of logic (immaterial) you cant know anything for certain.  Either you have to know everything to know anything OR you have to know someone who knows everything to know anything.

JCgadfly said:  

observations. I thought this was going to be hard.

No,  you are using the Laws of Logic to say observations account for the laws of logic.  Perhaps it is a little harder than you realized eh??

further you said:  

Why do you need to have "God, who commands us to observe those laws in action as we could never do it ourselves" in that blank?

Because God is the presupposition I need to account for the preconditions of intelligibility.  Without presuppositions you cant account for something that is immaterial abstract like the laws of logic and like God which is also immaterial(spirit).  My presup makes sense and accounts for itself, but you can give no account and so your reasoning is irrational.

Wakawaka.

My presuppositions are that I exist, and that others exist, and that what I sense has some useful degree of consistent correlation with what is beyond my body, and with what other individuals sense. And that observations that remain consistent over time are more likely to continue that way than ones that are observed to change often. That is pretty much it.

As I observe more, I adjust my assumptions if new observations don't readily fit into my my current set of assumptions.

Really no need to 'account for' the starting points, just need some initial 'working assumptions' ( more accurate description in my view than 'presuppositions' ), and a willingness to change them as more data is accumulated and correlated.

God is totally irrelevant, doesn't account for anything, let alone his own existence.

And assuming a God, would destroy any confidence in "the uniformity of nature", since such a being could change anything at any time. So God is actually worse than 'irrelevant', His existence would remove any meaning from empirical findings.

Ktulu said:   I have not implied an absolute, there may very well be one, we have, however, not observed one or found any need for one.   The universe makes sense without an absolute frame of reference, relativity works.

I shall respond to this with your own words which were: they are 100% natural because there is nothing other than 100% natural.  

There is nothing other than 100% natural hmmm  .......Are you absolutely sure??  It sure sounds to me like you are implying and absolute.

You said "relativity works"....are you absolutely sure?

You said: The universe makes sense without an absolute frame of reference, relativity works.  Are you saying relativity works without references??

you said:

 I'm getting a little frustrated at your lack of reading comprehension.  You will notice that I have allowed for myself to be wrong.  A different way of reading what I wrote would be to say that pragmatically there are no absolutes.

Perhaps it is you who should take notice of what you write.  YOU WILL NOTICE that you used the words "Of course" as I show above to preface you statement implying that you absolutely are not sure.  Here is your statement, "Of course I'm not absolutely sure there is no such thing as an absolute "

U said:   

So what is a concept that I have, as it relates to me personally?  How do I hold on to the concept from one day to the next?  Obviously something has taken place when the idea was communicated, and somehow I have recorded it.  If I were hooked up to a MRI machine while I was understanding the concept you would see certain parts of my brain light up as I was forming synapses, and potentially growing new neurons to complete a given connection necessary to record this concept.  This is all very natural I assure you no divine intervention is required.  

The physical means by which we record concepts are not concepts.

next u say:    Perhaps you can provide me with an alternative, or some vague idea of an alternative to natural.    How many time do I have to do this?  Read my posts please.

We can make valid absolute statements of certain kinds. This particularly applies to many negative claims. 

It is absolutely true that an object cannot be both in a particular location and NOT in that location at the same time. 

Or that its outer surface cannot be both entirely blue and entirely red at the same time.

It is absolutely true that not all possible statements are true.

So when we discuss 'absolute' assertions, we need to examine what each statement is claiming, what category of statement it is, to decide whether its claim can be an absolute or not.

Concepts are abstractions, pattern of linked ideas, which are encoded in language, and in our memories.

There is nothing 'supernatural' about them.

I believe you and I need to establish a currency for our communication.  We're clearly not understanding ourselves.

I am not absolutely sure of anything past "Cognito ergo sum", anything else I express in degrees of certainty.  I'm also a pragmatist that has yet to be shown any shred of evidence for anything other than natural.  So yes, as of right now I can firmly state that there is nothing other than 100% natural.  I would love to have that notion proven wrong, and I allow myself the possibility that I am wrong.  

You keep repeating that mantra, relativity depends on references.  You are looking for the ultimate answer, I get it, I've looked for it too.  You want the certainty, you want the parent that tells you that everything will be ABSOLUTELY alright, and there is no monster in your closet, but guess what, there is no such answer.  Everything is relative, and since you will throw in the "check mate atheists!" "are you absolutely sure?" questions, let me answer that.  No, I am not absolutely sure, There may very well be an unmovable turtle in the center of the universe that we may all use as an absolute frame of reference.  We do however, have many more other theories of universe models, that make sense without said turtle.  And if we can exclude the said turtle as an absolute frame of reference, what need is for said God?  If you must presuppose the said God, why not presuppose the said turtle?

you say that without offering anything else? I argue that a concept is a physical pattern of electrons facilitated by the mentioned pattern of neurons.  If you remove the infrastructure on which the pattern is facilitated, the electrons composing the concept will dissipate using the path of least resistance.  But I'm sure you have a bible verse that can better explain what a concept is.  I'd love to hear it.

Just one more time in context and to the point would be nice , thank you. 

You have not shown why that's necessary and not simply superfluous.

You're obfuscating. You keep droning on 'immaterial'. 

'Outside of nature' is a non sequitur.

A totally unjustified notion talked about as 'fact'.

We have 'accounted' for them.

(a) is necessarily (a)

What do you 'presuppose'??

That if there wasn't a mind of god, or if there was a pantheon of gods, that (a) could wind up being (a) and (not a) at the same time and in the same context?

The FACT that I stated in the beginning is a fundamental observation, a FACT that a God, if such a childish superstition had some existential basis in reality, would itself need as a primary FACTs about reality to help account for itself. Such FACTS are more fundamental than 'God'.

Statements about logic can often be expressed as absolutes, especially if they are negatives expressing the impossibility of certain other statements about what exists or doesn't. They are referring to abstractions. In that sense, particular categories of abstraction 'exist', but NOT in the same sense that we, as physical entities, exist.

As soon as you presuppose anything, you are in the realm of speculation, unless and until you can relate that presupposition to some empirical observation.

Lack of knowledge with 100% certainty, apart from those statements about what concepts or relationships are impossible, in no way prevents the acquisition of fully useful knowledge, of the sort that has allowed the development of the technology which is allowing us to debate.

Whereas, any 'knowledge' derived from unwarranted and unprovable assumptions about a Supreme Entity, whose nature and attributes would be inherently beyond our ability to know with any certainty, remains forever in that realm of subjective guesswork and speculation, with no certainty whatever. It is fantasy. It leads to NO knowledge of any useful degree of coertainty. It is the path to ignorance, as you amply demonstrate in this thread, WackyWacky.

I have reason for all my assumptions, based on empirical observations of myself and others, including the observations of what their assumptions have allowed them to produce for me to use, and the massive degree of correlation based on analysing the mutual consistency and coherence of the many aspects of modern scientific knowledge. IOW, it works, damn it! I have designed and devised many solutions to real-world complex technical problems over my career as an electronics engineer. IOW, I have experienced at a deep level, just how and why it works. Further, I have made many useful generalizations of the implications of both the incredible complexity of material reality, and of the way our brains wrestle with grasping enough of this daunting complexity, of important patterns within it which help us harness it. Without, I should add, having or needing understanding of it down to the last detail.

'God' is such an ill-defined concept that it allows you to justify and 'account' for anything, as can any argument incorporating a contradiction or other form of fallacy. It is useless, except as a security blanket for those who cannot handle the complexity and wonder and awe of Reality.

For example, it motivates people to produce the inconsistent, contradictory, un-historical, myth-based world of Scripture, which leads to endless and fruitless schizms as followers attempt to resolve its mess.

Wacky,

you need to understand: I have no problem with 'immaterial', with abstract principles - if you think multi-dimensions, string theory, entropy, the uncertainty principle, collapsing probability functions, warped space-time, etc, are simple 'material' concepts, you are out of your mind.

Atheism does not reject the concept of the immaterial.

The basic problem have with the delusion that is Theism, is the assumption that Mind, Mind with intent and will and purpose, is the only possible 'explanation' for various aspects of Existence, or even Existence itself.

I also see Theists actually unable to conceive of the truly immaterial, in that they imagine the 'immaterial' as actually material, but just a more ethereal stuff, belonging to a 'higher realm'. Its like the idea of the 'soul', or 'essences', they seem to be always conceived of as some 'stuff', just not having some of the attributes of 'ordinary' matter that we can feel and see in ordinary contexts.

It seems to me to be closely related to Plato's mind set, where abstractions, such as form, existed in some other realm, vaguely analogous to our earthly realm, but 'perfect' and 'eternal'. And his ideas have held the progress of real knowledge back millennia, but suited Theology just fine.

IOW a giant category error, an inability to grasp what an 'abstraction' truly means.

Immaterial does NOT imply or necessitate God.

Empiricism, Relativism, and Naturalism are each labels that Philosophers have used to categorize different modes of thought, or different ways of approaching reality, or attempting to understand it.

They are not rigorous or exclusive or exhaustive 'systems', and they are only philosophical ideas, not scientific, therefore they are basically different opinions on tis topic. Each person will have a different mix of such ideas in how they attempt to comprehend existence.

See my sig for how I see 'Philosophy' in the spectrum of the quest for knowledge.

You are not the first Theistically inclined individual to be obsessed about Philosophy and its categories, which I have little time for, unless it is a discussion well-founded on science, but pushing beyond the normal domain of scientific speculation. Daniel Dennett is my current favourite in this realm. David Hume is my favorite older, dead philosopher, Bertrand Russell of the more recent ones.

As Ktulu pointed out, they can all form part of a coherent approach to understanding.

Just to clarify:

Knowledge is gained by empirical observations of reality, as distinct from the pure imaginings of the human mind.

Deciding on the 'best', ie most likely to be the best match to reality, between two or more proposed, plausible hypotheses, cannot be made with absolute confidence, can only be that one is more likely than the other. This is where a degree of 'relativism' has to apply.

Evidence of truth can only come from observation, experiment, and testing, which automatically and logically excludes any ideas which go beyond that which does not have any known influence or effect on the natural world. Such ideas, until they can suggest ways in which an empirical test can be devised. Until then, they must remain speculation.

Hope that helps you understand things a little better.

Yes they put forth arguments.  But unless those arguments are based on empirical observation, they are just speculations, opinions.

All they can show, at best, is that IF certain assumptions hold, THEN certain conclusions follow.

The value of a course in Philosophy lies in what they may teach of Logic and Critical thinking. All else is BS.

I know this from having read books on and by philosophers from high school until well past completing my Engineering Degree.

It is not necessary to attend a course in anything to understand it, and I eventually learned more than enough to see the emptiness of most philosophy.

Thank you for your opinion. It is noted.

Then you're thinking it's like Christianity...

Like this gem:

"(3)  The laws of logic are true at every possible world;

Which translated means that because of the universal constants, something can't be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way.

Or this conbination strawman/obfuscation:

"scientific laws are true only in possible worlds where there's nature."

Which translated means that universal constants exist in 'worlds' where they exist.

These philosophical arguments are difficult to distinguish from statements made by someone currently suffering from alcohol poisoning, or someone who flew over the cuckoo's nest...

One who doesn't take themselves too seriously as a good philosopher. There's a reason it's called 'Navel Gazing', or 'Overcontemplating Belly Button Lint'.

There are so many great quotes that mock philosophy, and are absolutely true.

I like this one:

"Studying philosophy really means gorging yourself on a stew of Every idea imaginable." : Bertrand Russell

Apart from being able to maintain incredibly long attention spans without eventually deciding to do something more fun?..... Apparently, nothing...