If something falls outside of the scope of science, it is indistinguishable from pure imagination.
So you were pointing out the logical fallaciousness of your counter-argument?
Do you believe that rational thought exists? If so, how can it be quantified?
If you actually construct verifiably logical phrases and statements, then, at least apparently, you are (or were) capable of "rational thought".
Unicorn:"a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse with long flowing mane and tail and a single often spiraled horn in the middle of the forehead."If we were looking for a unicorn we would use empirical methods to do so.
If you actually construct verifiably logical phrases and statements, then, at least apparently, you are (or were) capable of "rational thought".If one is capable of rational thought, by definition one is capable of free will.
How does that change anything about a unicorn being defined according to its physical characteristics?
"Rational thought is independently verifiable."You've just allowed an avenue for moral realism.
Someone is 'compelled' to believe something based on the amount of evidence it has going for it.
Our final conclusion on the matter isn't necessarily beyond our control.
Of course mythical is not a physical characteristic. But saying "a mythical exists" tells us nothing about what is being referred to. A yeti is also a mythical creature that's large and hairy and resembles a bear. Both of these mythical creatures are defined according to their physical characteristics.
If moral realism is based on "rational thought" and "rational thought" is independently verifiable, then you've conceded that morality has an objective basis.
It doesn't matter unless you can somehow demonstrate that being irrational is a choice.It's not as if people interpret evidence that suggests something the same way. Some people have rational interpretations and some have irrational interpretations.
Neither love nor rational thought involves choice. Is it then not also possible that the feeling you refer to as freewill also does not involve choice but rather the post hoc justification of thoughts and actions that your brain makes for you before you are consciously aware of them?
Neither love nor rational thought involves choice. Is it then not also possible that the feeling you refer to as freewill also does not involve choice but rather the post hoc justification of thoughts and actions that your brain makes for you before you are consciously aware of them?
"Logical" and "rational" is not functionally equivalent to "verifiable." Verifiable implies empirical methods while both logic and rationality are abstract
The fact that "rational thought" produces (independently) verifiable evidence in the form of logic, strongly implies that it exists (at least as a black-box process).It is possible but that would mean that rational thought does not exist. I don't maintain that notion.
