I don’t understand what you are really objecting to. I originally was noting that blueness cannot be defined just like temporality and space. You obje...
I completely agree. I realized, after making this argument, that I am really just arguing: P1. Reality is either an infinite series of contingent bein...
A scientific definition of blueness is not a valid definition of blueness. I does not account for the phenomenal property of blue: see Mary’s room tho...
My purpose is, indeed, to sway minds and to hear critiques of my position; but my point was that you were invalidly implying that my premises in the O...
The universe is not itself identical to the the set of all things nor the set of all causality per se: which are you referring to, if either? Assuming...
It presupposes that we are talking about an absolutely simple being—that’s it. You asked about how an absolutely simple being could have properties (l...
No. The set contains all caused things. Now, like I said before in the other thread, you could quantify over the set of all things simpliciter and the...
They refer to extension and temporality respectively: they are pure intuitions—there is no way to define that properly, no different than defining the...
No. Again, you cannot locate the pain in your finger in a literal sense. You are confusing the spatial reference in the phenomena of pain with the phy...
To say that the part is subordinate to the whole is to admit that the whole is real and independent of the parts; and I am not willing to accept that ...
I don’t know what this is supposed to represent. If there is a first cause, F, then it would be outside of the set of causality. If you were to say so...
I apologize for the belated response: I intended to respond earlier but got busy and forgot. I don’t see anything unreasonable about this argument. Yo...
We are talking about if they are in space—not if you feel them in space. Ok, then you are using the term ‘interaction’ much more strictly than I was. ...
Well, that’s a huge difference! An argument that the totality of what exists has no cause is true (trivially) because any cause—be itself caused or no...
Like I said before, the argument is on ontological parts. That could be in time and space or not; it doesn't matter to me. Some of the OP would have t...
Circular reasoning is when a premise presupposes the conclusion as true: I didn’t do that. Also, why would it have to be magical? Just think about how...
No worries, and sorry for the belated response on my end! What I am saying is that they are not in space like objects: if you cut open your arm, you w...
I appreciate your input, Relativist. Let’s see if we can find common ground. It is vital to understand that omniscience in the pre-medieval sense does...
I see your point; but I am thinking that wouldn’t the ‘being alive’ be a result of those parts interacting with each other properly? Viz., if you give...
But that’s what philosophy also engage in. Metaphysics is reasoning about evidence—which can be empirical. Again, this is an equivocation. When we dis...
The definition of philosophy is a tricky and interesting one. “Philosophy” literally translates to “the love of wisdom”, and wisdom (traditionally) is...
This is a contradiction in terms: ontology is philosophy, not science. Science cannot get at ontology, being merely the study of the relation of thing...
Let me take another stab at this: let me know if this is what you are saying. I think here's basically your argument: 1. Reality must be uncaused. 2. ...
Why? I don't see how that follows from the OP. Again, all the OP seems to be saying is that totality of what exists is uncaused; but the debate is abo...
I see what you are going for, but this entirely sidesteps the discussion of causality in metaphysics and ontology. When philosophers discuss whether a...
I don't think the self is made up of concrete parts: I think it is an emergent property of processes of the brain. Unless you are positing some sort o...
I don’t see how I’m committing a fallacy. God is real, but non-spatiotemporal. You are saying here that anyone who believes in anything non-spatiotemp...
Did you read the OP? I feel like you didn’t read it; because I outlined exactly what I mean by omnipotence and omnibenevolence and they are perfectly ...
Got it; but doesn’t this entail that you believe that there are existent things which exist outside of time and of which interact, to some degree, wit...
The problem with your analysis of consciousness is that you are ignoring the phenomenal nature of it due to it being ontologically grounded in physica...
Hello again! I had some time to re-read the OP and give it the proper attention it deserves. Here’s my thoughts. I don’t have a problem with your defi...
Ah, I see. So a being that is all-loving, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, absolutely simple, purely actual, eternal, unique, one, immutable, a...
So, what I am trying to say is that the composed beings that are concrete are either composed of an infinite regress of concrete things or there must ...
You are not being charitable. I am admitting that I used the term 'composed being' to refer to a 'concretely existent being which has parts' without r...
I think we are jumping all over the place in our discussion, and that’s equally my fault. I can tell from your response that we disagree at pretty muc...
As you quoted, the OP reaches God's existence as the conclusion of it. So I am confused why you think it is presupposed. The argument outlines why com...
That’s fair. I am starting to think my OP isn’t even arguing from Aquinas’ essence vs. esse distinction; so maybe this isn’t a Thomistic argument afte...
So, it seems like you are saying: 1. An absolutely simple being causing (ultimately) the existence of all things violates physics. 2. Therefore, it ca...
Not at all. God is not a presupposition of the argument in the OP. This is a blatant straw man: did you read the OP? If the philosophy is unsound, the...
Also I forgot to mention: Sorry, I am not trying to disappoint you; and I will re-read your OP and respond in that thread sometime soon so we can disc...
So, I want to focus for second on the fact that you believe both a finite series with an absolutely simple first member and an infinite series of rota...
Gregory, you keep jumping all over the place. I keep addressing your points and then you just move on to different point without engaging and then you...
I don't believe that existence has different types because I am a monist about it; so a thing either exists or it doesn't in the sense of generic exis...
Comments