Your distinction between "physical time" and "metaphysical time", upon which you base your claim that special relativity makes no metaphysical claims,...
Now you seem to be trying to change what you are saying. Before you were talking about whether the question is significant or meaningful, now you are ...
OK, so your dismissing inductive reasoning as not capable of assuring truth. That's not an unusual tactic, but we might just as well say that we can n...
I don't know what you mean by "presupposes" here, and why does such presupposing produce the conclusion you declare. I agree that metaphysis will alwa...
Ontology is a branch of metaphysics. If your intent is, as it seems, to separate "fundamental ontology" from the ontology which is understood to be a ...
Right, and that's clearly a metaphysical statement, just like the opposing claim that there is an absolute ordering of events is a metaphysical statem...
Your "book" contains a very odd definition of metaphysics. Ontology is metaphysics, and ontology concerns what "is". Simultaneous is a statement about...
Yes, the very first, as the argument is that prior to the physical existence of life there is necessarily a non-physical agent. That's the basis for m...
Did you read the argument? It's not a theory, it's a logical argument. You haven't yet addressed it. As it's a very simple argument, you ought to be a...
It's hard to say why I find it interesting. I think it's like any field of study, something about it just draws my mind toward it. Suppose you're inte...
Right, that was my point. Now do you not agree with me? If I am interested, then the question is meaningful, and therefore significant. What makes the...
So let me get this straight. You do not see the significance of the question concerning the relationship between existence and time, and so you are as...
Wayfarer, if you don't mind, I'm going to add my two cents worth. I agree, that's an interesting question. We ought to evaluate the effects of such pr...
That's because, as I explained to you in Streetlight's other thread, the incommensurability lies in the relation of one spatial dimension to another. ...
I read some of the referrals, I found it wildly speculative, as I said, and uninteresting. Read Parfit seems to try to make a point by referral, and I...
Exactly as I described, the creation of the living physical body. That is not explained by physicalism, which refers to some unsupported, random and t...
So I'll repeat my answer to what you were asking. The question of the op concerns the relationship between time and existence. I believe that this is ...
No, the genome is the physical body. There is an activity which creates and interprets the information. What directs the activity cannot be the genome...
Why is that "vacuous"? If we are the type of being which can project meaning onto something, create meaning out of nothing, doesn't this say something...
It's not physical evidence which tells us that the soul is non-physical, that doesn't make sense. It's logic which gives us this conclusion. Here's a ...
The evidence indicates that the universe was created before human beings existed. If we accept that evidence then a human being could not have created...
If a person believes that "purpose" refers to something which is only expressed by human actions, then it is pointless to discuss purpose in relation ...
That's your opinion, but "the stupid thing" which I said points to the issue of assigning to the creator of the universe, properties which only human ...
Right, and isn't that "backstory" what makes the question meaningful? Aren't you inspired to uncover that backstory and determine its meaning? So agai...
I answered that, it questions the relationship between time and existence, that's why it's meaningful. If you say that it is not meaningful, and I say...
This is not an acceptable question. When you say "who cares what happens", "cares" refers to a human emotion. But it is impossible that a God which wa...
So long as an eternity hasn't passed we should be doing fine. To deny the question as meaningful, as you are doing is what is a fictional construct. J...
I think my formulation is triadic. Yours is much more complicated requiring as much as five elements. I have body and soul as the two principals, with...
I think the issue of the unity of the soul and body is complicated, as Wayfarer says. Aquinas wrote a lot about it so he is a good source. At other pl...
We went through this already. The reason is not necessarily difference. There is no difference between here and there, yet we individuate these as dif...
That's right, the nature of the material is it's form. That's why there is a difference between different molecules, and different molecules are respo...
What Aquinas argues in this passage is that the intellect and the soul of the human being are united as one, such that the human soul is an intellectu...
To say god is Everlasting, would be similar to saying god is time itself. So long as there is time, there is god, and god is inseparable from time, no...
Sorry Galuchat, but I really have difficulty with your terminology, and this makes it very hard to answer your questions. You ask me "what is your con...
So if individual differences are perceived, doesn't this require a mind to perceive them? Aren't you just confirming what I've been arguing? The mind ...
The whole point of distinguishing matter from form is to distinguish between that which is responsible for differences, form, and that which is respon...
I don't think that you define "eternal" properly here. It means without beginning or end in time. Because its boundaries are not in time, its existenc...
What we perceive are forms, so perceptual differences are formal differences. "Material differences" makes no sense, as matter is by definition that w...
So they are the same difference, just like the difference between 3 and 5, and 7 and 9, is the same difference, 2. I take it you are giving up on your...
Which part do you disagree with, that what creates genetic code is somewhat unknown, or that the logic leads us to conclude that this cause is non-phy...
To put it more succinctly, the question would be whether there are any electrons there, or just clouds, without the human act of individuation, which ...
Right, but we have two distinct categories, physical agents and non-physical agents. The physical agent accounts for what we call efficient cause, and...
We're just going around in circles here. Different means unlike, not the same. If we notice that things are unlike, not the same, we say that thing ar...
An agent is something active, actual. In semiotic processes it is required that there is an agent which produces signs and an agent which interprets s...
Do you know the difference between the general and the particular? It is not the same as the difference between the singular and the plural. To say th...
Comments