Philosophim

When did I say empirical evidence? All I'm noting for the condition of falsification, is that we have a clear postulate we can put forward that would ...

My point is a debate is not evidence to understand. The conclusion of a debate is evidence to understand. I see evidence that there is a debate. And i...

That's correct. If we ask, "What is the cause for the slide?" and there is no prior causality, it is an alpha.

Sure. I'm dealing in what exists. There's plenty of physical causality to go around, so that's what I work with. That's definitely an opinion many peo...

Could you please show how this references my original statement? Here, I'll reference it again. Where am I wrong in these two statements?

I have, and that is what I've concluded. Its your job to show me why my conclusion is wrong. "I don't think so," is not philosophy.

Yes, you've understood the nature of "The problem of evil". The problem of evil reveals to us that we cannot label a God as limited to acting a certai...

You shouldn't have to ask if you read and comprehended the OP. Lets get to your argument. Sure, just don't forget that its causality. 1 causes 2, caus...

Kuro, I think you might have missed my point. If A is not A, then it can't equal A right? So if I said, "A" exists, and someone demonstrated to me tha...

I noted earlier that stating, "We don't understand this, so I get to propose whatever I want" is not viable evidence. Demonstrate to me these things a...

Ok, if you did actually read it, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Again, as I posted last time, I am not following Aristotle's argument...

But I don't say what Aristotle is saying at all. Mine deals with sets, not the instability of infinities.

You should probably read it again before commenting on it. I believe you've misremembered what it says. I do not know Hawking's, Krauss's or Aristotle...

"at least one". Where am I claiming I'm only positing one?

Ha ha! Well done! I mean this genuinely and not sarcastically. Always question and poke at "generally accepted knowledge". My point was that we can't ...

Why do people not read an OP, and assume the writer is trying to argue for something they are clearly not? Please actually read the OP before commenti...

I think you do not understand what I mean by cause, and that is fair. It is very simple. A state exists in moment B. Now it exists in moment C. Now, i...

I see, the way it was presented, I thought it was an aside puzzle. That being said, an unsolved thought puzzle that might be true or false is not evid...

No, I am not making an assumption, I am noting a basic given definition. That's like if I said 1+1 = 2, and you came back with, "You assume 1 exists"....

Ha! And I almost edited that out when I initially typed. I should know better on the philosophy boards. What I should have said was vague references a...

My language didn't shift. Are you saying there is no cause for why it is, thus an alpha, or are you stating there is a cause for why this is?

Please clarify. Are you implying there is no "now"? Do you not exist at this time? We clearly exist currently don't we? If we observe something curren...

Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state. And why is that? What is the cause for this?

No, I do not. Coffee is my vice, and that's it. I also want to apologize for that response yesterday, it was out of line and rude. I think the differe...

Great post! First, lets qualify that "most" scientific evidence is a biased stretch. There is some science which is inconclusive or unconvincing, but ...

Anyone who is serious in an argument would repeat it if that was the case, concerned that the other person has missed it or misunderstood. I spent a l...

Except there is evidence of physicalism. If Wayfarer would provide evidence of some type of non-physicalism, or provide evidence why physicalism is fa...

If it is backed by evidence, then there's something there. If there is no evidence, its just a made up wish. The falsification of the idea, is that th...

Fine, then don't give me the evidence. I go about my way unchanged. Enjoy the rest of your day.

You did not address my entire post. Its been a pleasant conversation until now. I told you to give me your evidence, that I can intuit and think as we...

I did not reflexively reel off an answer. And that is not the topic. The topic is I provided what I would need as evidence of something non-physical t...

Janus, you just ignored the rest of my post. You are running away. Don't do that.

Stop telling me what I will and will not accept, and just give me the evidence. I can intuit and imagine. Why do you think we can't corroborate that? ...

I see, so your definition of what non-physical is, is that it is not empirical. Meaning that there is no evidence of its existence or evidence of expe...

I've given you a link to science article which clearly mentions that energy and mass are different expressions of the same thing. From the article: "M...

Basically you're stating there is no evidence of the non-physical. The only conclusion we can reach then, are physical ones. All I asked is to give me...

A small primer to read. http://ifsa.my/articles/mass-energy-one-and-the-same

I see. That is not my personal opinion myself, but I feel that "free will" is such an ambiguous term that it can mean different things to different pe...

No. To be made up of matter and energy. And I will return the question. What does it mean to be non-physical? What evidence do you have of it existing...

Incorrect. Do you know how your car works? And yet, you know the car works because of the things in the car, not because of an intangible non-physical...

I'm not sure Descartes declared we had free will. He simply declared that which he was unable to doubt, in fact, that which arguably he had no control...

If something applies to "everything that is real," then it also applies to any of its subsets like objects. So I don't think I'm using two definitions...

Good response Bob! I can see we're still on different tracks of thought, but I think we're close. Yes, I believe the term has brought confusion as not...

Incorrect. If A=B, then a=a is false. If P and it turns out that there is no p, q, or r, then the second statement is false. Logic is clearly falsifia...

A very good question. First, it needs to be something falsifiable. By that, I mean that there needs to be some way of clearly defining what the non-ph...

Complacency? If I accepted something without evidence for my emotional gratification, that would be complacent. Don't you think I would love it if we ...

I'm not arguing that we aren't the best brained animal out there. I'm not arguing that we cannot do amazing things. But we're still animals, and brain...

I'll try one more time in case you aren't understanding my request. I know those are paradoxes that people have come up with. What logical thinker hol...

Certainly, we are the smartest animals we know of. But we share many traits with animals as well, and I don't see how this can be glossed over or igno...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1 if you are interested in a serious but not technically difficult approach...