Ok, I'm fine with this. Hmm, ok. So it's sort of like the universe, in the sense that it is constantly expanding. But supposing one could “catch up” t...
Doesn't seem that explicit to me, how does that follow? (1. The world exists, 2.???, 3. Therefore, the world has an origin in time) I meant as in “app...
I did, I thought the argument seemed fallacious, but figured maybe I was making some obvious mistake in the argument one of you in the forum could poi...
Could you elaborate a bit on how it's incompatible with asymmetric causality? I'm not very well acquainted to the idea. If by “reversing the direction...
I suspend judgement as to the question whether time had an absolute beginning or not. In this antinomy, Kant considered a universe which is infinite t...
Speaking of math and the Trinity, a more interesting attempt was made by Cusanus: Suppose you have an isosceles triangle in which two of its equal sid...
That's another way of putting it, yes. But the point seems to be the same: the non-physical cannot mix with the physical without ceasing to be non-phy...
Infinite parts ? infinite extension. So no, it's not the “exact same respect”. For instance: 1= 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+... even though 1 is a finite number,...
Ok then. Right, and so one possible interpretation is that an “illogical” world is simply impossible, therefore even God cannot do what is logically i...
That doesn't answer my questions (unless in your sentence particle means exactly, and without equivocation, “not a wave”, is that what you are saying?...
Are you sure about that?: How would you interpret that passage? Many philosophers in the past and still now hold that God is constrained by logic, so ...
By that criterion, you could ask the same about almost all philosophy. Could God, if he exists, make something that both is and is not a tree, in the ...
I mean... the ”consequence”, if one adopts the view that God is bound by the laws of logic, could be that such a God does not exist. I think that's a ...
Right, but I'm asking if it's even logically possible. Also, sorry for lying but due to your answer I need to ask a few more questions: If a transcend...
I'm not denying that... Anyway, one last question: do you think it is possible for God and the universe to exist, but also that God didn't create the ...
But that's precisely the point, he's saying that if his logic is correct and even God must obey the laws of logic (If God exists, the physical world m...
Ok, so we are pretty much in agreement. However, what about the question: if God exists, how did he create the world? Would you say we should also jus...
Ok, but if you go back to the OP, you'll see that one of Mr.S' point is that the process through which God created the world (if he existed) is inconc...
Right, and to use a word with two different meanings without clarifying them is to commit the fallacy of equivocation, just as you have done here (if ...
Could you elaborate? I don't know, he did say that God does not reveal himself in the world. But Mr.S doesn't want to defend the whole of Wittgenstein...
Right, english is not my mother tongue, so you'll have to forgive me about this one. I thought “doctrine” could mean something similar to “theory”. Bu...
That's what I originally wrote before editing the OP, but I thought it was redundant. Where else would he reveal himself? Right, perhaps I didn't stat...
If you mean that contradictions can be true (dialetheism) or you claim that they are not actually contradictions, but seem that way due to our limited...
Isn't that what you were trying to do here?: So, I'm not very knowledgeable about Hegel's philosophy, but I do know about his doctrine of thesis, anti...
That sounds a lot like Cusanus' doctrine that God is the unity of all contradictions. Though I suppose that you have rather Hegel in mind, right? The ...
Unfortunately, that seems impossible. We know intuitively that some sensations are much better than others, but if we were asked: How much better is t...
As for “what might be the greatest pleasure”, we should first ask: for whom? Some people would say food, others sex, others art, others spirituality, ...
For me, it's not. For practical purposes I'd say: often “knowledge” can be quite painful. But then again, being a sceptic in the theory I don't even k...
Well, your question was: ... And I gave an answer to it: happiness “How to achieve happiness?” is a different and more difficult question. I think it'...
My preferred view on this matter is that of Aristotle: the ultimate goal of life is happiness, and all the other goals only have value in so far as th...
Or the question itself is meaningless (a pseudo-question). One problem of many philosophical questions is that they are often admited as legitimate qu...
Well, there's not much to say, is there? A fallacious argument doesn't necessarily have a false conclusion, but it gives no good reason to believe its...
The way I see the matter: There are some people who claim that God exists, and believe that God exists, and then there are other people who simply don...
They show that their conclusion is probably true (for practical purposes). Of course one may doubt that through sceptical arguments like the problem o...
Like I answered to j0e, I agree when it comes to trivial and uncontroversial customs and conventions, but not as regards controversial/ important ones...
Interesting, I confess that I unfortunately haven't had the time to read Hegel's works in order to make a proper judgement of them, but those passages...
I agree that many of our actions are determined by custom and habit, but I was hinting rather at other customs and conventions, such as religious beli...
Agreed. I think we can infer that Hume uses a sense limited to bodily actions that depend upon one's will, and thus draws the conclusion that if a pyr...
But there are no grounds to believe them either, according to the theoretical philosophy of the pyrrhonian, that's why the choice is still arbitrary. ...
In a sense, it is impossible not to make any choices, that does seem correct. If I remained sitting in a chair without moving an inch and not saying a...
Ok, but I guess that's what strikes non-sceptics as suspicious, because the pyrrhonian cannot know that living by custom and convention is better than...
I guess so, but maybe even this claim of yours is arbitrary (as well as my own claim just now). It seems in the end to boil down to this statement of ...
I refrain from ever insulting people during discussion because I find insults unnecessary, but I don't mind if people insult me. My view would be that...
I agree with you in this point, that sounds insane. Good! If I got you curious about something, then our exchange about possible worlds wasn't entirel...
I already told you I'm talking about Leibniz's doctrine of possible worlds, not Lewis' strange claims (if he does in fact claim what you say he does, ...
Ok, but I'm not talking merely about the observable universe, I'm talking about both the observable universe and the parts of the universe we have not...
Comments