It's bizarre to me that anyone would see that and interpret it as anything other than an instruction, such as, "If you see a roundabout, then turn around and come back". — Sapientia

Any property that is physical is objective. Why? Because any physical property is measurable (at least in theory), and if measurable, then it is mathematical, and if mathematical, then it is logical, and logic is indubitably an objective property of reality. — Samuel Lacrampe

I'm not going to teach you grammar, but I would advise you to teach yourself, since you've demonstrated that you don't know how preferences should be expressed, ... — Sapientia

If you don't like what I write, then delete what I write or ban me. But don't change my words.

That's an instruction. — Sapientia

And the moderators of this site are clearly no Einsteins.

That's an insult. — Sapientia

No. You don't get special treatment, and if that's what you're after, then insulting the moderators is not the best tactic. — Sapientia

— Wosret

Who here can be satisfied with an "explanation" of.. "Oh it's just random" ..? — Jake Tarragon

Randomness isn't an absence of any pattern. Most things which can be considered as random have patterns. The basic example is a fair coin, flipping it gives you 50% chance of heads and 50% chance of tails. So it's a random outcome, but the generating process for the random outcomes has properties that can be analysed and accounted for - in principle anyway. — fdrake

what would determine the difference between the time the admiral detects the ship, and the time in which the lower officer does the same in turn? It is in fact a very simple operation: if the difference is equal to the time it takes the ship to get in visual range of the naked eye, then we can say that the telescope is showing the location of the ship in real time. If, on the other hand, the difference between the detection times is negligible, then we can say that the telescope allows us to see objects not there where they are, but where they were when their light started its travel towards us. — Hachem

Not all people can achieve salvation. Most people who can reach salvation require suffering (in order to reach salvation). Altruistic conduct removes suffering. Thus, altruistic conduct is not (always) helpful. Altruistic is only helpful for those who cannot achieve salvation. Yet how can one know that one “helps” via altruism is not being impeded on their “path” to salvation? Is this an epistemic paradox? — jancanc

Is it the wood shack, reading by candlelight (you could read in the daytime, ya know), or dying at 30 that you find unsatisfactory? — Bitter Crank

I agree with szardosszemagad we pay our taxes voluntarily. Income tax is based in what is called an honour system, you voluntarily declare your income and pay the tax which is due. Of course if you lie, then that's fraud and you will be punished. — Metaphysician Undercover

I will present the argument after we clarify these foundational issues, at least provide some clarification. — Sam26

I'm rooting for whoever is a disappointment or a spontaneous pacifist. — Nils Loc

The people staring at the shadows have acquired clarity to their existence, they can exist because they know what reality is (the shadows) and how it works, their existence has rules they can follow and exist within. When they are exposed to the reality outside the shadows, they lose that clarity and are completely unable to exist anymore, and thus WILL go back to the shadows anyway. — Gentzer

We can use Occam's razor to dismiss it: A hypothesis involving finite things is simpler than one involving infinite things. As such, until it is refuted, we should stick the simpler 'finite chain of causes' hypothesis. — Samuel Lacrampe

Premise-1: Everything in the world has a cause
....
Conclusion: Therefore, it is very probable that a non-contingent first cause exists; — dclements

What you are presuming is that actual infinities really exist. Actual infinity, however is merely an abstract notion , or, if you like, a fiction in the realm of the philosophy of mathematics which proposes that mathematical objects like , say the infinite sequence of negative numbers you refer to above can form a complete totality or "set", I.e. a given object that is a true actual infinity. Actual infinities, though, do not exist, they are not realities. To understand why this is you should google up and read the mathematician David Hibert's famous thought experiment , "Hibert's Hotel". — John Gould

Potential infinity           Actual infinity

Axiom of induction      Axiom of Infinity

Peano                          Cantor

0, 1, 2, 3, ...           {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}

n+1 given n                All of them at once

Negative integers       Hilbert Hotel

How does the fact that the premise used is specifically picked to make the argument work make the argument any less valid or sound? — Chany