So you seem to be saying that there is substantial irony and accidental irony. Is there a Platonic Form for irony? Idn. I was wondering recently if change has a Form. Things change if the Forms shift, but what records the change itself. I guess it's just contingent. But this gets into questions of receptivity vs spontaneity. That we receive everything in life and yet are the creators of our lives is ironic and even beautiful. If philosophy no longer feels strange someone they probably aren't doing it correctly

Freedom implies faith in the face of paradox. Those who erase the paradoxes miss the point. Fate is a meaningless word most of the time

My point was that I can say Jesus rose and didn't rise at the same time because these truths are under a higher truth. That reality doesn't bow to logic. Have fun with symbols

Logic cannot justify its methods. I am Muslim, Catholic, Hindu, and Buddhist. All faiths can be true for me. How am I in contradiction?

One's environment is an example A being true, however there are consciousnesses that exist in that environment who disagree with you on fundamental questions, so from a purely material perspective things are in contradiction. Maybe contradiction looks just like being to us

Following fate indeed can be a mistake. To be free someone should not be trapped by paradox

So reason is ironic? If so, is that the same as being oaradoxical?

Consideration: absolutism is to relativity as soul is to body. This is proven perhaps by the fact that you can't find the absolute through the relative but you can find the relative through the absolute

What if not A, A, and B were all the same thing. This would be nonclassical logic wherein each presupposes the other. This example seems like the Trinity to me. Does the law of explosion apply to faith?

The premise is "if not A then B". Conclusion: not A, so B

Postmodernism does split intellect into its spheres. Objectivity and reason itself being singular are tightly bound to each other. To learn arithmetic creative intelligence is needed. Numbers are created and then analyzed by the mind. When you first learned 1 plus 1 is 2, you didn't simply find another 1 and that was it. A summation happened, which is a creation. This means intelligence is not a continuum but a principle, and the reality of truth is seen when intellect unites its various parts

It seems to me that post modernism has a faith in the beyond of reason and wants to escape this world, expecting to wake up in it once again. Old school Hegel believed in objective truth and had spiritual faith. PM doesn't like the idea of spiritual if it's connected to religion

The PBS spacetime YouTube show also says in a couple episodes that conservation of energy doesn't always apply in physics

You do not need a standard for comparison that is universal with regard to speed and time. Everyone going at whatever velocity will have their own experience of time which differs from people going slower or faster then them. Just as there is no universal standard of size, there is none for time. An elephant is bigger than a mouse because of the environment it's in; if there was no space, but only an elephant next to a mouse, they would have the same size. As for moving in an instant, the instant represents the point that is covered which is yes zero. But these sum to a positive. This is something Aristotle never understood. Motion has a forward momentum. Air doesn't move an arrow as he thought. Motion is dynamic

I've been reading Kant today. He says, "Thus the intelligible cause, with its causality, is outside the series; its effects, on the contrary, are encountered in the series of empirical conditions. The effect can therefore be regarded as free in regard to the intelligible cause". But the intelligible cause is 1) noumena and 2) our true selves. Fitche said these were the same thing, but it is interesting that Kant says phenomena is free with respect to noumena on either side of it and yet he says noumena determines phenomena. It seems that Kant reacted to Hume's philosophy that we basically live in a world that is beyond our control and above all rationality, and went on (Kant) to espouse a new thought, one that says we have control of our reality because we are that reality. "I call intelligible that in an object of sense that is not itself appearance". So rationality rules in Kant's kingdom. Scientific laws are objective for him. "Accordingly, if that which must be regarded as appearance in the world of sense has in itself a faculty which is not an object of intuition THROUGH WHICH it can be the cause of appearances, then one can consider the causality of this being in two aspects, as intelligible in its actions as a thing in itself, and as sensible in the effects of that action as an appearance of the world of sense." Kant adds in his copy of the first edition, "The causality of representations of a being in respect of the objects of them is life. The determinability of the power of representation to this causality is the faculty of reason. The power of representation, if it is reason, hence is the determinability of its causality in respect of objects: its faculty of desire is will. If pure reason has causality, then the will is a pure will, and its causality is called freedom. [Now] we cannot cognize any causes, nor in general any intuitions corresponding to the categories, or relationships between them, but we must take all these from experience, Hence whether freedom is possible cannot be settled". Our thoughts create our reality and yet we are so entagled with ourselves and our worlds that we cannot see for sure what our nature is and if we are free at all. Husserl wanted to heal the divide in the thought of Kant imo. His relationship with Fitche's thought would be interesting

I agree Christiainty rests on contradiction. It is the opposite of what it claims to be. Such sure judgments I doubt we'll find with respect to Buddhism however

I had some revelations today about Nothing. First we can consider objects as essence-less and having only order/structure. The core of the object and all objects would be the ground, prime matter. But prime matter is not anything, as even Aquinas says when he says God does not techniquely create prime matter. Next we have the structures that are formed by nothing from above, just as its ground was nothing. A cup without nothing in the middle is not a cup. Things can only be themselves by the imprint and ground of nothing. Therefore Nirvana can be seen as the whole, lacking being while still existing

"Metaphysics is the science that aspires to dispense with symbols" Henri Bergson, 1903

Rhetoric implies form, not content. There is no clear boundary to what pure logic is except that it deals with symbols

When I mentioned absurdism I was referring to Camus. Buddhist accept the paradox of life and so in a sense do have faith that things will make sense in the end. Christians are like this too. Vicarious redemption is of course a ridiculous doctrine, but Christians have said they believe *because* it is absurd. To them its worthy of faith and this opens an important question about reason.

"For by him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or pierrs or rulers or authorities, ALL things were created by him and for him"

The second part refers back to the first

Which is inadequate

How do you interpret the last phrase of Colossians 1:16. Why don't you quote it for us

I already gave you that verse! You're challenged. Have a nice day

Everyone already knows there are many interpretations of the Bible. You didn't add any knowledge to the pile with the thread. Anyway, "ALL THINGS were created by him and for him" says saint Paul. That's enough for most Christians.

And why would the Bible talk about God creating other earth's but ours?

It's right there in the text. Aren't we descendants of Adam? "Place" is rather ambiguous for Jews though. The world is layered with heavens and sometimes things happened there instead of here. You read the Bible though way to esoterically than a Christian would, so they I'm guessing aren't the target for this thread

Where did Adam's world come from? Genesis says God created it. OP refuted

And that was that

Man created in the same universe described earlier in the chapter.

What about Genesis 1:26, since Genesis is all you read.

Every heresy has their interpretation of the Bible. Everyone reads it and decides on their own which interpretation makes the most sense. One man's stretch is another man's sublety. Anyway I doubt any Christians would be impressed with your particular understanding of the text.

So you have a novel interpretations of 100 verses. That's nice

Then who are you trying to argue with with this thread if not against Christian interpretations of their own book? Your new interpretations doesn't make theirs irrational

Colossians 1:16 is as clear as you can get unless the Bible means nothing by it's words. You don't read the Bible like Christians and yet you say that they don't interpret correctly according to your non believing ways. Odd. Also, click on the link i gave for many more verses on this

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.


Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/creating_the_world_in_6_days#:~:text=100%20Bible%20Verses%20about%20Creating%20The%20World%20In,was%20hovering%20over%20the%20face%20of%20the%20waters.

Christians interpret the OT in light of the New.

Saint Paul, representing Christians, calls the earth "creation". Isn't that what the OP wanted to know?

"For creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration but not by its own" Roman's 8

Christians believe with the Jews that this world is a copy of the original because of the Fall. Read saint Paul.