Why would having an opinion not be right or wrong?

Those are wise words. Thank you.

Natural entities arent' hypothetical examples, you know that perfectly well and just cant come up with any examples. Thanks for proving I was right. — John Harris

Is reading that hard for you?

If not — BlueBanana

just as one can take it as a premise God doesn't. — John Harris

... this is a fucking joke, right? No they can't while discussing the existence of God.

I won't even be reading your next posts. — John Harris

We both know this to be a lie.

Shall we make a straw poll on which one of us is the troll?

The only one nitpicking, and erroneously, is you. If you think I'm wrong, name one thing natural that isn't chemical. We both know you can't. — John Harris

Are hypothetical examples ok? If not, I could take anything from the fields of social sciences which you can theoretically explain with chemistry but no one does for obvious reasons.

I said it and someone responded to that. So, the only one jumping to conclusions--and is clearly just trolling now--is you. — John Harris

So you made a false assumption and everyone else made the mistake of not noticing it and attacking other parts of your arguments. The point still stands, "hasn't been found" does not equal "can't be found".

Of course it's valid and you haven't shown it isn't. So, the only one making assumptions, and erroneous ones, is you. — John Harris

The comparison between two things of which one exists and other one doesn't is not a valid one, shouldn't that be obvious? You can't take it as a premise that soul doesn't exist either.

Everything chemical is natural (within the context, to stop any nit picking beforehand), but not vice versa.

I don't recall anyone saying that soul couldn't be found, you just jumped to the conclusion that it hasn't been found and therefore can't be found.

If you start with the premise that Christ doesn't exist - against which I won't argue because it's irrelevant - your comparison isn't a valid one. Also any claim is an assumption until proven and as there is no consensus on His existence you can't claim your stance to be a fact.

Doesn't mean you have to have contact to them. Is a dead person outside the society? What about one that doesn't exist?

Because Christ doesn't exist. And that's it, metaphysician. Your arguments have gotten so silly that i'm not going to waste my time engaging them anymore. I won't be reading any more of your posts. — John Harris

Quite an assumption.

Its a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection. — Thanatos Sand

First the discussion is about the possibility of soul being natural, and then you jump to the idea that it is chemical? Sure.

Also, there are stars, planets and moons we haven't found, does this mean they are supernatural or don't exist?

Well there is no outside to society for humans — unenlightened

May I disagree? If you have no contacts to other human beings (or whatever we want to define society to consist of) you aren't a part of any society.

But it doesn't. Leave the society, and it pretty much ignores you while moving onwards. To try to deny a social construct while staying in the society is a bit trickier, but I think the person would either succeed or end up outside the society (or further from inside, as being on the in/outside of the society is a spectrum more than a yes/no kind of thing).

Where I would say there is no outside to the stampede, when it comes to social movement. Or, perhaps, the stampede is just one movement within a grander dance of movement, so there is an escape from the *stampede*, but not from the social world (hence why it really and truly is a world). — Moliere

If that grander dance is the social world, what is the stampede? Also, common sense says that there is always an option, in this case a way out of social world, even if the solution is irrational and too radical to be considered by most.

When the buffalo are stampeding northwards, the one at the front cannot turn west without being trampled. — unenlightened

But it can turn west. What does being trampled stand for in your analogy?

I don't have any argument for what I'm suggesting being actually true, I'm just saying it's a possibility and there imo aren't any arguments for it being impossible that logic is only a part of our universe.

I thought masochists only find physical pain enjoyable. Are you claiming that masochists can't feel any negative feeling because they'd get pleasure from it?

Pain isn't the only negative feeling there is. God could cause X suffering/sadness/craving for something X can't get.

Besides God is omnibenevolent and doesn't cause evil people punishment just for the sake of punishment for he/she/it loves them as well.
"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
To love others is God's will but people have free will, and not doing as God wants is our decision for which there is no punishment other than the direct consequences of that decision. If a person truly is evil they're incapable or unwilling to feel love and to be loved, and that is what their fate shall be; to be away from God's love.

The above text is simplified and very brief so please, no nit-picking.

This does not actually answer the question but imo it's immoral to be less insulted by the first one because of being relieved by someone else being a fool as well.

Edit: re-wrote the whole sentence for clarity reasons.

That scenario has no contradiction if there's no law of contradiction. The law is there and is not. Everything contradicts and doesn't contradict itself. Also, just because there isn't the law of contradiction doesn't mean every contradiction is true. So the law of contradiction not existing does not imply that it exists.

That's not really a valid argument to counter my argument, just another example of what you claim to be impossible in all universes.

saying "2+2=3" is not any more sensical than saying gibberish like "the smell of purple has". — Samuel Lacrampe

It's also not any more nonsensical.

Practical test: if it is unimaginable, then it is illogical, then it is impossible. — Samuel Lacrampe

If we observe something to be unimaginable, then that proves it is unimaginable within our universe, and it is impossible within our universe.

Logical connectives themselves don't have anything to do with tenses.

• Let A be "I breathe" and B be "I am alive"
• Let C be "my neighbour is alive"
• Then A→B, simultaneous.
• Then B∧C, simultaneous.
• Let D be a premise "people die for a reason" and E be "there was nothing to cause my death yesterday."
• Then E→B, not simultaneous.
• Then E∧C, not simultaneous.

Something out of nothing would be ¬p→q, where p="something exists" and q="something will exist".

And, again, please use correct symbols, or find a source that states ~ means negation.

How is the question even a moral one? I'm not saying it is not but this is the question we should be asking, otherwise I don't see the discussion getting far.

"If there exists nothing, there exists something" means those are true simultaneously. The correct form is "if there exists nothing, there might (note: not the same as "will without conditions") exist something later".

I disagree, because I interpret the implication arrow (->) as "then", a consequence in a formal, non-physical way. So ~p -> p means "if there exists nothing, then there exists something" — Pippen

This is exactly what I said in my previous comment.

and isn't that pretty much what we imagine if we talk about a creation out of nothing? — Pippen

... no? Just absolutely no?

Would this substance be physical or? And how are the reactions of our brain correlated with that mind/self? In other words, how is that mind/self attached to our brain, and only our brain? — Agustino

Most of this I have no idea of. I guess some structures of matter are capable of interfering with that substance, and brains are some of those structures. A bit similarly to how eg. matter can be turned into energy and vice versa, but we don't really see that in our everyday lives but instead need to build hugely complex nuclear reactors for that to happen, that substance can in some way interact with the substances we are more familiar with such as matter and energy but that just doesn't happen "naturally" (seemingly unnecessary quotations because it's arguable whether high tier technology is natural). Human brain certainly is complex enough of a structure to justify the thought.

But how can consciousness exist without an object towards which it is directed? — Agustino

I'll go to sleep while pondering this very disturbing thought, and answer tomorrow.

As I mentioned, I hadn't thought of the question before but I think I have a better answer now.

I think human mind exists outside human body as a "physical" object (not physical as in being matter). There exists some other substance that our minds consist of, and the reactions in our brains are some kind of "projections" of that mind/self. While asleep, that self does not disappear, it just hibernates. The consciousness is there, just not conscious of anything. Besides, while asleep, people are to some extent aware of the physical reality.

So when you sleep your self disappears? :s — Agustino

Hadn't thought of that before, a very good point. But yes, unless one is dreaming.

Take consciousness. If consciousness is the self, then who is the one who is conscious? — Agustino

The self, which is the same as consciousness. Consiousness is conscious of itself.

You seem to be good at avoiding questions, can you teach me?

Monogamy, it seems, is increasingly being thought of as oppressive, destructive, irrational, and probably plenty of other adjectives I could think of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

According to whom?

Seeing 100% of the votes in the poll in the same choice, wouldn't it have made more sense to ask the question from a different POV, as in "is pologyny morally bad", which would be far more controversial subject of discussion and thus a better ground to start the discussion from?

¬p→p would mean "if there exists nothing, there exists something", not that something is created out of nothing. If you actually mean ~p -> p and that has a different meaning from ¬p→p, then ~p & ~p -> p is not a contradiction anymore. If you do mean ¬p→p, please write it correctly to avoid unnecessary confusion.

OP didn't say ¬p→p, he said ~p->p and could claim that those are not logical connectives. This is basically what he's been doing because he said that p doesn't stand for the claim "something exists" but just "something".

It'd be an interesting topic whether anything can actually be impossible. Logic and natural laws or part of our universe, so outside it things like statement 2+2=3 being true or a triangular circle might be possible.

~p & ~p -> p leads to a contradiction — Pippen

1)

No, it doesn't. What you're correct about is that you can indeed put something other than statements in these logic formulas, unlike everyone else here seems to claim, but you have to note that then ¬p&p isn't a contradiction anymore. Define p as, say, a potato. Then ¬p means anything but a potato. Potatoes exist, so does that mean nothing but potatoes exist?

2)

The problem with the English language is the meaning of nothing, as it's kind of a homonym. "Nothing exists" can mean that there is no thing that exists, or that a thing that is called nothing exists. ¬p in your claim means the latter, closer to nothingness than to nothing in its meaning, which is why ¬p&p is not a contradiction.

3)

If you mean nothing as in the former sense, then ¬p∨¬p→p is not what you're claiming anymore, as once ¬p→p has happened, ¬p is no longer true. ¬p is the case before, ¬p→p is the case after. Even if they contradicted each other, it wouldn't matter because they don't exist simultaneously.

4)

You can't assume that if something is created from nothing, then ¬p→p. The correct statement would be ¬p→p∨¬(¬p→p), or A→(¬p→p)∧B→¬(¬p→p) where A and B are some conditions, maybe even the events themselves.

5)

Feel free to correct me, but so far it seems like you don't have any real argument. You're just using logical connectives without understanding their actual meaning. If the formula was correct and contradicted intuition, it'd rather imply that logical connectives are fundamentally wrong. This is your contradiction translated to English: if nothing always results in something, then nothing can't exist, because it'd already then be something. This is basically the fourth point again but in English: your argument is false because it assumes that if something can follow from nothing, then something can and will always follow from nothing.

The society from Psycho Pass fits the definition given by OP so I guess we do need a more specific definition, especially since there are people who actually think that society would be a utopia.

The graph doesn't show the amount of people using either word in specified context though.

Well, depends on what everything we want in this prutopia. On what scale do we want it? What about environment? Even considerably slowing down the climate change, not even talking of stopping it or reversing the damage done, contradicts both global and smaller scale prutopia.

Is the colour of the fruit relevant? I wouldn't like being thrown around to confirm the claim :D

Damn, that was a good one. I'll have to remember that.

Note: good luck trying to guess who I answered to.

Note 2: neither of these notes are part of the thought, do NOT interpret them! :-}

So are you claiming that camouflage is not a solution or that it is not passed down genetically? I've shown it is a solution, and I wish you are not going to deny animals' colour patterns being genetical.

Thanks but I have already read the discussion earlier. You'll need to reform your statement because it's unclear what is it that you want me to address.

I had came to the conclusion that you're saying solutions are not passed down genetically, which would be disproven by showing a solution that is clearly passed down genetically. Is there something so far in this paragraph I've misunderstood?