As Einstein once said "everything is relative". I believe in everything and in nothing. There was once a poster called grady from physicsforums who in his signature wrote:"why should I believe if I can just disbelieve".
I don't know to what to believe anymore, so many faiths, and that's my truth. :-(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHHvEksC7oc&ab_channel=NuclearBlastRecords

But Einstein also said "God doesn't play dice", i.e he disbelieved Quantum Physics is the correct picture of reality. Are there any mainstream physicists nowadays who disbelieve Quantum Physics, I don't think there is such, but no one understands it (as the saying goes). Who was it quoted that he likes the "shut up, and calculate" interpretation?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Shut_up_and_calculate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgY-dpDKiJI&t=734s&ab_channel=JediMasterGeoff

Sometimes, I do believe that I am God though.
As Aristotle said:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/aristotle_399587

Yeah Long live the Misanthrope!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFug3xQBKAk&ab_channel=NuclearBlastRecords

That's it, I don't know what is a "sane person".

Define to me "sane person".

I know. You gotta love Logic!

A classical song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSbKNkPlrxk&ab_channel=fallenleaf25

The existence of God.

something can be real to me but not real to someone else.

That's what I am getting at.

Reality is what you believe to be real, in short.

Let's see if I can't depend on my senses to gather what is real then I left with my mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM8bTdBs-cw&ab_channel=Metallica

And I might hallucinate, but the hallucination is my reality.

You,I,me,him,her, everybody needs some recognition cause being all alone is quite a freitening thought to bear. But eventually all our are dear loved ones will perish and die... :-(

And when I think about it, now I just might be talking to myself... :-D

When you think about it really. In philosophy there are only questions and no answers. As opposed to maths,physics,engineering and logic where there should be a definite answer to every question even if the problem is unanswerable, then answer is that it's unanswerable.
So I think I contradicted my self here, and philosophy does have answers that we cannot answer those question really, that is the answer.

Quite hilarious, ain't it?!

Don't be so humble, you are a genius!

:-D

You didn't but I did.
so yes you did.

If you want to write it in Doxastic Logic's notation then it's: from Bp being true you can entail that p is true.

The Socrates theme was a reply to Banno's DisneyLand YT film.

Anyways, the Liar paradox can also be regarded as both true and false.
As long as you or I or him believe something to be true, then it's true.

It doesn't matter if it's true for others, as long as you or I or him believe it to be true.
Besides of course tautologies and contradictions, and statements like "I am a Liar" which are by definition always true or always false.

As for Socrates I am not even sure he ever existed, perhaps he is/was a fictional character...'
What's the difference between fiction and reality in that case? it depends on what do you believe of course...

Something is true, if you believe it to be true.

Obviously Av~A is true and A&~A is false. Other statments are contingents, as in are not a tautology nor contradictions.
That's all there's to it really... :-)

Well, you need ro assume something, don't you?

Unless you want to assume the empty assumption of not assuming anything... :-)
In which case you cannot argue anything.

In what type of Logic do you want your proof to be served to you?

Like our conversation.

Reality is habitual hallucination, whatever that means... :-)

Does Jack think the bartender is real or not?
You are contradicting yourself.

So he's not real, because he doesn't believe the bartender is real.

How do you know?

Then he's real.

Real is what you believe to be real.

Another book which should be on every logician shelfs is Logic of provability by George Boolos. I started reading it years ago, I believe this should be covered there not sure 100 percent because I never finished reading this book. I read it back in my undergraute years as a student of maths and physics combined.

I am not sure this is addressed in those books. But are you acquainted with peter smith's book and Smullyan's books?

First cause is not a logical necessity.
Existence is either way paradoxical.
You can find a system where it's necessary and a system where it's not necessary.

We don't know what is the truth, maybe after death we'll know, or we might not know either, this life may all be a dream within a dream ad infinitum, waking up from one dream to the next...

Well the question is what constitutes for "impossible" and what constitutes for "omnipotent"?

Can an omnipotent being (if existed) be both dead and alive?

It's not quite the same.
The coin is in a superposition of both before you collapse the wave function of the coin by taking a look at the coin.
If no one measures (gives a look at the coin) then the coin is in both states.
At least that's what a superposition means.

Can Schrodinger's cat be both dead and alive before I measure?

Doesn't it constitute as a true contradiction?

Give it time, eventually an infinite number of monkeys will do that (i.e there exists N\in \mathbb{N} s.t for all n>N, n number of monkeys will succeed in the task). :-)

Nature.

You can answer my question for starters, does the pocket contain itself? does the universe contain itself?

I think that indeed it does.
U \subset U \subset U\subset \ldots ad infinitum, so nothing cannot really exist.

Does the pocket contain itself? :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2AC41dglnM

There is always something... That's the magic of existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p_1QSUsbsM