I invite you to tally all the contradictions that arise from these all being accepted - not to speak of how they can apply to an existing being!
When you say Canada, you do not mean the land,
— Coben
People say "Canada" and refer to the land all the time. When I say "I'm going to Canada," I'm saying that I'm going to a particular physical location on the Earth. I could give you that physical location by GPS coordinates, by latitude and longitude, etc.
That's not the only thing that people can refer to by "Canada," but it's ridiculous to say that people don't commonly refer to physical locations, land, etc. by the names of countries, cities, towns, etc. — Terrapin Station
Canada is the type of thing that can exist by virtue of it being agreed to exist. — Baden
And this is how Wikipedia defines "political geography":A country is a region that is identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state,[1] as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise[clarification needed] of legal jurisdiction.[citation needed] There is no hard and fast definition of what regions are countries and which are not. — Wikipedia
Go figure. But it might be easier to understand what God isPolitical geography is concerned with the study of both the spatially uneven outcomes of political processes and the ways in which political processes are themselves affected by spatial structures. Conventionally, for the purposes of analysis, political geography adopts a three-scale structure with the study of the state at the centre, the study of international relations (or geopolitics) above it, and the study of localities below it. The primary concerns of the subdiscipline can be summarized as the inter-relationships between people, state, and territory. — Wikipedia
Wouldn't something have to objectively exist as a prerequisite, to be believed in? — Shamshir
Well, yes - it does follow.I can, after all, draw a picture of a dragon on a piece of paper. It does not follow from this that dragons objectively exist. — Theologian
Yes. I tackle (what I consider to be) one issue at a time when responding.That's all you focused on in that post of mine? — Coben
Yes, perhaps I should have written, you don't just mean the land.
A thing that outlines another thing, supposedly.But what then is a belief? — Theologian
Again, I get your incentive.We may, perhaps, simply paint a picture that recomposes many different real-world elements that we have encountered. Dragons, for example, recompose the elements of reptilian scales, cyclopean size, and so on. All of which exist, but the totality of which does not. That seems fairly reasonable to me. — Theologian
I don't see a problem. Relativity allows for both beliefs to hold true.To say that that we cannot believe in that which is not objectively real creates all sorts of problems; the most obvious being what do we do when two different beliefs are flatly contradictory? — Theologian
All propositions are true, but not only true. That's flux.Because all propositions are true and are only true, the only logic that is applicable for describing such a world is a monovalent logic in which all propositions are true, and all inferences are therefore valid. — Theologian
Sure, in a way.The moon is made of green cheese
Therefore Shamshir is wrong. — Theologian
As for how we may conceive of that which does not objectively exist, I don't think we need to wind up with "a void of even void." We may, perhaps, simply paint a picture that recomposes many different real-world elements that we have encountered. Dragons, for example, recompose the elements of reptilian scales, cyclopean size, and so on. All of which exist, but the totality of which does not. That seems fairly reasonable to me. — Theologian
A neat trick you could employ here is "It is objectively real, that there is no objective reality". — Shamshir
To paint something, it is required that that something exists, otherwise as I noted - it is void of void. — Shamshir
Could be. Could be that it's the opposite.Incidentally, that means my own argument form is automatically valid, and everything I'm saying is true. Therefore you're wrong. — Theologian
As aforementioned, I get it - based on your perspective, but your paradox is not paradoxical to me.But that's not just a "neat trick:" it's a fundamental problem with your position. What you call "flux" I'm more tempted to call paradox. — Theologian
Not only self-defeating. But sure enough that's half of what it is, consequent of the other half.I began with an a priori analytic argument in which I pointed out that your position can only be self-defeating. But I would like to conclude with an a posteriori synthetic one. — Theologian
Have I been wrong? In a way, to this day.Have you ever been... dare I say it... wrong? Have you ever, for example, gotten up to go to the fridge to get a drink, thinking that there was one there, only to discover that there... wasn't? — Theologian
Incidentally... no.Incidentally... You ever play Mage: The Ascension? — Theologian
got tips? — Shamshir
It's the same as saying "All truths are relative." The most obvious problem with that being that merely by the use of the universal quantifier, "All," you have explicitly stated that this is not a relative, but universal truth. Again, it's self defeating. — Theologian
Wrong. "Canada" is not just a name for a piece of the world 'out there'. Your argument would be valid if I had used "Stuart Lake" or "Mount Robson" instead, because these are objects to which we have attached a name, just as we call a certain molecule "salt". - -
But "Canada" is not a piece of land . . . — Matias
It's the same as saying "All truths are relative." The most obvious problem with that being that merely by the use of the universal quantifier, "All," you have explicitly stated that this is not a relative, but universal truth. Again, it's self defeating. — Theologian
It would be self-defeating if being relative and being universal are mutually exclusive. — creativesoul
Would you accept that "no truths are universal" is a self defeating proposition? — Theologian
I don't think he means to say that you're using the word wrong, but that what Canada references is separate from itself, as it seemingly cannot reference itself.You said this is wrong. So when we use "Canada" that way, you'd say that we're simply using the word wrong? — Terrapin Station
but that what Canada references is separate from itself, as it seemingly cannot reference itself. — Shamshir
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.