:death: :flower:There's nothing you can know that isn't known
Nothing you can see that isn't shown
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
It's easy — John Paul George & Ringo
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/352403 (re: a prolegomena of a prolegomena ... )One central question relative to that existence becomes,how canthe atheistmake any objective statements about the non-existence of aGod when he/she cannot evenprovide adequateexplanations aboutthe nature oftheir ownexistence? — 3017amen
I challenge you to make your case for the non-existence of God!! — 3017amen
.. then it is contingent, that is, it can always change (even if it hasn't yet). 'Necessary - impossible to negate - facts' are subsistent constructs like round squares, fish riding unicycles, ... paradoxical figures in Escher's gallery & inconsistent objects in Meinong's Zoo because facts are causally relational, thereby change with respect to other facts changing - in flux - anywhere anywhen, and so they're 'necessarily non-necessary'. Unless there aren't any changeable, or contingent, facts at all; but that is not the case. What's impossible is a fact - node of causal relations - which is 'impossible to negate', or change; factual existence presupposes contingency - possibility of negation - insofar as facts are - at least one fact is - causally relational, unlike abstract subsistents which are not causally relational. I can easily list necessary abstractions (e.g. numbers, equations, classes / categories) but not a single 'necessary fact' - not even Witty's "world is the totality of facts" because it's an abstraction, not a fact, like the "set of all sets".
Enai De A Lukal
155
↪DoppyTheElv not sure which quote you're referring to (Hume or 180 Proof), but yes, that's the gist of it- facts are contingent, existence claims are claims of fact, and anything that can be by the same token can not be. So as Hume says, there is an "evident absurdity" in an a priori argument purporting to establish an existence claim- a claim of fact- because such an effort is doomed to failure by its very nature. As far as logic and deductive arguments go, you can only get out what you put in, and so any argument with purely a priori or definitional premises but a factual conclusion (like that some X exists) is bound to be invalid. And so it is with e.g. the ontological argument for the existence of God. — Enai De A Lukal
As to God, there's always the problem of evil. Btw,did you ever get around to saying what you thought "God" meant, or was, or is? I do not think you did, or if you did, refresh our memory. — tim wood
So the argument is only valid if its question-begging, and invalid when its not, and so cannot be regarded as persuasive by any means. It will only be accepted by those who already accept the conclusion, but then what's the point? — Enai De A Lukal
Define event. Define cause. And I think that in mentioning Kant, you make clear you do not know what you're taking about. Or maybe you do. Cause, for Kant, is categorical. Do you know what that means?Meaning, do all events have a cause? — 3017amen
I think you're confusing sin with evil.I don't see a problem with evil; it's just a lack of perfection. — 3017amen
Define cause. — tim wood
I think you're confusing sin with evil. — tim wood
There's a difference between fanatical and angry. I commend to you some reflection on the difference. — tim wood
Cause is a metaphysical component of consciousness.
I think you're confusing sin with evil.
— tim wood — 3017amen
Well, recall that Einstein also said he believed in Spinoza's God. That God is hardly one to be a cause of fanatical opposition or, for that matter, fanatical support. There are other Gods believed in which inspire rigorous opposition, and these arguments are often used in support of those beliefs. — Ciceronianus the White
Why do you react so strongly against atheism? — Ciceronianus the White
I do not know what a "metaphysical component of consciousness" is. What is it? — tim wood
The root of (the word) sin is imperfection in achieving a goal - hitting a target - which implies a perfection that was missed. Evil, on the other hand, has no correlative perfection. — tim wood
I suggest you consider the problem of evil, and you reply that it is not a problem for you. But you were not asked about your problems. — tim wood
And I ask you to reflect on the difference between fanatical and angry, and you're reply is a slice of Trump. Deflection, collateral attack, misdirection. At the moment you're a seeming blend of natural psychopath and eight-year-old. Can you do any better? — tim wood
not very friendly — Athena
The distinction is there in front of you. Denying it is crazy-making.The root of (the word) sin is imperfection in achieving a goal - hitting a target - which implies a perfection that was missed. Evil, on the other hand, has no correlative perfection.
— tim wood
Don't agree that there is a distinction. — 3017amen
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.