Hoity toity. Come on Dummo, tell me what Geach said. I read it. It was shit. I could discern no actual criticism in it. All filler, no killer.
— Bartricks
...the resort to personal abuse. — Banno
He's right, what he claims is that it is true in all situations, — Banno
For someone who claims to understand logic, this is really a quite remarkable remark... "don't do logic at me!" — Banno
I know the same things, I just don't understand what the French are on about. — Bartricks
Or in short, you will feel a stranger upon walking through Paris, no matter how omnipotent you or God is. — GraveItty
Oh good grief. I knew someone would start talking about language. Look, take the moral it was designed to convey and focus on the thread's OP. — Bartricks
This thread is about the nature of time and God's relationship to it. — Bartricks
We can get it back on topic by, say, focussing on the claim, made by some, that the past is unalterable - the so called 'necessity' of the past. A claim that I deny, of course.
8m — Bartricks
You can show me wrong by dropping it and speaking in English. — Bartricks
Now that means that necessity and possibility are different ways of saying the very same thing. — Banno
No. If time exists, then the things that exist - trees, minds, whatever - exist in time. — Bartricks
I believe that we all deserve to be exposed to the risks of harm that living in ignorance in this world exposes us to. — Bartricks
No, I don't think so. First, consider that I think everything that happens here is just. — Bartricks
So that means that no matter what I do to someone else, that person deserves it, and no matter what anyone does to me, I deserve it. — Bartricks
I do not believe all rape victims deserve to be raped. — Bartricks
But anyway, if or when appearances conflict, then our faculty of reason appears to be unreliable on that matter, yes? — Bartricks
First, the argument from God. God is all powerful by definition. From this we can conclude that God created time. Why? Because if time exists, then one is subject to it. And so if God did not create time, then God would be subject to something he did not create, which is incompatible with being omnipotent. So, given that God would be subject to time if time exists, something which would be incompatible with his omnipotence were he not to have himself created time, God created time. — Bartricks
But if God created time, then time was not needed for that initial act of creation. We can conclude, then, that there can be creation without time, for otherwise time itself could not have been created. — Bartricks
And as time involves an event changing in its temporal properties, we can conclude as well that change does not require time either. For how could God have changed an event's temporal properties if time needed already to be on the scene for him to do so? — Bartricks
If God created time - and he did, for he wouldn't be omnipotent otherwise - then neither causation or change essentially require time. It is the other way around: for time to exist, there needs to be causation and change, controlled by God. It is God, not time, that changes an event's temporal properties. — Bartricks
Gotta hand it to you, too, Meta, your grasp of logic is quite disconcerting. — Banno
Come on then - show me how my claim that there are no necessary truths generates a contradiction. I'll abandon the view if you can. I promise. — Bartricks
A=A. Necessarily true. For, if not necessarily true, then false under some interpretation. But there are only two such interpretations possible. 1) That A does not equal A, which is to say that nothing is the same as itself, and 2) that the symbols used do not mean what they mean. The contradictions would be that A, not being A, would be some B not A that it is not, and, that the symbols, not meaning what they mean, would then mean something else that they do not mean.show me how my claim that there are no necessary truths generates a contradiction. I'll abandon the view if you can. I promise. — Bartricks
Arguing with bartricks employing logic is somewhat similar to battling a body of water with a sword. No matter how you cut it, which direction, which angle, and with how much force, the water opens for the edge of the sword, but closes back together once the sword's blade passed through. You can't kill water with a knife; you can't defeat bartrick's propositions with logic to the requirement that bartrick will see or rather, that bartricks will admit he is wrong. — god must be atheist
I deny that there are any necessary truths. — Bartricks
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.