Assumption are made for further reasoning and inference possibilities. Assumptions are not for claiming my ideas or converting people's ideas.

You are perfectly welcome to say the assumptions are invalid, but you must supply the reasons and evidence why they are invalid.

To my understanding you are distorting the fact. I was only making assumptions and inviting the prospective interlocutors to contribute their own logical arguments. I was not claiming anything at all.

But you just claimed that my assumptions are invalid out of the blue - no reason, no logic, no evidence and no argument. You just think the assumptions are invalid. Please read your own posts.

These things seem to be axioms of your position. But I don't think they are valid. — Patterner

You made your counter claims on the assumptions, but you have not given out any logical or evidential arguments on why your claims are valid, and my assumptions are invalid.

Remember this is The Philosophy Forum. We are not into making emotional claims saying you just don't think they are not valid with no reasons, no logic and no evidence supporting your claim. Doing so would be just opening up your psychological state.

Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth?.As far as I see it is a topic involving dialogue between ancient philosophy, as well as anthropological thinking and research. — Jack Cummins

When you say "the concept of myth", does it mean something like Platonic world of idea, which is separated from the material world, and out of reach? Or would it mean some sort of hidden principles and entities within the religious sects and organisations with the artificial makeup for seclusion from the general public?

An omnipotent person can - has the ability to - commit suicide. What puzzle does that raise? — Clearbury

The OP is not asking about an omnipotent person, but omnipotent God. The first puzzle is what type of existence God has. If God has biological bodily existence like humans, then perhaps self killing is possible.

But if the existence of God is non-bodily existence such as force or spirit, then self killing would be impossible, because force and spirit is outside of the boundary of physical death.

So I would have thought, you could have started discussing the nature and type of existence of God.

Is there any reason to think God lacks that ability? If there is no reason to think God lacks that ability, then what puzzle is there? — Clearbury

How can one kill someone who is omnipotent? Omnipotence means that it is powerful to win, resist or make anything possible. If omnipotent being could be killed either by itself or others, then it means that the omnipotent being was not omnipotent, hence it is a paradox to believe that omnipotent being could kill itself.

If I say that I am sat in a chair, that is not philosophically interesting. No puzzle that needs resolving is raised. — Clearbury

There was nothing in this thread saying you have sat in a chair. Can we say that God exist? If it does, in what form does it exist? Which God are we talking about? What is the concept of omnipotence? Is it a logically sound concept? Or is it just a religious myth?

I was just replying to the posts directed to me. No agenda at all. You seem to be wrong on everything you say. My replies had been already give out on the point in numerous times, so if you still don't understand, then keep reading them until you get it. Nothing more to add from this end. Bye~

If you reject using reducio ad absurdum in the proofs, then you are restricting yourself in the cage of the truth table which is very limited to the classic blindness.

I am not seeing a point why anyone would prison himself in the cage of the ancient propositional logic and the truth table in logical proof process.

When it was claimed that, John is in Paris in the introduced assumption of the argument, if one still doesn't know John is not in Japan, then

1. he has no knowledge in the world geography.
2. he does not have ability to reason.

So why bother.

I do not see that there is any philosophical puzzle here. — Clearbury

There are many possible questions emanating from the statement relating to God's power and existence, which are theological and logical paradox in nature. But if you are coming from the Humean vulgar state of mind, of course, there is nothing visible or problematic here.

For example, one could start with a question, if God really existed. If so, what kind of existence it would be. This question alone could take thousands of pages for discussion. And further ensuing questions and debates on all the paradoxes of self killing possibilities, or impossibilities and resurrection debates ... etc it could be quite a large topic.

But obviously it is not an interest to your type of philosophy, and you are not seeing anything in the topic. That is perfectly fine, and natural. Thanks for making clear on your stance of the state of your mind.

This is Matt the same as:
Surely if a being is omnipotent, then he must reincarnate himself too. — Patterner

When you say "he must", it implies he is under obligation or duty to do something. Being omnipotent, God is under no such limitation. "he can reincarnate himself" implies God has Free Will to please himself in deciding or acting.

If God can reincarnate himself, then it implies that his body is not the biological body like humans. Because no biological body can be reincarnated in the same body when died and perished from the world.

If God is also omniscient, then he would know how to be omnipotent and omnipresent as well. Hence knowledge is power. That's why we all read philosophy suppose.

which is obviously wrong.

If "John is in Tokyo" then "John is in Japan", but if "John is not in Tokyo" then John could be some other place in Japan. — EricH

It sounds like you have never heard of "reductio ad absurdum" in Logical Proof.
If John is in Paris is claimed as the axiom or fact in this proof above, then it gives a logical implication that John is not anywhere in Japan.

Being omnipotent implies God could stop killing himself, or if he did kill himself, being omnipotent, he could resurrect the moment he dies, hence he is alive again as he has always been. It is not really a problem for him logically or otherwise.

By the Law of Contradiction, free will cannot be the case, as it would result in a contradiction. At exactly 1pm I can't equally decide to press or not press the letter "T" and decide to press the letter "T" at the same time. — RussellA

It sounds like you decided to contradict your decision and action at 1 pm from your free will. :D

Free Will
A person hears an argument.

If that person has free will, then they are free to accept or reject the argument. — RussellA

Isn't FREE WILL time based ? You don't have free will for the past, because you can't go back even 1 second into the past. But you have free will to choose and decide for now and future events in your life.

Faced with this result, it has a "slide into multiplicity" and produces a multitude of isolated truths, goods, and beauties, with each varying by culture, individual, or even context. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Truths are reflection of the world, and properties of judgement. When the world changes, truths also changes. Judgements are from the psychology, and bound to be different from mind to mind. Some truths will be subjective, but some are objective when they are based on the reasoning.

The same goes with the moral good and beauty. There is no such a thing as good as absolute goodness, or absolute beauty. These are the product of psychological judgement and practical reasoning, hence they are subjective and at the same time can be objective.

The only objective truths are the mathematical and logical truths, because they are deductive, demonstrable and verifiable.

Abstract mathematical objects such as numbers, functions, operational symbols are descriptive language for the existence in the real world. They are not the existence themselves. In that regard, I agree that Platonic math objects don't exist.

Do infinitesimals exist (in the platonic sense)? — Michael

They are convenient and useful descriptive tools to denote and express the small objects and motions in the real world such as the information or movements of particles and atoms.

And this, again, is just ignorance of the subject matter. It doesn't really merit much more engagement than that. — Darkneos

It is impossible to communicate with someone who doesn't understand the difference between the Big Bang theory, and a metaphor for accepting the theory blindly with no reasoning or evidence which is similar attitude of blindly accepting the creation of the world episode in Genesis of the Old Testament.

More ignorance on the Big Bang and what it means. To compare it to Genesis is the height of stupid. — Darkneos

Instead of trying to give out explanations or arguments, just keep saying it is stupid, is not philosophy.

My point was not a comparison between the BB and Genesis. It was a metaphor to describe your attitude of blindly accepting the BB as the absolute truth, which is not much different from believing Genesis creation of the world. You are not even understanding a simple English sentence.

Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system. — Corvus


That’s not a problem with it. The workings are pretty much standard for something with no design or intelligence. — Darkneos

Without solid explanation backed by evidence and reasoning, the BB is not much different from the creation of the world story in the Genesis of the Old Testament in terms of its coherence and cogency.

If you accept the BB blindly, you have committed yourself to being an esoteric shaman under the apparel of science.

Tell me you don’t understand the theory without telling me you don’t understand it. — Darkneos

What do you not understand on my understanding of the BB?

there is no need for a before the Big Bang being it's creater (motion) moves singularly at the moment of the universe's and time's first motion forward. — Gregory

Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system.

If the big bang was true as a form of gigantic explosion of some sort, then it wouldn't possibly have created the perfect ideal place for the existence of life such as the Earth in the solar system with all the intelligible physics and math working on the matter, ideas and life in the intelligent and harmonious way.

It would have been more like total chaos with debris of the rocks, minerals and burnt out matters scattered and floating around in the space even at this time. You see some of the old gignatic stars exploding when they are dying. It is nothing short of the massive nuclear explosion destroying and burning everything around them.

Therefore I am not quite into believing in the BB theory. If the BB had created the solar system as it is now, then it must be the most unbelievable magic ever created in the universe nothing short of the miracle act of some omnipotent being. But is it?

Still, I am EXCITED! I am all over the place, right now...835pm 12/18/25 Looking forward to sharing latest and greatest!, Thanks — Kizzy

Great post thanks!! When I say "3" out of the blue, I cannot even know what I was meaning apart from the fact that 3 is a number. One could say, well 3 is an odd, and prime number so on, but that doesn't add much more info than it is a number. Number is a concept in the mind.

Numbers are only meaningful when it is describing the objects and entities in the real world. Number can also describe the events, processes, motions and changes too. Numbers describe and denote things, motions and the other concepts.

When you had a shirt with number 3 on it, the 3 is a symbol of number 3. It is not 3 itself at all. 3 has not just the symbol, but also name too namely "Three".

Due to its ability to describe and count the physical objects in the world, numbers are also a property for existence. If something exists, then it can be counted. If something can be counted, then it exists in the physical form.

Kant thought numbers are psychological and the a priori concepts in the mind. This tradition has been ciriticised by the later philosophers such as Bolzano and Husserl. Numbers and truth must exist in the world objectively without mind. This new trend of thinking revolutionised development in the new Logic, Mathematics and Proof theories which gave foundations for the work of Cantor, Hilbert, Russell and Whitehead. But I still believe Kant was right in his idea of numbers and abstract ideas as the products of mind.

That is my quick reflection on numbers. Maybe it has some logical flaws for sure, but I believe this is what philosophical debates are about. Pointing out the logical flaws and problems in the other folks arguments and ideas. Or coming to mutual agreement when they sound consistent and making sense. And learning the truths in dialectical and critical way.

What you're not seeing - I don't know why - is that you're making two different arguments.

If john is in Tokyo, then John is in Japan. John is not in Tokyo. Maybe he is in Osaka or Yokohama.

But you're argument really is, If John is in Tokyo then John is in Japan. John is in Paris, therefore he is not in Japan. In this argument is the extra premise.

You can conclude John is not in Japan not because he is not in Tokyo, but because he is in Paris. — tim wood

I thought you wanted to stop discussing on this topic from your last post. I am surprised to see you keep replying.

The point here is, that the proof is about whether John is in Japan or not. (Q or not Q). It is not about whether John is in Tokyo or Osaka or anywhere in Japan. If John is in Tokyo, then he is in Japan was an assumption for the proof (Q or not Q). But the assertion from the reality was John is in Paris, which proves John is not in Japan.

This is such a simple logic, but you are worrying about whether John is in any other part of Japan, which is irrelevant for the proof.

Anyhow, this was a sideline thought for proving the PSR is not valid. It is not related directly to the OP. Hence we better stop at here. If you feel that this is a worthy of a separate OP, please go and start one. I don't think it is worth for a new OP with this topic, because it is such a simple and basic stuff.
But if you feel so, do so. Thank you for your feedback. Good luck.

space and time within the universe can be motion, obviously.

The universe is in motion due to its own space and time. — Darkneos

When something is in motion, you have the information on the motion such as direction, speed, and the mode of the motion (straight, loop), acceleration, energy and time. Do you have these data from the motion of the universe? If you do, what are they?

If you don't understand the point from all the examples I have give out with the explanations, then I don't see any point carrying on. I shall not waste my time or yours. I suggest you do the same. Good luck.

The word "three" doesn't make sense alone. What does? That is, what does make sense alone? Is anything alone as a word without action or a place that is to be made sense of? — Kizzy

The point here is the OP was asking about the ontological status of ideas, hence 3 was used for a sample idea to consider. At this stage we are not considering any other objects for its ontological status, but a number which is a typical example of abstract ideas.

What do you know, when I say to you out of the blue "3"?

Maybe the millionaire example was not clear. Try with these example cases.

If X=0, then X+1 = 1
X = 2
Therefore X+1 = 3

The statement X=2, tells that
X=0 was not true.
Until the value of X is known, nothing is known in the premise.
X=2 decides the variable X and T or F of P and Q.

It also tells X+1=1 is false too.
X+1=3 is true.


If John is in Tokyo, then John is in Japan.
John is in Paris (not in Tokyo). <=== A fact from real life situation.
Therefore John is not in Japan.
P -> Q
~P
Therefore ~Q

You don't need more complication in the proof here.
You use axioms and facts in reality as the verification statements instead of the antique Truth table.

Yes i think there are infinite things we don't know about existence. We are connected by our bodies to the physical world and both are connected with God, — Gregory

Yes, I accept the fact the universe exists, but a large part of it is unknown. From that premise, I can further infer that there are entities which solidly exist, but unknown to us.

It logically and deductively validates the concept of infinity. However, I am not sure if it can validate the existence of God too.

Now I think it's time to stop. You've taken a turn from Mistaken Dr. onto Fool Ave., and that a wrong turn to make, a waste of time for everyone. Return as seems best to you, but if you insist on yours, I insist you provide a proof. — tim wood

You seem to keep writing contradictory posts. You suggest to stop, but at the same time you insist to provide a proof. Isn't it a real waste of time? I suggest you to read some First Order Logic books. If you cannot see from P -> Q, ~P, therefore ~Q, then you are not reasoning at all. Ok, I will leave you to it. All the best.

Ok. Prove it. — tim wood

I thought it was proved and explained already in the previous posts, but you seem to disagree, or haven't read it at all. That's fair enough. Maybe you still have points on the issue, or missed what I was saying. I am not saying that you are totally wrong here.

I am saying your point seem to be coming from the Classic Logic theory which is mainly based on utilizing Truth Table ignoring the fact that the modern logical proofs are done using the Axioms and real life events.

I am reading some Logic books now, and trying to expand my knowledge on the subject. If I find anything relevant and interesting to our topic in discussion, I will get back to you. Thank you for your feedback.

The diagram should make clear that denying P leaves plenty of Q, and says nothing about Q other than if there is a Q, then it is not also a P. — tim wood

You are still totally dismissing the fact P was verified as ~P from a real life event. When P is ~P, then it can be inferred ~P -> ~Q proving ~Q. It is not a groundless denial of the antecedent, but an assertion verified from the fact.

I have agreed that your points makes sense too, but only from the Classic Logic point of view. You seem not applying the proof methods using the Axioms, inference, implications and real world events in the proof process.

Galileo started saying things like dropping something on the moon should follow the same physics as here on earth. — Gregory

We are not denying the existence of the universe, but saying the end point of the universe is not known. It could be the proof or ground for the existence and validity of the concept of infinity i.e infinity exists, but the end of infinity is unknown.

Therefore we could deduce The Principle of Unknowability in existence i.e. there are entities which do exist for certain, but the details of the existence is unknown.

You could already be a millionaire prior to the lottery drawing. — EricH

In which case, Q would have been proved without the proof process.

(P>Q) ^ (~P) ^ (~P>~Q) => ~Q.

And without which, you have left the logic behind, not having proved ~Q, but simply having asserted it. — tim wood

Why make it more complicated? When you can

P -> Q
~P
Therefore ~Q

Truth table is for the classical logic, and has serious limitations. If you read some First Order Logic books, you would see they use axioms and real life case verifications in the proof rather than Truth tables.

The universe is in motion. It’s more like you have a limiting notion of movement. — Darkneos

If something is in motion, it requires space and time. If the universe is in motion, then which space and time is it in motion? Space and time within the universe cannot be motion in itself. They require space and time which is external and separate to themselves in order to be in motion.

You're the one questioning the world.. I'm saying that to doubt the sky is blue and the suns shines is a pointless exercise unless you get to a higher philosophical stage from the doubt. We all know what it MEANS to say your body is real — Gregory

My body is real of course, but my body is not the world. Here again, you are confusing body and the world.

It is not the case I am denying the world as not real. The case is that whether you could say the world is real or not, without knowing what the world is.

The world is not an abstract concept like moral good or numbers. The world is physical entity, but we don't know its boundaries to outside of it. How did it start, when, and where does it end, and does it have an outer world, which this world is contained, or is it the only world existing?

The world doesn't seem to be moving in that way or physically in motion. — Corvus


Except it is. — Darkneos

There are some objects in the universe in motion, but the universe itself is not. You seem to be in confusion in telling between the objects in the universe, and the universe itself.

We don't know how large the universe is, how old it is, and even how it began. — Corvus


Yes we do, yes we do, and we have some solid ideas. — Darkneos

The religious folks say the same thing about their Gods.

Not really. Some parts of it are mysteries but we know quite a bit about it. It's real for sure, as for asking what is real...that's often a useless and dumb question. — Darkneos

Instead of thinking about it, and trying to find the answer, just saying that it is a useless and dumb question is a real dumb and useless statement.

What a silly notion it is to say nothing is real. — Gregory

I didn't say nothing is real. You said it. Read your own post. :D

I asked what do you mean by real, when you say X is real. Is all that you see real? Is all that you know real? You think something is real, but later it turns out to be something else, or it disappears from your sight.

Is the universe real? What is the universe? Where does it start and end? If you don't know what universe is, then how do you know it is real?