Any arguments summarizing anything we know are formed in mysterious ways. Yet it continues to be easy to allow ourselves to draw such concrete conclusion about OTHER things, such as what "Trinity" is (be it valid or sound, or conceivable, or not), while remaining utterly inconclusive about what it means to KNOW anything. — Fire Ologist

Knowledge comes from the empirical observation and internal reasoning. The laws of thought tells us what is truth and falsity on the contents of our perceptions.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Past cannot be changed, so you couldn't have made different choices for the past. But you are free to make choices for now and future.

You don't wait for legal authority to allow you to kill the psychopath. Do you? You said you would kill him as a matter of self-defense. — MoK

Another reason why the acts of self defence are not in the domain of morality. Usually acts of self defence happens without contemplation or premeditation for the end. In other words, the only purpose for the acts of self dense is saving one's own life.

Therefore there is no ground for moral judgements on the acts committed under self dense.

Are you a Christian? — MoK

I was just commenting from the general religious point of view including Christianity, Buddhism and Hindus etc.

There is no cure available for it. It is interesting to see that at one point you say that it is his life and he has the right to decide about it. Now, you are saying that assisting him to terminate his life is not allowed — MoK

Reason tends to go back to the points, and reflect on them coming out with better judgements and solutions.

"in due course"?

At a later time? — wonderer1

They are not the same meaning. Time doesn't exist as an entity in reality. It is a product of your mind. It is an extra perception generated from motions and movements.

I've been reading Aquinas's treatise on the Trinity today and it resonates with how my mind interacts with itself. It seems the left hemisphere is Father, right is Son, and center "eye" is that which is spirated (love). I easily can be confused about who i am *by* this of course, or *inspite* of this. — Gregory

Maybe the doctrine transcends human language and logic? If it resonates with you, then I would guess that your consciousness operates in different domain.

Thanks for all your posts. Will come back with more of my replies on the rest of your posts in due course. G'day~

This is a very difficult topic, so I'll just quote the opinion of someone who is a better philosopher than me: — Arcane Sandwich

I have not come across Mario Bunge before, but he seems to be a great thinker. Will have readings on the quotes you provided in the post, as they seem to be much relevant on the topic. Gracias.

The experience of any thing is the consciousness of time. When we think or perceive an object , we are synthesizing the ‘now’ of its existence for us as a three-part structure of retention (immediate past), present and protention (anticipation). Without awareness of time there is no awareness of the continuity of the flow of experience. It would be impossible to understand music, for instance, or the spacing of space. — Joshs

Isn't time then some sort of mental states or awareness? Time is not external existence. We just postulate time from the events, motions and movements. I am not sure if Music is time based, because some dogs and wolves seem to be able to sing without knowing anything about time.

I agree, and I understand that time, as an entity, is complex to understand. Why does this happen? Why does something intangible, such as time, exist? — javi2541997

Isn't it a product of human mind? You see the sun rise in the morning, and impose an idea that time has passed. Nothing has passed. It was the earth which rotated itself by 1 turn since yesterday morning.

I bet my dog is not aware of time, but I do, and when my dog was just months old, I called her a "puppy," but now that she is 6 years old, I consider her nearly "senior," yet she doesn't care about these facts. — javi2541997

Dogs don't care about time or numbers. Maybe they would do, if they had the concept of time and numbers. But we cannot teach dogs to be ready go for walk at 6pm today, or bark 7 times if she wants the biscuits or 8 times if he wants salami..

MoK and John have the same essence by this I mean they both are made of matter. They however have different properties so they are different. — MoK

So we can conclude that Jesus and God is not one.

From the discussions so far, it seems to be safe to conclude that,
1) Jesus was not God. He doesn't appear to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If he was, then he could not be in the situation he was, and would not have said what the OP noted.
2) Jesus was not one with God. Therefore Trinity doctrine is unsound and invalid.

You can read about locked-in syndrome here. It is a term that refer to cases in which people with this syndrome are locked-in within their body and cannot move any parts of their body but eyes. You can google yourself about those cases who wanted to terminate their lives but they were not allowed. — MoK

Well, it seems like a tough situation. But still practical reason tells me that killing is bad, and life must go on. Everyone has a cross to bear in the path of life. In some sense all life could be seen as suffering, and persevering and hoping for the best would be the meaning of life from religious point of view.

Keep going, and hoping for the miracle cure seeking the medical care in your example case with perseverance would be best for him, and doing so is moral good for sure.

It is a moral issue if you accept that killing a human is wrong. By the way, how come torturing a terrorist who put a bomb in a location is wrong considering the fact that we can save lives of many but the act of killing a psychopath is permissible knowing the fact that you can only save one life, yours. — MoK

All killings and torturing are in the domain of the legal matter. They are not morality.
I am not sure what part of the world you are living, but in where I have lived and am living, any
and all death must be reported to the authority for investigation and the certification of the nature of death.

If any death was caused by killing no matter what circumstance it was, and if there were any suspicion of any form of torturing on others, then the case must be reported to the criminal investigation authorities for the legal proceedings with the courts.

Hence, they are not moral matter at all.

Great analysis on the points. Will go over on them again when time permits, and will get back to you if there are any points to clarify. Many thanks !!

Time is an integral part of motion and movement. The coin takes time of what, one second plus, to hit the floor. Now, if it would take 0,1 seconds it would be a lot faster, likely then to be thrown to the ground, not just fall with gravity. — ssu

Isn't it the other way around? Without movement and changes, there would be no time.
With the objects moving in space, time was deduced from the interval of the movement.
Time is an illusion, which has no entity or existence.

And seeing? Do you see gravity? Mass? Weight? And when light hits your eye's retina, that already is motion. So without motion and time, no "seeing". — ssu

Same with gravity. There are only motions. When mass or objects are released from the height in space, they constantly fall onto the ground. Hence, an imaginary force called gravity is invented.
Gravity itself doesn't exist.

You need time for movement, for past, present and future. Notice the word on the graph below. — ssu

As described in the OP, past, present and future are products of our minds. The graph seems to be depicting imaginary map of space and time, but time doesn't exist in the real world.

Of course there are changes, motions and movements. But they are not bound by time, or time is not a precondition for them. Rather, changes, motions and movements give rise to time in human minds as a form of perception.

Can you prove that movement doesn't exist?

If there's any kind of motion, there has to be time. — ssu

Movements exist for sure. I drop a coin, and it falls onto the floor.
But still I cannot see time. I only see the movement.

Space and objects are affected by the flow of time, for instance. — javi2541997

Sure, but this doesn't tell what the existence of time is.

Yes, a good point. However, being beneficial is not also evidences for something to exist. Here we are concerned on the nature of time and its existence. Time as an entity evades our perception i.e. it cannot be seen, heard or touched. Only the events took place and motions in process can be perceived.

We use them, and is important in science and daily life, but it is invisible and unperceivable. Is it something else we have been calling as time? Or there are entities and existences which cannot be perceived, but exist?

If we agree that something that is unperceivable do exist, then surely there must be a lot more things which we deny existence, but affect us should be existing?

We are not trying get rid of time here. We are trying to investigate the nature of the existence of time.

Yet another proof that there are many things we say exist, but don't. :nerd:

Can you prove temperature exists? or color exists? or charge exists? etc . — 180 Proof

A proof that there are many things we say exist, but don't.

as I understand it, is a proposition that is true, and necessarily so. A contradiction is a proposition which is necessarily false, and a contingent proposition is one that can be true or false. — Arcane Sandwich

The evening star is the morning star. Isn't it a tautology and also contradiction, but a true statement?

Isn't Geometry an object of thought rather than a way of thought?

It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: — MoK

To reiterate the point, it is not the case that I am not happy with the example. It is the case that the example doesn't demonstrate a logical necessity that the premise guarantees the conclusion i.e. torturing doesn't necessarily save life.

It is an empirical case, where all possible and various causes and effects might be involved. The result is uncertain and unpredictable. Under that situation, torturing cannot be a justified ground for saving lives. With the knowledge and understanding of the situation via practical reasoning, if one went ahead with torturing believing that it would save lives, it would be a moral wrong itself.

It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: You face a psychopath who is willing to kill you with a knife. You however have a gun. Would you kill him or let him kill you miserably? — MoK

You have to understand that not every action is moral action. Moral action means that it was reasoned, premeditated and contemplated before the action for moral good or duty.

Killing a psychopath before he kills me would be an act of self defense, which has nothing to do with morality. The action may be subject to legal probes in the society later, but it is not a moral issue.

I was trying to put the playing cards into numeric order from number 1 to number 64. It was not a fast process at all, because when I picked up number 1 card, number 2 card didn't jump up by itself. The number 2 card was hiding behind no.35, and I had to go through all the cards to find the bloody number 2 card, and so on.

It was a clear evidence in real world, that numbers don't exist, and they don't cause anything at all. Our minds see and order them into numeric order.

I cannot find a flaw in his argument. Could you? I am not saying that I agree with his metaphysics though but that is a different topic. — MoK

I do find serious flaws in the claim, when it says, just because MoK has the same essence as John i.e. being human, MoK and John is one. I would point out, MoK is Mok, and John is John. They are two, not one.

You don't know what a locked-in syndrome is. Do you? — MoK

I thought it was a form of hikikomori, but maybe it is not.
It doesn't matter what it is. The whole point is about the principle of morality and how it works.

How are you going to assist him if killing is wrong to you? — MoK

If he needed my assistance, I would just say to him, "Man get a life. Get wild GFs, and enjoy life man."

He can decide about his life but he cannot execute the decision so he is very dependent on us to execute his decision. — MoK

Will have to persevere with advice and encouragement for leading positive life for him.

It may, but the fact that it may gives us the right to torture the terrorist. — MoK

It is a completely irrational statement based on the wrong assumption.

Didn't you say that a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life? — MoK

I have never said that. I said it is wrong to kill any life. But he also has his right to decide on his own life. No one has right to decide his life for him.

Let's assume it does. — MoK

The truth is, it doesn't. There is no evidence torturing saves human lives.

So you disagree with your own statement? — MoK

Where did I say I disagreed with my own statement?

As I mentioned Aquinas distinguish between persons and essence. — MoK

Do you agree with him?

Let's assume so for the sake of argument. — MoK

I would presume Kant would say, well by rational thinking there is no evidence torturing would save anyone's lives. Therefore torturing is not justified and wrong. Don't do it.

Your conclusion that torturing is justified is based on your wrong premise that torturing will save lives. Your argument is invalid and unsound.

And I already mentioned that you cannot have a situation without considering these factors. According to Kant killing a human is not allowed in all circumstances. It is the person feelings in the case of locked-in syndrome that matters in this situation. As far as I recall, you agree that it is the right of a person with locked-in syndrome to decide about his life. This is against what pure reason suggests. — MoK

Well, if you asked me about the case personally, my answer to that would be, you are asking a wrong person. I don't have enough details about the case to apply my pure reason on the case. You need to bring a 1000 pages of the social report regarding the case with his situations i.e. medical history and psychological analysis, and his family circumstance etc etc.

I would say, if anyone made a moral decision on the case without all the factual details, then it would be a sheer nonsense, not moral judgements.

Kant is just giving you a guideline. You don't have to cling on him with the trivial contradictions. You need to face and deal with the reality at present world.

As I mentioned Aquinas makes a distinction between persons of the Trinity and essence. You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts of person and essence before you can attack it. — MoK

I was not attacking, but asking about it. Could we not discuss the points based on the natural logic and reasoning? Why Aquinas? We are not going to accept his doctrines if they are based on A <> A and A^~A, are we?

Torturing of the terrorist is allowed by all means if we can save lives of individuals. The torturing is morality right even if we assume that the terrorist may withhold the information. — MoK

There is possibility that you have mistaken the identity of the folks whom you thought were terrorists, but they were not.

Torturing the folks are crime itself, hence you would be committing moral wrong there.
Also there is a possibility that no one's life is in danger, and your motive for torturing could have been caused by propaganda and paranoia or just a desire to torture someone.

And there is no guarantee that torturing the folks will give you any information to save any life. So why try to justify on torturing?

See this is a result of moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interest. It is not only wrong in factuality, but also could be committing moral wrong itself.

Kant would say, that torturing is not right way in saving human lives. Because it won't work and it is morally wrong itself.

According to Kant, killing, torturing, etc. are objectively wrong by this he means that these actions are not allowed under any circumstances. There is no room for discussion here. — MoK

But you haven't asked Kant in person, what would be the case torturing the terrorists. If you did, he would have said to you "Have you tried all other means to get the information exhaustively?" and "Are you sure the terrorists you are wanting to torture are the real terrorists? What if they were not the terrorists? What if you are trying to torture innocent folks for mistaken identity?"

I asked you this before: Could you provide an example of a situation in which feelings, belief, opinions, and interests do not play a role? — MoK

I already have added the more explanation of how those factors do hamper coming to moral judgements with your example of the lock-in man. Hence you must use reasoning only on the judgement. If you are interested in my posts on the examples, you need to track back my posts. Obviously you missed what I wrote to you.