Thanks for your reply. Would you like to help answer some of my questions? You seem pretty smart so I hope you may help me.

In the first part of the dichotomy, we have something that IS and we ask where did it come from. The first option is that it came from what IS. But then there's nothing that came to be. — Πετροκότσυφας

The issue I have with this statement is that it seems like the "is" that the Megaric school is referring to needs to be defined and I am guessing that the "is" that the Megaric school is using depends on their metaphysics.

It seems like one could agree with the Megaric school that what IS never comes into being and one could agree that from nothing nothing comes, but it isn't clear how the conclusion, that nothing changes, is cogent.

One example of how this dilemma could be a false dilemma is if mereological atomism is true. In mereological atomism, the atoms may have never come into being, since they are eternal, and they can still change location. So change is still possible and the Megaric school's dilemma does not undermine that possibility.

Of course, this is not a defense of mereological atomism, but I think that this is why I had a hard seeing why the dilemma must lead to the conclusion that change is not real.

Devans you keep making similar threads about infinity. Here is the deal, infinity is used differently in mathematics than how its used in everyday conversation.
https://academic.oup.com/bjps/article-abstract/47/1/133/1567893?redirectedFrom=PDF
Read this and you will see what I mean.

I am guessing that "objective morality" means morality that exists as a real feature of reality and not just as part of human aesthetic preferences or cultural preferences?

I am still a moral skeptic and I am not sure if morality exists.

How can an event occur outside of time? How can causation happen from outside of time? — S

What is time exactly? And what is meant by causation?

It seems like these two words need to be defined before we can answer whether it is possible that timeless (or changeless) causation can exist; although, I do agree that it sounds impossible.
Intuitively, the word causation tends to imply a flow of time; thus, if I say "the dog's barking was caused by the cat's meowing," then I am saying the following two things: first, I am implying that becoming is a real feature of the world (A theory of time is true) and I am saying that what caused the dog to bark was the cat's noise. In this case, the word "caused" implies a flow in time, but timelessness denies that there is a flow in time. If there is no flow in time, then can change, or causation, of any kind, occur? If change or "becoming" is a necessary condition for time to flow, then I don't think the answer is yes.

Doesn't quantum mechanics reveal that Einsteinian physics can't be used to describe whatever happened during the big bang or black holes?

If you read Karl Marx Manifesto about the extra surplus that workers make, why do the rich AND working class feel they deserve it? — Drek

Do you think capitalists play no role in the profits that are made?

If you are a marxist, then I imagine you believe in Marx's theory of value?

I appreciate the input.

How is the Real Madrid-Atlético de Madrid game the very same game in my smartphone, my tv set (which is very large) and my sister´s tablet in her apartment? It doesn´t make any sense. — DiegoT

The issue here is that this is a false analogy. The father, son and holy spirit are all distinct from each other in a real sense and not in the sense of how we experience God. Thus, the father, son and holy spirit are each fully God, distinct from each other and yet there is only one God.

I want to know if it is logically coherent. I am not asking for anyone to prove it as true or false.

1. The father is God, the holy spirit is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
2. The father, son and holy spirit are distinct.
3. There is only One God.

How is it that Jesus, the father, and the holy ghost are each fully God, distinct from each other, and there is only one God?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

I personally don't believe it is heretical, but other Christians have condemned it as such and I am just repeated their opinion on the matter.

If you reread what I wrote in the introduction, I never say that the video argues that the trinity is indeed illogical only that the video is a good introduction on the topic. Not even the maker of the video argues that the trinity is illogical, but you want to say that Aquinas solves the problem so please explain how he did it.

Of course, the video was only to help start a conversation.

I agree if you want to reduce Jesus as only a part of God, but the doctrine of the trinity means that Jesus is not just part of God, but fully God.

In your example, a body and three persons can serve to explain partialism.

Again, that is modalism.

Since you brought it up, why not make the argument that you think Aquinas makes and then we can see if it is worth the time?

Modalism is a heresy. It is not illogical.

alright, but many Christians do consider what church fathers had to say as important though, but I am sorry for being presumptuous.

https://www.theopedia.com/modalism
Church fathers it seems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_WPuPdFsIg
@ 0:26, the video explains what modalism is and states that it is considered heretical.
Your example of how a man can be a father, husband, and brother sounds like modalism.
Do you disagree?

Can you explain what you mean by "different forms"?
In that video i linked, the person makes a comparison to how some people may think of Superman as "Kal -el", as "Clark Kent" and as "Superman," but each is only a name for one person.

The issue I have with that is if you consider the father, son and holy ghost to be only a part of God or are they all each fully God?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_WPuPdFsIg

@ 1:44 the following stated about the Trinity:
1. The father is God, the holy spirit, and the Holy Spirit is God.
2. The father, son and holy spirit are distinct.
3. There is only One God.

How does a person make sense of these three propositions?

Hey noah, how exactly does the Christian theist even fit divine simplicity with his doctrine of the holy trinity and of Jesus Christ who is both fully human and fully God?

alright, so can you go ahead and explain how the Trinity is indeed logically coherent?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_WPuPdFsIg
Here is this video for reference.

methodological individualism is hardly equivalent to calling anyone a child molester.

Please confine yourself to describing what people-like-you think, and leave those with whom you disagree to express their own views. — Pattern-chaser

I am repeating how particular leftists and liberals/progressives have responded to that kind of definition of fairness; they view it as inadequate.

okay. Yes, you offer a good intuitive answer, but if you say that to a socialist or a social democrat, then you will be accused of engaging in methodological individualism or of being an apologist of the status quo for not seeing the systemic nature of the inequality in question.

Just look at the description you offer: social justice. Fairness in the way people treat one another. And this offends you? I wonder why? — Pattern-chaser

How do you propose we treat people fairly?
Do we do it as the libertarians want to do it or as the socialists would like to do it or as social democrats would like to do it?

Should we only strive to ensure equality before the law or should equity be the driving force behind fairness?

There are entire political philosophies whose founders spend hundreds of pages arguing for their own brand of justice. These different kinds of "justices" entail different kinds of political behaviors; just look at Rawls and compare him to Lenin or Che or Hayek or Nozick!

This is why people should first argue over the correct definition of justice before anything else.

That clearly implies that only the left does this and now you're trying to say otherwise. Interesting. — MindForged

If I said, "only leftists do x" then you would have a point. Thank goodness I never said that only leftists beg the question.

Besides you, of course. After all, your first post in this thread did argue about your political opponents demonstrating such behaviors: — MindForged

When did I say that I was against affirmative action or socialism? If you read carefully, you will see that I point out that social justice is not a politically neutral term and that is why I mentioned affirmative action and socialism- since both can be covered under someone's understanding of social justice.

Again, this is either hypocrisy or you're changing what you believe, which is good but don't pretend otherwis — MindForged

Can you quote where I ever define justice as opposing socialism, affirmative action or anything else?

Uhg, I can't believe the left has a politically motivated conception of justice because justice obviously shouldn't include social justice, that thing only leftists include in their theories of justice." — MindForged

It really is embarrassing that you have to make up quotes of things I never said, but if you reread what I wrote, then you will see that I actually think that the definition of the word "justice" must first be argued for before anyone condemns their political opponent for not supporting "justice."

Let me make things easy for you. If a libertarian said, "anyone who does not support laissez-faire capitalism does not support liberty" that libertarian is defining "liberty" in a question begging manner to support his own economic position.

When leftists define justice as wealth redistribution and high taxes, and so on, he too is begging the question for the sake of his own political goals.


Both these people first need to define their terms and actually make an argument for why their definitions are correct before they start condemning their political opponents as either tyrants or fascists.

if there are no numbers that exist in reality, then mathematical fictionalism is trivially true.

What you are trying to say is that if numbers doesn't exist, then symbols, such as 2 and 4, don't correspond to anything so therefore mathematics is impossible, but it isn't.

The mathematician who argues that the square root of 2 is irrational can simply argue that this is true by virtue of the definition of 2. The mathematician is not obligated to say that the square root of 2 is irrational because of some fact of the universe or of the real world.

you are confusing two important things.

Mathematical platonists will argue that numbers are real entities.

Mathematical fictionalists argue that they are not real.

You can say that 2 is identical with 2 and still argue that 2 does not exist. The symbol "2" is not itself 2 so there is no contradiction in mathematical fictionalism being true.

"Only the left does this" — MindForged

When did I ever say that only the left begs the question with definitions and loaded terminology?

implies you have a particular conception of Justice: a right wing one. — MindForged

Actually, I believe that people must first defend their definitions before they start arguing over whether their political opponents demonstrate X or Y behavior.

And yet you complained inanely about how "obviously political" the left's idea of justice is, — MindForged

Since social justice falls within the political umbrella of the left, it is incorrect to say that I am doing this. Left wing doctrines are inherent to the definition of social justice- just like how individualist doctrines are inherent to right libertarianism or minarchism.

ignoring your own implied one — MindForged

I never present my own definition of justice; I only expose how leftists beg the question when they use their own definition of justice to judge who supports justice and who does not.

If you didn't know, that's called hypocrisy. — MindForged

Actually, its called being logical.

Are you just not familiar with the definition of social justice?

If you didn't know, it is inherently left wing and with it comes only left wing definitions of "justice."

I see, so I state a fact- leftists support a politically loaded definition of justice- and you think that that is an example of complaining?

Oh boy, you got me good.

Explain?

Anyone who espouses racial justice, economic justice and social justice is not simply fighting for "justice." Their brand of justice is always hiding a far left political slant.

I don't think that it is that simple. If you tell people that simply because they are white that they have "white privilege" and that the only solution to ending white privilege is for the federal government to engage in affirmative action or for socialism to replace capitalism, then I would be annoyed too. The social justice crowd is an obnoxious bunch and since most of them are leftists it is clear that they are politically motivated.

Is this even related to philosophy?

Can’t see how there is very much philosophy to discuss on this — Rank Amateur

The question is not on whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true, but on whether the doctrine is logically coherent; thus, the question is within the domain of philosophy.