The liar paradox was discussed in logic during the Middle Ages. They hated it lol

.

Add Nagarjuna to the list

Asserting that only a person can be "it's own causality"-necessary is quite a claim and comes with a lot of ontological baggage

Asserting that you can prove there is a person out there who is really three people who don't have a body but who are in reality my real dad.. well I find that almost offensive

My degree is a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) — Marco Colombini

From a Christian college right? Depending on the college, it doesn't count. I have to go to work now. I have a real job. Not "spreading the Word" sheesh

Talk to you latter tonight

I'm a scientist. Historically scientists and philosophers were one and the same. My degree is a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.). — Marco Colombini

So you are not a scientist but a philosopher. And one who is not very good at his job. True philosophers see things from every angle in order to see what possibly could be true. You are obviously myoptic. Above I clearly gave an alternative to theism, then I clearly refuted theism, and I clearly refuted Christianity. What do you say then?

Heidegger says that Parmenides is guided by things (“presents-at-hand”; see above!). There is a contradiction with Parmenides’ theory that he does not explain. — David Mo

You obviously haven't read Parmenides's poem. The goddess guides him to pure Being through beings of the world

Are there many Gods? The only information on that matter comes not from science but from statements attributed to God. — Marco Colombini

I am assuming, maybe wrongly, that you mean the Bible. Well, the Bible says Jesus paid for our sins. The price for our sins was billions of people in the eternal furnace. Jesus suffered for three hours. So that theology is wrong. Also, the idea of an innocent man taking our punishment has God the Father saying "well at least SOMEBODY suffered pain because of these sins!!!". It's scapegoating. So again, the Bible is wrong

If you want to believe in Super Daddy and his son Superman, that's ok. Just don't tell us we have to believe in him too. I have a real dad and I love him. That's plenty of daddyness for me. You don't have to shroud the whole universe in fatherhood

And God's existence is clearly refutable:

1) there are ugly things and ugly acts in this world. God sustains everything, so he sustains child rape as it is happening. This is against his holiness. But God is supposed to keep everything in place? So he does t exist

2) if God's nature were perfect, the world would reflect this. Sure, humans have free will and letting things happen to us can be for a greater good. But what of the suffering of innocent animals. Is God's nature so deficient that he can't create a world and protect innocent animals at the same time?

Q.E.D

First off, the OP needs to distinguish CLEARLY between philosophy and science. The hybrid he presented at the start is a sleight of hand. How the universe came about is different from why. So, how? The original state of the universe was potentiality and it was its own causality, much like You say God's nature is? Why is the universe here? As Hume might have first pointed out, the reason comes from within the universe and within us. It doesn't have to come from without

I think in conclusion that I should clarify that I believe in corona virus research. That is organic science. Physics? Well.. they are good at making gadgets, big and small. I don't know what to compare the rate of technological advances to, but this has nothing to do with physics of hundreds of years ago, let alone billions. There is literally no end to the number of factors that could have interfered with the casual series they set up from now till 13.8 BC.I

A couple of months ago articles were popping up about "new mathematical techniques that can prove causality", which I find to be a bold face lie. Certain philosophers spend their whole lives studying causality and the different ways it could work. Then some physicists come along and say they can topple this with math techniques? That's pretty embarrassing

I've said my peace

Form and matter, for Aristotle (the originator of this idea) are united in an object and produce the accidents vs substance relation. Descartes rejected form (rightly), and so took out the root, and. his discussion of the Eucharist is interesting. Aside from all that though, I think physicists are too obsessed with mathematics. I believe they should study logic and philosophy more. Their claim that my perceptions of the world are 99% inaccurate i take as bullshit. There are too many factors for their math to be accurate. You can't put your hands on all the forces that produces the universe either, so their claim that they can trace the casual line back 13.8 billion years back I find just ridiculous.

The Bible should be in the comic book section

True. The traditional scholastics (a term used for Thomists, Scotians, ect) thought an object was divided into accidents and substance. The former are how it is, the latter is what it is. The only difference between this belief and what Kant said is that accidents say something about substance, while phenomena says nothing about noumena. Scholastic tradition believed in a "ghost in the machine". Descartes's ghost was the soul

Hegel speaks of pure conceptualization through intuition. Actually looking at an idea in the mind.
Kant had separated reality from perception. This was done with his Antimonies. Today it is done by science. They say we don't see things as they are. And they say stuff is flying all around us which we can't perceive. I believe the dresser over there and the desk to my right are in reality exactly as they look to me. My eyes go out and touch them, to be poorly poetic about it. My eyes know of contradiction and there is beauty there

If you strip everything mathematical or physical from the idea of the finite, and have finite-ness in its pure naked form before you, you can know instantly that it could not form one with an infinity of numbers. Hegel says they cancel each other and their death is motion. Hence Zeno

Well guys, even the debate that went on the middle ages over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" was about the question of points, limits, infinity, and quanity-magnitude. It was literally a topic about measure, since angels were understood to be simple but not in the Divine sense. So this is not some obscure topic

The oddity discovered by Zeno of Elea (an ancient Greek living in Italy) is explained by Hegel in that section. Infinity and finitude are in every thing; they are for ever together and apart. Infinitesimals about endlessly, all within a world we quantize as finite. This is what strict logic can get out of observation. APPLYING math to the world seems like an illegal move, or at least is a strange choice of words

"There is another relevant consideration here too. If quantity is adopted directly from our representations consciousness without being mediated by pure thinking, it can happen very easily that its range of validity is exaggerated, and indeed that quantity is elevated to the rank of an absolute category. This is what does happen in fact when those sciences whose object can be submitted to a mathematical calculus are recognized as exact science." Hegel in the lesser Logic.

He was the philosopher of contradiction. He often says we are all reality, and fleshes out a philosophy where contradictions within our nature result in the world, which contains both these contradictions and the symmetry of the future we are headed to.

The existence of God naturally explains all these — Marco Colombini

Unless you subscribe to a specific ontology like Thomism, you should have said "God or Gods" and said "theism or polytheism" in the title

You seem to be glossing over the free will defense here as while god would have given rise to human beings with the capability to perform certain actions he wasn't in charge of them actually doing such an action. This does depend on whether it would be a more morally perfect universe to have free beings who make such choices rather than one filled with robots who only ever do what preprogrammed, morally pure, actions they undertake. The real issue comes when you begin dealing with natural evils such as hurricanes or diseases which don't have a direct origin in the actions of human beings. — substantivalism

I disagree but this is the wrong thread for this

Humans have come up with paradoxes though. Zeno's directly targeted the intelligibility of the world. I'd rather talk about the Liars Paradox though, since Godel used it and Stephen Hawking used Godel's idea in a paper about the nature of reality. What if reality is a loopy paradox? Is it possible science's only defense is its apparent success? I am not putting down what people wrote above, just pushing the conversation..

I believe it's contradictory to say God is good and yet I can beat a kitten to death. If he is so deficient in nature that he can't bring the "greater good" about without the kitten being beaten, then why call him God? After all, creation is supposed to reflect his nature

Also, why God? Why not Gods?

The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence. In addition there is direct historical evidence for the existence of God from the many scientifically impossible events performed by God and witnessed at times by few and at other times by thousands of skeptical observers. — Marco Colombini

Why does it have to be a person? Why can't it be a force, or Form, or Confucian Heaven, or pure potentiality? Also, there sure are things that have happened that science can't explain. But what is science? Much of it is speculation. Add some speculation about other dimensions, for example, and you have an explanation for "miracles" without positing a guy out there

Here are the lyrics to a song I loved as a teenager:

https://genius.com/Avril-lavigne-sk8er-boi-lyrics

The lyrics are loopy in the sense that she is singing about a situation ("a song she wrote about a skater boy") but the song she wrote is the song... eh I can't do this. It's just loopy! I too am interested in what we can gather from loopy logic

I guess I'm being ambiguous there. I was thinking even if materialism is true and free will is an emergent spook of matter, this doesn't mean choses made come from nothing (ex nihilo). It's a faculty exercising its power.

Just because we can choose, this does not imply our choices spring from nothing

"We're all Jesus and we're all God" said John Lennon in 1968. "He's inside all of us and that's what it's all about. As soon as you start realizing that potential in everyone, well, then you can change the world and the person themselves can change it."

the simple explanation is you cannot control your wants therefore you cannot control your doings — Augustusea

You choose between different wants which have different strengths. Even if compatibilism is true and you choose the strongest want every time, you would still be free

In fact,if not for academic philosophy and materialism it would never even be a question. — Asif

People's thinking on this in the modern world is weird. In physics they tried to get away (I think unsuccessfully) with spooks such as action from a distance when it comes to gravity. But the brain, however, is made of determinism and randomness. So free will turns out to be a spook of the brain, a power that emerges from it. I am working on my materialistic tendencies by reading Hegel's logics

It's seems to me that free will either is real or its not. It must be discrete. There may be levels of existence in objects and we can debate all day what pure potentiality is. But the Kant and Fitche in me says you guys are wrong when you say "we are free, kinda". It appears to be black and white imo

Continental Divide is a great book about the Cassier-Heidegger debate at Davos (there have been other books written about it too). I struggled to see a clear and distinct divide between their positions though. I think Heidegger might have been a relativist in a sense

Well why isn't epistemology the same as philosophy of mind?

Does red exist? Only kinda

When I hear songs like Christmas Memories, I know for sure the past exists. But at the same time I know for a fact that only the present exists. I don't struggle with this paradox. I lot of people say on this forum that something either exists or it doesnt. Ive been looking at this thread from a Jungian Heidegarrian angle and I am not sure being is discreetly one way

I meant "vegetable" in the sense that Augustine said a child is in a vegetable state in the first trimester . Santa can't grow beyond that in our consciousness, neither can God or Krishna. At least not from that route

Santa lives at least with vegetable level life in many peoples psyches. I don't know exactly how potential becomes actual

I would think that things come from potential to actual. Some call potential nothing. Maybe it's kind of a hybrid of something and nothing, and something falls away from the nothing and walla a big bang

There wasn't anything that caused the universe. There is simply a causal series going back to the first member of the series, which would be the first motion of the big bang. Our human construct of time is what limits people from seeing this. Time might be a true nothing

Indian art often shock and awes you, and has a different intention then say the art in the Vatican. The latter tries the way of Platonic beauty, hinting at universals through the paintings ect. Many Catholics aren't Platonists but I think there traditional art inherently is. Thomas Kinkade's heard says "German idealism" to me and that is where my heart is.

In other words, I.Q is a measurement of behaviour. — VagabondSpectre

The problem with IQ tests is that people are intelligent with regard to their goals. A Buddhist monk or a Beatle-esque fool on the hill may not pass the logic parts of an IQ test, but he has diverted his mind elsewhere. If the human psyche is as deep as Nietzsche for example would say it is, than there does't seem to be a way to measure someone else's intelligent imo