If a religion is well inculcated in a person, I think it's impossible to get rid of it. You can reject the rituals and adopted some new views. But parents have the power to form a person's mind forever. It's just the way it is

Are you a "recovering Christian"?

I honestly don't care. Apparently you didn't search that in order to see if your idol says anything relevant about life.

Do you believe it's possible for people to sin and consequently be punished for it?

If God (assuming he exists) focused in on a discrete object, what would he see?

I searched "conscience charles peirce" on google, and nothing came up

"discrete object" dont exist. Or maybe the do, but they are nonsensical.

For the reader, the BGK theorem only says there is a distinct boundary at the start, a unique start. The authors have clarified MANY times that they didn't mean to say that an eternal universe is impossible.

It either has a back and front, or it doesn't. That is, it is either real or zero

Are the parts non-zero? Do they have a front and back? Uh, the front and back are parts! This is the paradox started by Zeno. YOU don't have the solution

I've told you before I am a materialist. I was raised Latin Catholic though. I am not interested in philosophies that try to take responsibility away from humans. Every homo sapein I've met is human. Not a tautology, you get what I mean. We all have a basic morality. All this means is that we are faced with situations where our conscience plays a role. Go against the conscience and you F up. So you have to make up for it and revert the will back to where it was. Where does conscience play a role in Peirce's philosophy?

The world is physical, which is made of infinite parts. If it's more like a simulation, than why are you elsewhere arguing for a God?

Does the discrete part have parts. If it doesn't, why isn't it zero?

Do you potentially have a hand, or do you actually have one? How can something have parts only potentially? How can something exist yet not have parts? These are all non-sensical statements.

"everything is composed of parts and.. must have non-zero finite size."

Then you keep thinking of the division. The numbers of parts go on forever. So infinity does exist

I don't even like the guy. You said he was moral but present an immoral picture of his ideas.

Christian say Jesus paid the price for our sins. So our responsibility is taken by an innocent person who was God who cleansed us against justice

"The mind is fundamentally illogical" Devans99

Discreteness does even mean anything. Does the discrete have parts? If not it's zero and has nothing to do with an object

Deists don't usually try to convince others that it is rational to believe in God. They can't even communicate with their God, so what motive could they have? I think you just want to prove a point. I've expressed my position clearly, but it doesn't compute with ye. Maybe it will someday. See you

I've studied Christianity since I was 11 years old. So go ahead, give the quotes from Peirce on conscience and sin. Let's see if he is moral. Did he say anything at all? Go

You need to understand that what the mind thinks geometrically of an object actually applies to it. How many parts does a banana ACTUALLY have? Don't say one because I can split it in half. And if I was all-powerful I could split it up infinitely. Objects are both infinite and finite at the same time. Logic proves this

Things don't potentially have parts. They actually have parts

Nothing is starting itself. You dont get it. Over your head. Bye

Christians try to get out of moral responsibility by saying God "became sin" and destroyed it. All you have to do is accept that he did and your responsibility is removed. Peirce's "we are one" is nothing less than a hyper intelligent person trying to escape from the crap that he's done by merging with everyone else instead of repenting and making amends sufficient to cleanse himself.

because it's all nonsense!

Even if the world is the expression of a general mind, if that mind is ours than the world is not real. If wondered a lot about Hinduism, and I've come to the conclusion that you can't truly love other people if you think they are you

so many contradictions is one post.

The world just is finetuned, just like you say God is just intelligent. Why is God intelligent. You have.to stop somewhere. Gravity moves by attraction in the Newtonian model and otherwise I'm GR. There is simply the first motion, and time starts. Nothing before. Debating people isn't going to help. You have to really think about it for awhile with an open mind

that is not a clear cut paradox. There is much about infinity we don't know. You are making this too simple. However, if you think it is simple, then how is it that objects are infinitely divisible and therefore have infinite parts?

then he is full of cat diarrhea. The world clearly exists as a reality, not as thought. And why has he been called an objective idealist instead of a subjective one if he thinks the world is subjective??

i don't understand you. I say gravity starts time and the first motio, and you say what starts the first motion again. Obviously the no boundary hypothesis is too hard to understand for you.

it doesn't matter if they are beneficial. Atheists have wonder towards the world and you can't stop them even though you don't understand it

i see no connection between your epigenetics research and nominalism, or with Peirce. You don't elaborate

Let me get this straight. Are the the Peirce people on this thread saying that we all have a common mind and that mind creates the material world? Averroes said we all have a common mind, but that Allah created the world, and belief in materialism doesn't rule out a common mind. It sounds too Christian to me actually, wherein guilt and punishment can be shared between people, some of whom are innocent

imagine the series of motions as a bunch of pictures. Together they flow to create time, but there is no time before the first motion. Gravity causes the whole series to move and time to flow, but there is no before so a God or anything else outside the series is not needed. The world is uncaused, having its own causality within it, as you say of the dude out there

I've been reading about Buddhist logic on Wikipedia just now. I guess we can say that the world is either real, not real, in-between, a combination of one of those three, or beyond all these four. Actually it seems to go infinitely in every direction, so it's hard to draw lines within which philosophers can fall. I see that. The same applies to God. There is pantheism, and also panentheism (where the world is inbetween emanation and creation, as with Leibniz's "fulgaration"). There can be a combination of both, there can be neither, or infinite inbetweens. HOWEVER, notwithstanding all that, if we stick to the simple definitions of "subjective idealism" and "objective idealism", maybe the full quotes from Peirce haven't been provided yet on this thread for us to know which side he was on

Physical laws being derived, habits becoming laws.. It sounds like splitting hairs again aletheist. Are you saying Peirce is a subjective idealism instead of an objective idealist?

Peirce