• Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    When Spinoza declares substance to be the cause of its modes, or Aristotle when he considers the whole to be the cause of its parts, clearly these are also cases where the “cause” in question could not possibly exist in time without the effect in question also taking shape at the same exact point in time. So we can see that, in terms of historical discussion on causes, temporality was never too much of a concern for these thinkers.Pretty

    Ok, there seem to be a lot of interesting points to think about in your post. First of all,

    1.  What does it mean when Spinoza says substance is the cause of mode?  Could you explain?  Do you agree with that statement?

    2. Again what does it mean when Aristotle says the whole is the cause of the part?  Could you explain the statements perhaps with some examples?  Do you agree with the statement?

     Parent and child relationship itself seems to be saying enough.  It contains all the aspects of biological, societal, physical, psychological and legal relationship details.  But if it is described as a causal relationship, then it seems to reduce the relationship into a physical relation which says very little.    Would you not agree?
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    If we were to prevent parenthood in the first parent, and thus fully prevent parenthood as a real thing, then childhood too would be removed to the same degree. But we can see that this abstract level causality is actually eternal in some sense, because although the parent corporeally exists before the child does, as abstract concepts of parent and child they only ever come about at the same exact time, and yet the parent has a clear priority to the child that thus can’t be explained by means of time. Another way to say it is that the definition of parent has causality in its essence — it cannot itself exist without having some degree of the child in existence as well.Pretty

    Having revisited your points, I am still not sure if parent and child  relationship could be classed as cause-effect relationship.  Because cause and effect relationship means that when you observe the cause or the elements which constitutes the cause, you could predict the expected effect in all cases. For example, if I throw a stone to the window, I can predict the window will break. If it rains, the ground will be wet. If I release an apple from the height, it will fall onto the ground ... etc etc.

    Hence if you created the conditions for cause, and apply the conditions, then you must get the expected results in the exact same state of results. This is a causal relation.

    In a parent child relationship, you don't get anything like that.  To begin with, parents are not conditions themselves.  Parent is a societal name for someone who has a child, be it biologically had, or adopted.  One is called a parent by the society, when one has a child.

    Parent doesn't exist as some matter or physical objects or events.  It is a name given by human culture and tradition.  It is like someone is called a teacher, when he / she has some students.  There is no causal relationship in that.  It is a kind of job title, when one has a duty to do something, the society will call you under the name.

    Likewise child is a name for a person when he / she is in the early stage of life. The society call a person as child when they are before becoming an adult. Child doesn't exist as some events, state or motions or condition in reality. It is a linguistic name for an young person. Child was not caused by any event, conditions or process. Once the egg is combined with the sperm, the life starts grow biologically by the law of nature. It becomes a person of itself. The mother's body is just a shell for the child to develop until it comes out of the body. It is difficult to see the body of parents as some physical or any type of cause here. If it has to be some causal relationship, then you must also bring the physicians who actually pulled out the child from the mother's body and the midwifes who managed the birth, as part of the cause for the child, which becomes quite blurry in the relationship i.e. who is the real cause for the child?

    Likewise Number 1 is not a cause for anything.  It is a descriptive word to describe an object in quantity or start of motion or event or stage of process.   From 1, one can count 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, 1.1111 ... never reaching 2 eternally.  It just depends on how one wants to use the number for his application.

    Parent and child relationship is linked by one off event in one's life.  No one can predict, change or adjust it.  How could anyone have predicted Mary had Tim or Jane as her children before their births? And how could have anyone predicted how their faces and personalities would be like before the birth?

    One can only talk about its necessity or factuality only after the birth of the child in the relationship.    If something cannot be predicted before its events, then can it be called a necessity or facts? Nope.

    When you cannot predict the effect of the cause, it is not a causal relation at all.  That is why efficient cause seems outdated.  Just because A was ahead of B, or A produced B doesn't qualify as a cause and effect relationship between A and B.   In Causal relationship, the details of cause must offer predictions to its effects in exact degree, and the process of cause and effect relationship must be repeatable and predictable in all times in the universe.

    So, I am still not convinced on your points that parent child relationship is a causal relationship which is based on necessity. If it is still not making sense, please let me know why it isn't. Thanks.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    From here, I see ways that proper causality can be asserted for both. The latter is a little easier to start with — a parent is only understood *as* a parent, when the child is actually in some way existent. Edith, who we are trying to consider as simply a parent, still lived and existed many years without being a parent to Tim. The parent in her though, did not exist until the child was born. In this way, we can say that a parent, qua parent, is universally the cause of the child, qua child, insofar as they cannot exist separate from each other.Pretty

    Does this mean that the parent was caused by the non-parent? Because before the parent became a parent, they were not parent. The parent became parent because of the fact the parent had the child.
    It seems a bit unclear here.

    The parent had been caused by the not-parent, and the not parent must have been caused by the other parent, and so on. So who is the very first parent? Which comes first then, parent or not parent?
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    100%, that is a very good point. All that I would say is that in other senses, science is not like religion, because science is atheist (or at least agnostic). Individual scientists can be religious, but that is a private matter. Science, in the public sense, is not religious (it cannot be, by definition).Arcane Sandwich

    Of course Science is not religion. No one would argue about that. My point was, that the way that Science can mislead the ordinary folks' perception at times is the same as religion.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    Yes, all we have is a Ground Of Determination - the Quantum 'vacuum'.PoeticUniverse

    I don't have it, sir. Where can I find one?
  • What is the (true) meaning of beauty?
    Agreed, but does that make to reason on content the same as to reason to emotion?Mww
    I am definitely aware of my emotions in most times. I can feel happiness when seeing the newly arrived parcels, and when I opened them, the contents inside of the parcel were what I was expecting and satisfactory in quality. I feel satisfied and happy about them. I go to the online store, and leave a positive feedback reflecting my satisfaction and happiness on the goods delivered. This whole process is based on my reflective reasoning.

    But as you pointed out, whether the content of perception is identical with the emotion seems a bit unclear. And what would be the nature of the reasoning between those different mental events?
    Could emotions be classed as a type of perception? Or are they different events altogether? If so, how different?

    On the other hand, I can see here I might reason to an emotion I’ve already felt, given a cause I’ve already experienced. But this is mediated emotion, rather than immediate affectation, so in these cases, I’d be less inclined to question the idea.Mww
    Yes, this is it. We can reflect and reason the felt emotions after the experience of emotion. Hence it looks like our emotions could be the subject matter for reason. According to Kant, reason can even reason about reason itself, which is then pure reason. In that case, why couldn't reason reason on the emotions or the content of emotions?

    When emotional experience has gone through the analytic investigation of reason, it can be looked as in "the content" of reason, because then we can describe it in linguistic form.

    Anyway….thanks.Mww
    Anytime Mww. Thank you.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?

    Gracias por tus amables palabras, amigo.
  • Mathematical platonism
    We cannot eat oysters as they are in themselves. That is true. I only wish the premises were true as well.Arcane Sandwich

    Could it be because they are the Kantian oysters? Oysters in themselves are in noumenon. They are not available in the physical world. You can only eat the oysters in phenomenon, which are are brought under the physiological and chemical conditions
  • What is the (true) meaning of beauty?
    I don't think art, which we analyse, necessarily 'pleases' our brain, but rather that, through thorough reflection about it and contemplation on the object itself, we reach a (reasoned) conclusion regarding its' qualities, like that it is beautiful.Prometheus2

    You could be right. Reasoned beauties cannot please our brains like the bodily sensory beauties please our bodily organs. Could it be because of the fact, brain is located inside body under the skin and skull hidden away from the external stimulation?

    I still believe that brain feels and knows everything which is fed via the sensory organs, as the centre of the mental events where all mental operations take place. But maybe the way brain feels pleasure of reasoned beauty might be different from the way our eyes or ears feel pleasures from the sensations? In what what would it be different? Or does it have anything to do with the reasoned beauty at all?
  • What is the (true) meaning of beauty?
    On “reasoned beauty”:

    Do you think we reason to an aesthetically pleasing emotion?
    Mww

    I think we can reason on all the contents of our perception no matter how trivial they are. When you are asked "What does it feel like?", you explain the nature of the feeling using your reason reflectively. e.g. "It feels like coming home." or "Unbelievably interesting".

    But in the case of aesthetically pleasing emotion, reason could offer a lot more explanation on the object in analytic and critical way. Most of the art critique essays are in the form of explanation based on reasoning.
  • What is the (true) meaning of beauty?
    Hmm... So what you mean to say is that...perhaps beauty is something purely contingent and subjective, and if it were not, there would have to be some kind of consistent, determinable pattern behind its' occurrence or emergence?Prometheus2

    I have thought about this concept again, and it seem to me that beauty could be very much closely related to bodily sensory perceptions, which cause aesthetically pleasing emotions in us.

    When we see beautiful scenery, person or flowers, they pleases our eyes via the visual sensations and perception. When we hear beautiful music or songs, they please our ears or hearing.

    Likewise, smells, tastes and touches could be described as beautiful, if they give us pleasing sensations.

    You may ask, what about the reasoned beauty from the works of Picasso, Van Gogh, the famous Mona Lisa by Da Vinci,..etc? We may say, they please our brains.

    Therefore we may conclude that beauty is an aesthetically pleasing emotions arising from our bodily sense organs in perceiving the objects or situations? Not sure if you would agree, or see the point. I would be interested to hear about your opinions on the point.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    Philosophers have some very complicated things to say about existence, and they don't agree with each other on that point.Arcane Sandwich

    Yes, this is true. Existence is an interesting topic. We could further analyse and discuss on the nature of Existence. If you would open an OP, I would follow, read and try to contribute if I have any relating ideas cropping up in my head.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Hmmm... that's a really good point. You seem to be a very good metaphysician.Arcane Sandwich

    Thank you sir. I am grateful to be able to discuss these topics with the renowned professional Metaphysician. :pray:
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Sure. But then I can talk about how those people talked about those objects. And how do I do that? First, I study what they said, then I study what those objects are.Arcane Sandwich

    Sure interesting point. You will find different people have different ideas on what being alive means. You have claimed that having the biological body cells, DNA and RNA in the body is the condition of being alive. But the ancient people must have thought that the dead are as alive as the living.
    After physical death, soul travels from the mundane world to the heaven or hell or the world of idea, if they were platonians.

    Most of them believed in Gods, Demons and Ghosts for sure. So physical bodies were not the only existence.

    The moderns rejected souls, Gods, demons and dragons as unfounded superstitions due to lack of evidence on the claims and beliefs. But then there are many claims made by Science with little or no evidence. People tend to believe anything no matter how superstitious it may sound.

    If the claims were under the name of science, then they would believe them blindly. So there is no much difference between scientific or religious claims in their superstitious nature.

    DNA RNA are only meaningful for those who works in the labs with the white gowns. They mean nothing me. No matter how closely I inspect my hand and fingers I cannot find a trace of DNA or RNA.
    For me being alive means being able to eat, drink, sleep well, and enjoy the pleasures from the daily routine.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    You think? I'm not so sure myself. Calling someone "ignorant" is just rude. Maybe I should retire that word from my personal vocabulary, but I'm not sure. What do you think about that? Is the word "ignorant" somehow insulting? I think it is, but I could be wrong.Arcane Sandwich

    It can be insulting to someone, but the ancients are all dead, and the deads won't mind being called "ignorant". Or maybe they might mind, but they won't know that you called them "ignorant". :D
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    To the Quantum Depths of the Poetic Universe:

    Lost in the Haystack?
    PoeticUniverse

    It seems clear that even if God existed, God doesn't intervene human affairs based on the history of the world and the current affairs on what's happening in the world. There is nothing one can do about that.

    And from my observations, experiences and reasoning, the only place where God exist is the word God. Nowhere else in the external world I could observe God at all. Therefore my proof God exists in the keyboard of my computer still stands.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    Hmmm... I'm not sure, really. I dont know "what to make of it", as some people say. Can you explain to me why you certainly don't think so? Thanks in advance.Arcane Sandwich

    It was an inference from your claim that there is no point or possibility for discussing demons or fire breathing dragons in Metaphysics because they don't exist in the external world.

    My points were,
    1. There is no ultimate proof that demons don't exist.  Could you prove demons and dragons don't exist?

    2. Even if demons don't exist (lets presume that they don't exist), the fact that demons don't exist doesn't stop people imagining and thinking about them.  People have been talking about demons and fire breathing dragons for thousands of years, and still will be doing so until the end of human civilization creating them in art form i.e.  movies, novels, paintings and sculptures.

    3. The fact that people imagine,  think and talk about demons implies that abstract existence has significant meanings in the human mind, which suggests that abstract objects can exist.  Perhaps abstract objects exist in different forms, and should it be said that abstract objects axist? instead of exist (in physical objects?) :)

    Of course my points are just assumptions and inferences from your claims. You can disagree, if they don't make sense. But it is interesting to see different opinions on these aspects of existence.
  • What is the (true) meaning of beauty?
    Could you elaborate that? (this other aspect?)Prometheus2

    The idea of beauty could be much effected from situations. For example, a beautiful person in the dental chair getting her teeth scaled may not look beautiful at all, as she would when she is dancing in the night club.

    Likewise an ordinary looking person can look more beautiful when just out of shower or working out hard in the gym sweating than formally dressed and greeting her customers in the office.

    Some situations can make beauty to climax, while other situations could decrease it. These situational aspects seem to indicate the idea of beauty is a contingent psychological feelings on the perceived objects.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    I believe he is saying more or less one of the things that I have been saying in another thread: not everything is possible, not even at the level of pure theory, not even at the level of pure metaphysical speculation.Arcane Sandwich

    Thank you for your clarification on the point. I disagree with the point totally. Because whether something is alive or not, if something is imaginable, thinkable and conceivable, then it is possible to discuss about them.

    If you deny that, then discussions on the mental activities or operations would be impossible limiting the discussions only to the daily physical objects in space and time. Well some folks live like that i.e. mundane, dry and materialistic only being aware of the materialistic objects in the world.

    But there are vast majority of people in the world who are imaginative, creative and metaphysical and believe in the abstract existence, which means non living and non existent objects could be still very meaningful to discuss and think about.

    If you still deny that, then no artistic, creative, idealistic activities would be possible. There would be no movies, novels, poems, abstract paintings and sculptures available in the world. There would be no religions. Is it the case? I certainly don't think so.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    So this is how I would establish the universality of efficient causes. I feel like most graspings of it fail to account for time properly — although it is constantly in flux, its instants seem obviously brought about by necessity of the, sometimes immediate, past. What is, is only temporarily. And what will be, will only be potentially. But what has been, will always have been, and *must* have been, for the rest of history. This is the universality hiding right under our noses in the ever-changing current of time.Pretty

    You seem to be mixing together sufficient and efficient cause here. There is a pretty big difference between the Aristotelian Four Causes and Humean constant conjunction and counterfactual analysis, although the two notions can be used in concert. I am not sure about "antiquated." Both concepts are employed in the sciences all the time, e.g. do-calculus, etc. Any student in the natural or social sciences has to take statistics and they will be taught again and again that "correlation does not equal causation."Count Timothy von Icarus

    Ok, great analysis and explanation on Efficient cause. I must admit I learnt something from this thread. I was not familiar with the concept of Efficient cause before. I was only aware of the Humean Causal theory. I will come back for any points in your explanations and counter points, if I find any points to be clarified. Thanks. :up: :pray:
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    and those people were indeed alive, because they had DNA, RNA, and body cells,Arcane Sandwich
    Dead bodies also have DNA. So having DNA is not the right criteria for being alive.

    even though they did not know that specific fact about themselves and about the world in general. They were, I guess you could say, ignorant of that fact.Arcane Sandwich
    Ok, fair point. But it is still possible to talk about non-alive objects such as the fire breathing dragons and demons. Because many people know about them, and like them obviously from the video.
    It means the dragons and demons exist in their mind and imagination. Therefore they exist in the mind as mental objects. With the mental objects, they made up the physical objects which look like fully living dragon. It gives fun and realistic experience to the viewers.

    Therefore it is possible to discuss about the mental objects which exist in the mind from metaphysical point of view. Rejecting that sounds rejecting Metaphysics itself, because after all Metaphysics means going beyond physical existence.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    Hi! Returning with a confusion towards this specific definition we concluded on: how does this explain efficient causes? Would the parent not be considered the efficient cause of the child? Or the craftsman an efficient cause of their works? And we know these clearly don’t fall under the stricter consideration of cause and effect, so would we say efficient cause is something different altogether?Pretty

    I feel efficient cause is an antiquated ancient concept, which has logical problems. Sure, we can say that parent is a sufficient cause for the child, but I am not sure if there is philosophical or logical point in doing so.

    It is like saying, there was a postman when the rain started coming down today, therefore does it mean the rain is the sufficient cause for the postman? Or I was waiting for the bus to go to the town, and a taxi passed me by. Does it mean I was the sufficient cause for the taxi passing me?

    It just happened once out of random events, and it was a unique event which has little chance to be repeated (in the case of the parent giving birth to the child X, it will never be repeated. Because no parent can give a birth to the same child twice in their life.)

    Therefore, it is like the antiquated concept PSR. It doesn't make logical sense to say the sufficient cause was the relationship between the parent and child.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?


    I am not quite sure what the presenter is trying to say in his video. But my point was this.

    If dualism was true, then soul can survive the bodily death.
    We don't know soul can survive bodily death.
    Therefore we don't know Dualism is true.

    There are many things in the universe, we don't know the answers.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    No. They cannot be alive, because they are like stones in that sense. A machine is not alive (i.e., it does not have genetic material, it does not have DNA and/or RNA, and it is not composed of cells, it is not "made" of cells).Arcane Sandwich

    Does it mean that no one was alive before DNA RNA and body cells were discovered?
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    In the example of the video that you showed, the "dragon" only meets one of the two criteria: it breaths fire, but it is not alive. And, technically speaking, it doesn't breathe fire either, because only living beings (only some of them, not all) can breathe.Arcane Sandwich

    But what makes something alive? What do you mean by "alive"?
    Can machines be not alive?
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    Many chronically and pharmaceutically untreatable depressed and/or anxiety-ridden people won’t miss this world when they finally pass away.FrankGSterleJr

    But from logical point of view, if we don't know what the state of death is, could we be sure that death will end the sufferings?

    If the state of death has some sort of continuation of after-life consciousness, perception or feelings, could you be certain that the suffering might not even get worse or permanent during and after death?

    If that is the case, there is no point of death, hence living forever is best? No?
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    For example, the idea that there might be a living, fire-breathing dragon somewhere on planet Earth, right now, in the year 2024, is an idea that is theoretically impossible, in the literal sense: it is incompatible with the body of knowledge that modern science currently has. Technically speaking, they do not co-here, there would be no coherence within a theoretical system that accepts, at the same time and in the same sense, the idea of a living, fire-breathing dragon in the world and the body of knowledge of modern science.Arcane Sandwich

    :chin: :grin:
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    The problem is, if you publish a paper on the metaphysics of demons, people laugh at you. But if you publish a paper on the metaphysics of Pegasus, people at least have the basic decency to tell you why your ideas are wrong.Arcane Sandwich

    Wouldn't it depend on what the definition of demon is? In the ordinary folk's mind perhaps demon means some evil with horrible looking face and body destroying and doing bad things to people. That's just a vulgar idea from the movies or comics.

    Rise above from that, and you could define demon as a negative side of God, humans or anything really. There are always positive and negative sides of everything. The positive side of the world, life, mind, pleasure etc could be defined as the angelic property, and the negative side of these objects such death, war, pain, hatred ... etc could be branded as the demonic properties of the existence.

    In that system, there is nothing to laugh about, but it could be a good topic to have discussions or thoughts on.

    Anyhow my point is, you could make anything possible theoretically, because theoretically means you are presuming, supposing or assuming such and such might be the case. You are not claiming anything true or false here. In the modal situation, anything can be made possible or impossible.
    But physically, many things would be impossible to implement and prove. There is a difference.
  • What is the (true) meaning of beauty?
    Wow, yeah, I quite like that thought. These two sides of beauty.Prometheus2

    Yes, interesting. Would you say beauty could be also from the other aspect of the world or situations?
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    The Permanent Ultimate Something is not alive, but as we see, the potential for life was there for the Temporaries.PoeticUniverse

    What could transform the potential for life into life?
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Right, but here's my question, as a professional metaphysician (I think I've earned the right to call myself that, I have enough metaphysical publications in professional journals to qualify as such),Arcane Sandwich
    So you are a professional Metaphysician. Cool.

    Are there people out there, in the world, that are somehow under another impression? I'm extremely curious about that. I'm a bit of an amateur anthropologist, you could say. What do you think? What is your opinion on the Metaphysics of ghosts and demons?Arcane Sandwich
    I think Metaphysics could discuss such topics e.g. Demons, Ghosts and God, Souls and Freedom etc. That is what Metaphysics is about. No one would suggest to discuss these topics under Physics or Chemistry. If you say, even Metaphysics cannot discuss them, then what is the point of Metaphysics?

    I mean it is not the whole topic of Metaphysics of course. It has the other topics too. But I would have thought Metaphysics can discuss the entities which are in the out of the boundaries of normative reason.

    If you still deny that freedom and authority of Metaphysics, then I would say you are limiting the scope of Metaphysics unreasonable and unnecessary way, and it would be stripped of much of its attraction.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    What do you mean?Arcane Sandwich

    Well you said that the demons and ghosts don't exist in the external world, so it is impossible to explain about them theoretically, and even metaphysically.

    I was saying they are the perfect topics in Metaphysics, and why is it impossible to explain or discuss. That was what I mean.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    Cool, I’ve been slowly gathering this as the thread continued, I’m surprised it took this long to get explicated. Thanks!! It really does clear up a lotPretty

    That sounds pretty cool, Pretty. Thanks for the great OP. :up: :cool:
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    And what I'm arguing is that ghost and demons do not exist. They do not have the property of existence, because in my personal philosophy, existence is a property. Ghosts and demons do not have that property, therefore they do not exist. I did not invent this idea myself, this is simply something that I took from Mario Bunge's philosophy.Arcane Sandwich

    OK, I see what you mean. But I was under the impression that Metaphysics allows us to discuss the objects we can imagine, contemplate, and conceptualize but has no material existence such as God, Souls, Demons and Ghosts etc.

    When you said, even in Metaphysics, those concepts are impossible to exist, I was not sure if you were talking about a different Metaphysics from the traditional classic Metaphysics.

    I think this is what Kant had been talking about in his CPR - if Metaphysics was possible as a Science, when it deals with the topics of non material existences such as God, Souls, Freedom etc.

    When you are talking about God, Souls, Freedom, and even Demons or Ghosts, we are not saying they do exist in the external world. But rather what Metaphysical inquiries are asking is, how is it possible for us to think about those concepts when they are not existing in the external world, and what if they do exist. If they don't exist in the external world, then could it be possible that they might exist in our mind? And how do we form such immaterial concepts which are not in space and time?

    These are perfectly reasonable questions to ask and discuss, and especially if you are a Modalist, I would have thought you would embrace the possibilities for the inquiries and discussions, rather than rejecting it.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Why not? Why do you say that it would not happen? The circumstances of the case, of every case, become irrelevant if you abandon the PSR in its strongest form. And that's the only way to sensibly deny it.Arcane Sandwich

    It is not total abandoning as you try to make out. It is a modification of the PSR. We could say the principle of possible reasoning instead of the principle of sufficient reasoning. So the new name of the PSR must be the PPR.

    Some events and objects in the universe have reasons for its existence, but some don't. Yeah we managed to induce a new concept from the old nonworking wrong concept of the PSR.

    The new more flexible and logical concept is called the PPR i.e. the Principle of Possible Reason. Hows that?
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Of course it's a groundless and irrational belief. But to abandon it is to say that a dragon or a squid can suddenly pop up into existence, anywhere, at any time, for no reason whatsoever (since we've abandoned the strongest version of the PSR, which is the only version of the PSR that "makes sense", and yes, the appeal to good common sense is a fallacy, it's an "appeal to the stone").Arcane Sandwich

    Somethings have causes and reasons, but some other things in the universe don't. Hence the PSR doesn't qualify as a principle. A principle means it must work for all the incidents, events and objects. When it is the case for some, and not the case for the others is not a principle.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    ‘Nothing’ cannot even be meant, as per Parmedies’ philosophy;PoeticUniverse
    I think I can understand Nothing better. In math, it is simple. 1-1 =0. 0 is nothing. There was 1, but 1 was subtracted from 1 or taken away from 1, hence 0, Nothing.

    the Ultimate Something has no opposite, and as such it has no alternative; so, it has to be.PoeticUniverse
    I had problems trying to understand the Ultimate Something there. But after some reflection,
    I understand the Ultimate Something as death. Eventually everything and every life dies by the natural law. Hence we could say Death is the Ultimate Something.

    The Ultimate Something has no opposite? I agree. Death has no opposite. Death is nothing. The opposite of Death is life, but once dead, it is impossible to go back to life, no alternative.
  • Identity
    I would say there is more.Gmak

    Is false identity also identity? Can there be identity of identity? If so, which identity is the real identity?

    Can identity exist without thing it identifies with? When the identified thing dies or becomes non-existence, what happens to the identity?
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    I'm an atheist. I hold that it's metaphysically impossible for beings of a divine nature to exist. But if such beings, or such a being, existed, then we would be debating theology: does God have the moral obligation to intervene in reality, in every act? That's what the occasionalists believed, in matters of theology.Arcane Sandwich

    I find it a bit difficult to follow the flow of your argument and point here i.e you deny God's existence, but you suggest God has the moral obligation to intervene your time travel to the past world mentioning the claims of the occasionalists. What is this about?

    I would like to clarify your points one by one instead of so many added up into one large sheet of message with loads of quotes, because it seems to make the points and flow of the arguments unclear and conflated at times. I hope it is OK with you. Thanks.
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.