The function of the brain is to process sensible data; the empirical evidence for this is quote overwhelming I feel - it is factual. — I like sushi
subjectivity is transcendent of the brain — TheGreatArcanum
instinctual drives — I like sushi
maybe you don’t understand the definition of support. — TheGreatArcanum
Every indication is that it is impossible to determine if at least one GOD exists...using logic, reason, science, or math.
It appears it just cannot be done. — Frank Apisa
But...give it a shot if you think you can do it. — Frank Apisa
already done it. I’ve established 10 principles of ontology/epistemology and 17 first principles of philosophy. In two years, without a college degree, I’ve done what no philosopher before me has ever done. — TheGreatArcanum
TheGreatArcanum
138
But...give it a shot if you think you can do it. — Frank Apisa
already done it. I’ve established 10 principles of ontology/epistemology and 17 first principles of philosophy. In two years, without a college degree, I’ve done what no philosopher before me has ever done. — TheGreatArcanum
i’m not sure what you mean by “support?” — TheGreatArcanum
TheGreatArcanum
139
↪Frank Apisa
↪Fooloso4
can you please tell me when the concept of non-existence came into being? — TheGreatArcanum
Stop being cute.
You are not going to "lay a trap these fools will fall into."
Say what you mean to say...don't ask a question leading to saying it in retort.
This could prove interesting. You may have something I've not encountered before.
I seriously doubt it...but I'm willing to keep an open mind/ — Frank Apisa
you already exposed yourselves as fools when you failed to understand the ramifications of my OP. Since nobody seems to belief that there is any "evidence" or reason to believe that final causes even exist, I'm trying to spark your intellects by forcing you to think about the concept of non-existence and how it came to be? did it come to be after the concept of existence came to be, or before? Is it a concept or is it a concrete 'thing'? — TheGreatArcanum
As I said...if you have something to say...say it. — Frank Apisa
Two problems with this:Will has a final cause and therefore a first cause; when each person is born, their potential to die is contained within themselves as well; and also, one’s potential to live is contained within their potential to die; so life itself involves a first and final cause. — TheGreatArcanum
I haven't said that the universe's existence implies no first cause. If the past is finite, it implies there was an initial state. The past existence of an initial state does not entail intentionality. Your assertion, " so that one person could be a live for just a blink of the eye of eternity" assumes intentionality.if you are to say that our coming into being does not involve a first cause; you must say that our existence is a result of a set of material causes that extend backwards into indefinitely into time,
and that that set of causes end with our death and that an infinite number of material causes happened only so that one person could be a live for just a blink of the eye of eternity.
1) You are assuming there exist final causes, and then accounting for "will" with that paradigm. This does not establish it. — Relativist
Physicalism is possibly true. — Relativist
You"re going to need more than this:so physicalism cannot be true. In fact, it’s beyond absurd. — TheGreatArcanum
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.