I don't agree, at least in so far as we know far more about the universe now than we did a hundred years ago. — Banno

There's no unified theory. We don't know shit.

Then how do satellites work. The Bible never make anything

Graham Priest's arguments (I have read a little of his work several years ago) do not contradict themselves as far as I remember, so he would seem to be adhering to the LNC while claiming it is not true. That begs the question as to what he means by saying the LNC is not true. Not true in any metaphysical sense, perhaps? It's a while since I read any of his work; perhaps I'll go back and take another look.

There's no unified theory. We don't know shit. — frank

We know there is no unified theory.

I think all that that implies is quite impressive. Awesome, in fact. My suspicion is that you are trivialising it for rhetorical purposes.

But then, you haven't said what it is you think so what you mean is a bit hard to assertion.

But then, you haven't said what it is you think so what you mean is a bit hard to assertion. — Banno

I took you to be saying that volition is problematic because we don't have a schematic for it.

The same is true of the big bang We can therefore be skeptical about whether the was a big bang, but we don't toss the idea aside simply because we don't have an answer yet.

It might be worth a new thread, too. It is interesting, especially as a possible way of dealing with the liar. The Stanford articles give a taste for it.

I took you to be saying that volition is problematic because we don't have a schematic for it.

The same is true of the big bang — frank

That seems to me to be wrong. That there was a Big Bang was proposed because there is such a schema.

I'm not following you.

That seems to me to be wrong. That there was a Big Bang was proposed because there is such a schema. — Banno

You need to watch more PBS Space Time.

You need to watch more PBS Space Time. — frank

I really don't. I'm not keen on the lack of depth, nor the way there is an emphasis on how little we know, when one might well emphasis how extraordinary it is that we can talk sensibly about the beginnings of the universe. There's more than a bit of "those cleverdick cosmologists are not as smart as they think" about it all. For fuck's sake, compare modern cosmology to the nonsense found in Genesis, and try claiming we havn't made progress.

But you seem to be just mouthing off.

But you seem to be just mouthing off. — Banno

Honestly, I was thinking: do I really have to explain this? This is one of the many challenges facing physics:




So if we don't understand how time began, but get along just fine assuming it did, we can do the same with free will.

I'm a determinist, BTW.

It's like you read my posts but didn't process what was said. YEp, there are problems. But that there are problems puts the lie to your

The universe makes no sense... yet — frank

The conclusion is that your claimed position is not seriously held.

The conclusion is that your claimed position is not seriously held. — Banno

You win. I'm an idiot. Have a good day. :up:

I'm an idiot. — frank

Which was to be proved.

PBS also has one saying bb is correct

@Janus

Have a glance at this section of the SEP article on Dialetheism: Themes for Further Research

This quote:

One may claim that it makes no sense to talk of inconsistent objects, situations, or states of affairs. The world is all there, all together: how could some pieces of it contradict some other pieces?

pretty much is my approach to the topic. That a contradiction could be held to occur in the world is a category mistake. I've phrased this as: if we come across an apparent contradictory state of affairs, then we've said it wrong.

While it would be interesting to explore this further, I am at a bit of a loss as to how to go about it.

Hence I tend to equivocate between realism and antirealism.

Yes, and I already said earlier, a couple times if I am not mistaken, that I make no metaphysical claim beyond saying that the LNC is necessary for rational thought and discussion. — Janus

Then I don't know what you're disputing or what you're asking me.

Let's recap, because so far as I can see, you're just being tedious.

I believe the law of non-contradiction is true. True, not false.

Banno thinks that somehow commits me to affirming an actual contradiction. I don't know why. I keep asking him to explain why, but he just squiggles and squoggles at the crucial point. So I don't think he knows, or realizes that it doesn't have this implication at all. But meh.

If memory serves, you asked me how I know that the law of non-contradiction is true. That's a separate issue, and rather than get embroiled in a pointless debate in which you eventually espouse some form of extreme scepticism about the possiblity of any knoweldge whatsoever, or just arbitrarily affirm some kind of empiricism, I asked you how you know it is true. Either you will be unable to furnish an answer, or you will give one that works. In the latter case, I will simply affirm that that is how I know of its truth too, and as you must accept that answer we can then move on.

Anyway, your answer was not really an answer at all. Now, if you're not willing to give one, then there's nothing further for us to discuss is there?

If memory serves, you asked me how I know that the law of non-contradiction is true. That's a separate issue, and rather than get embroiled in a pointless debate in which you eventually espouse some form of extreme scepticism about the possiblity of any knoweldge whatsoever, or just arbitrarily affirm some kind of empiricism, I asked you how you know it is true. — Bartricks

Yes, you evaded a question with a question. I told you how I know the LNC is necessary for rational thought and discussion, and that I make no further claim than that. Now, the ball's in your court, since you claim to know the LNC is contingently true (whatever that could mean), to explain how you know that. Your explanation will also, no doubt, explain what it means to say that the LNC is contingently true

To be sure, the contradiction is in asserting that the LNC is true but contingent. I can't see how this can be done consistently, and Bart has been unable to justify his eccentric view.

But that's a mortified equine.

PBS also has one saying bb is correct — Gregory

They could do either one depending on how deep they want to dig. The BB cannot be extrapolated beyond the reach of physical theories to time 0. BB is a thorough mathematical theory that unites the present state of cosmological theories. In our tiny corner of the observable cosmos the theory is sufficiently supported, but very serious astronomical doubts still exist. Some astronomers still aren't convinced that the theoretical age of 13.8 billion years is long enough to explain the oldest stars.

Seems worth a look. Later... off to work now...

But that's a mortified equine. — Banno

Fully in terred, I hope! :wink:

Methuselah is very cool. And another example of how astonishing our cosmology is.

Yes, you evaded a question with a question. I told you how I know the LNC is necessary for rational thought and discussion, and that I make no further claim than that. — Janus

No, I explained why I asked you that question. Your answer will be my answer, if answer it be.

What you have said so far is no answer at all.

Learn to focus.

Again, however you know that the law of non-contradiction is 'true', is how I know it to be too.

Now, what point do you have? DO you have one?

You're letting yourself be dragged onto their turf, exactly what I warned against. — baker

How do you figure?

Existence is merely a aspect of God.
We only think we exist.
There is, in reality, no past or future.
Only the present.
Every moment passed, or to come, is an illusion
If God Is, then like us, He can exist.
But He exists in the same way that someone can account for hearing that tree fall in the forest, either by being present, scientific analysis, or common sense.
In spite of all of this, God has to be, in order to maintain this.

Those are statements without evidence. Talking about things part from the world is very strange and unnecessary

Depends what you mean by “evidence”.
Strange, yes.
Unnecessary?
Depends who you’re talking with :smile:

What convinces one person because they want the disease of religion to cloud their mind will rightfully look like nonsense to a normal person

Are such people normal because religion doesn’t cloud their mind? Or are they just normal?
A species of sorts.

What convinces one person because they want the disease of religion to cloud their mind will rightfully look like nonsense to a normal person — Gregory

They used to just torture heretics. That seemed to work. Killing them was Plato's idea.

What does that have to do with God, or Religion?