My preference would be to keep it that way. — T Clark

Fair enough. :ok: :cool:

Therefore, such a deity cannot be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. — Truth Seeker

Does a deity exist in the real world?

You talk about this in a way that doesn’t come naturally for me. — T Clark

I think this is an interesting topic. But I wondered if beauty should be confined to visual images only. Music or poetry can be beauty. Are they not all interconnected? A visual beauty can be described in words and music and vice versa.

I was also wondering, if beauty is a property of objects, or is it something that is in your mind when confronted and experienced beautiful objects.

Death continues eternally. The moment of death is only the mode of existence transformation. One exists as a living, and one keeps existing as a dead after death. Death is eternal.

Now, after all these years, people can use it in whatever manner they want. That being said, no, I don’t think truth is beautiful, no matter what Keats said. — T Clark

A visual image itself cannot be beautiful, until you have perceived it, and came to a true judgement that it is beautiful. Hence the true judgement i.e.truth is, what you are finding as beauty.

Let the beauty speak for itself. — T Clark

Isn't beauty in the eyes of beholder? An old cliche, but an undeniable truth.
Isn't truth more beautiful than some visual images? What eyes see might be just illusion in most cases.

I think 'life is suffering' a human universal. But of course, some people suffer dramatically more than others. As one who, hopefully, is not in the latter category, where do you get the certainty to conclude those who are must continue? — Jeremy Murray

Suffering is brief, but death is eternal. Suffering can be endured, while death cannot be.

Some people (perhaps even most people) do hold those additional premises mentioned above. With those additional premises, it all makes for a coherent thought process.

It's not one I personally share, but it does help me understand others who do. — baker

It is just emotional response rather than logical thought process. There is no logical entailment from.
X is suffering, therefore X must end life. No added premises can justify that nonsense.

It does, if the additional premises are along the lines of "We have the right not to watch other people suffer" or "We have the right not to look at miserable people" and "Miserable people must respect our rights". — baker

If your own son or daughter was suffering of some illness, then would you let them end their lives? Is it a logically coherent thought process? I find it impossible to understand that claim.

Well, the English language as it currently exists didn't exist in ancient times, so it's no surprise that many of the words we use today didn't exist in ancient times. — Michael

Yes, I agree.

You should read up on transgender history. Obviously ancient people and ancient languages didn't use the modern English word "transgender", but transgender people have been recognized for thousands of years: — Michael

It is neither my interest of topic nor my specialties in philosophy, so I don't have much to add on the concept itself. However, it seems words came much later after the existence of objects in the world.

And some words like "transmen" or "transwomen", we first understand what the objects are by listening to other folks talking about them, or reading up what the medias saying about them, and then understand the word. Not the other way around. These words seem also not coming from the Etymological foundation of the most other words. For example - "Artificial Intelligence" - if we try to dissect the word etymologically, we get not too far. That was my point.

Your telling me, if I tell my longtime girlfriend to meet at Central Park, to where I have rented a "Will You Marry Me" airplane skywriter to leave a message, and I call her telling her to "look up", she'll have no idea where to look? I don't feel this is a genuine sentiment or belief you hold. At least, I would hope not. :confused: — Outlander

I was not saying that you cannot understand any words in all situations. That seems what you are trying to make out here. No, I was not saying that.

My point was that where words are obscure due to lack of contents or situational context, they need clarification to be understood.

That is not an explanation of the origin of the word. Neither does it come close to saying the word did not exist before. — I like sushi

Don't just deny it. Back and demonstrate your points with evidence and clear explanations.

I will revert back to saying gibberish then. :D — I like sushi

Whatever you wish. :) But whatever you say and write in public reflect your own integrity and shows up your educational background and mental states to others, hence it is up to you. :D

I'm not sure, possibly you can clarify, but do you have a problem with the world "transgender?" — Questioner

I was just explaining on the origin of the word. The word didn't exist. The people who changed their genders started to show up in the society, and then the word was made up and put on to the people.
But the word "trans" implies that whatever follows is not the original. Think of the example word "translate". It is the best example word. Unlike you and sushi claimed, it is not a legitimate etymological word origin.

This is a more of logical thinking rather than anything to do with pacifist or whatever nonsense.
X is suffering, doesn't logically entail X must end life.

There is no rational connection on that thought process that X is suffering, therefore X must end life. It is a propaganda spread and pushed by some dark money grabbing intention claimed by the greedy relatives of the sufferers, legal and medical professionals, and of course the medias.

That's like saying up and down doesn't mean what every person obviously knows it means, more or less. — Outlander

If you said, "UP" to me, I wouldn't have a clue what you are meaning. I would have then asked you "What do you mean by "up"?, and if you said "Up is from down." I still wouldn't know what the hell you are talking about. You have not clarified any contents of these place holders in realistic manner. You may think you are talking about something, but it fails to convey any intelligible meaning to others.

Just because some one said he/she is suffering, you think it is right to end their life? It seemed those who financially benefits when someone dies seems to supporting the idea. OK, it is not exclusive, but even 1 in 100 of possibility of the case, it doesn't sound right. Nothing is 100% exclusive. It is not excuse to end others life just because they are suffering.

So you simply meant that trans- is a modifier? I think we know that. It is still a 'real' prefix. What were you trying to say? — I like sushi

There were no such words as "transmale" or "transfemale" in ancient times. But in modern times there are people who changed their gender, and the word was invented to represent them.

But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness. — Ludwig V

Please read my post above with attention. Suffering cannot be a proper reason for ending one's life. Life itself can be viewed as suffering.

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up? — Questioner

The people who are supposed to have been suffering and decided to end their life could have been actually claims of the relatives who want to speed up their inheritance, or the media which are financed by the corrupt politicians who want to reduce the care expenditures, so that they can get bigger salaries.

Gibberish

Etymology of Trans- — I like sushi

And I am sure that are at least a hundred more. — Questioner

It just goes to show how misunderstanding and misusing language can lead you to come to total misrepresentation of the objects in the real world.

You need to transcend the linguistic prison at times, if you want to understand the world correctly.
The point here is not simple internet Etymology issue. It is about understanding the world objects, and how the words were matched to the objects. You must first understand the objects, and then analyse the meaning of the words put onto them, not the other way around.

We want to apply philosophical analysis, not internet dictionary here.

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? — Philosophim

The word "Trans" represents that whatever follows after it, is not real.

Are you referring to human life or all life? — LuckyR

For the topic of this thread, the discussions should be limited to human life only.

That's natural (central tendency). — Copernicus

Isn't natural tendency inherent character or states from the birth or origin of objects or agents? Normal is expected state, situation, response or character which are induced or forced via environmental, social or devised factors and systems.

in all situations? War; self defence? — Tom Storm

Yes, it is wrong in all situations. However, the situations force the wrong doings.
In those special situations, killings can and will happen, which are totally different cases from willful act of the wrong doing.

So what is acceptable? What is psychopathy? What is abnormal? What is supernatural? — Copernicus

Normality has both social and scientific origin. They are the judgements on the phenomena which fit in the realm of observed events, acts or behaviour by the set principles or expectations within the society or in the theories, principles or laws of Science.

Act of suicide is an immoral thing to do, because it kills life. Even if it is one's own life. It is still killing which is the most evil act to commit.

It is also an evil act in the sense that committing suicide is not just killing one's own life, but also it destroys the world the one has lived in. The moment one kills oneself, the world one belonged to also evaporates with all the people in it and all the memories, and relations one has built in it.

Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths.

Moreover, one cannot kill oneself, if one has something or someone one loves. Love is a strong foundation for life to be keep going. Loving can only continue and is possible while one is living.

There are those that assert that a human being supervening only on physical particles and laws cannot have a first person view. That's part of what the topic is about. — noAxioms

Your reply is very sketchy. Could you elaborate more?

Why is that? :chin: — Outlander

Something and nothing are semantic place holders for objects. Until you put actual objects in there, they don't mean a thing.

Exactly what you would expect them to be, in the context of the physical world. — Outlander

That's why talking about something or nothing or true nothing has no meaning. They are just words.
When you say something exists, it doesn't say anything at all. Someone will ask you what is something? Then you have to give answer what the something is. Well, a cup exists. The something you uttered first, was a cup. Then you will be told, why do you utter a meaningless sentence? Why didn't you just say a cup exists?

Likewise nothing and true nothing doesn't mean anything at all. Because you need to present what the nothing and true nothing is in the physical world. They don't exist. They are just words. You talk about vacuum or near vacuum is nothing, but that is wrong. As soon as you say vacuum is nothing, it is something. So it is not exactly nothing. There is no such a thing called nothing, hence there is no such a thing called true nothing.

so be careful not to fall into any. — Outlander

Something, nothing and true nothing, they all are just words i.e. semantics. You need to demonstrate what those each words stand for in the real world. What do you mean by something, nothing and true nothing? What are they in material objects in the physical world?

How can there be true nothing, when nothing doesn't exist?

Thus begins somewhat of an inquiry as to what exactly is meant by nothingness, and the nature thereof. — CorneliusCoburn

Where did nothing come from?

There is no mystery. First and Third person views are the way of human perception. For example, I am playing guitar and singing a song. I am perceiving my own guitar playing and singing as I am playing along and singing. I see and feel the guitar strings making sound as I intend to play, and I hear my own voice singing with my own ears. This is the first person view.

But I can record my own guitar playing and singing on my phone, and replay it after the session on my phone or upload to youtube, and watch me playing the guitar and singing. I am seeing my own performance from the third person point of view.

I was feeling that my performance was faultless and was happy with it, when I was perceiving and listening to it from the first person point of view. But when I watch the replay on the video, I might find some mistakes in the play, and feel not quite sure if I like it or not. I feel I do need more practice. This is the third person point of view.

It is the mode of perception, nothing to do with contradiction. truth or falsity.

I recall this old thread, but cannot remember the details of each and every discussions. But from my vague memory of reading in the past, they seem to be mostly in the form of irrelevant gobbledygook.

Now when I see the thread again, and by looking at the the title of the thread, "Mind created world" - sounds wrong and not making sense.

The world cannot be created by mind. The world exists before mind. Mind perceives the world. Hence it makes sens to say - perceived world. There are parts of the world which cannot be perceived, but intuited, believed or imagined. These part of the world is added to our perception via our intuition, belief and imagination.

No one can have the total perception or knowledge of the world. It is always partially perceived world, and everyone's perception and knowledge of the world is private to their own mind.

Creation sounds literal or poetic than logical, philosophical or scientific. Artists could create art objects by mimicking the real world. Ordinary folks perceives the world, scientists observes and investigate the world, and philosophers reflect and analyse the world. The world is the preexisting space we all live in. Without the world, nothing can exist.

This was my point, unless you are omniscient in your world, you are ignorant of it’s make up and origin. — Punshhh

No one is omniscient in any worlds. We can only be certain on what we perceive and sense. And some perceptions and sensations need verification for certainty. So all knowledge of the world are limited by the limitation of perception, and where it is not certain, we use our imagination and belief for constructing the concept of the world.

Anyhow, the topic here is not the world, or my ignorance on the world. It is about the proof of the existence / essence of God.

Hope in a better life sounds like living doing nothing and expect things to get better. — GreekSkeptic

Hope in a better life means that you must set your own goals for the better life, and work hard for them. There is a meaning of life when making effort for the achievement.

the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

So how can something be a "first principal"? Do you agree with google or not? — ProtagoranSocratist

There are the concepts and objects that we know by reflecting, intuiting and thinking about them, rather than by physical observations, for instance all the examples listed above. The methodology and subject for dealing with these concepts are Metaphysics.

When people say "that's meta" in daily usage, they're usually talking about something in a philosophical sense...like the general characteristics, or the bigger narrative behind something. If that's what metaphysics are in philosophy, then metaphysics is a rendundant term. — ProtagoranSocratist

To me, metaphysics means more of a methodology of revealing about the world i.e. the universe. It adopts a critical reflection on the basis of the questions how and why on all the objects in the universe exist, change and behave as they do, and aims to arrive to the analytical and logical conclusions on the questions.

You see yourself standing, walking, listening and talking in the world, don’t you? So surely you can also see yourself not knowing much in the world too? — Punshhh

The concept of "the world" you are using is unclear. The world can mean the whole universe including the outer galaxies and black holes outside of the earth and solar system. Or the world could mean the earth where human race lives in all the countries. Or the world can mean your own perception and content of mind. Which world were you talking about?

and not knowing much about the world you find yourself in. — Punshhh

I was not talking about the world. I was talking about me, and God. :)