• Existence a second order property or not?
    I don't have an opinion here. I am totally neutral.
  • God, omnipotence and stone paradox
    Moral skeptics deny that anyone has moral knowledge, but we are not moral nihilists so we do not deny that morality exists. We simply are agnostic.
  • God, omnipotence and stone paradox
    Moral realism is the position that morality is real. So yes.
  • God, omnipotence and stone paradox
    I am a moral skeptic so I don't know. I think that most theists will argue that since humanity was bequeathed with a rational mind (made in God's image?) that they can think about morality without God, but that God is necessary for morality realism. They could argue that the grounding of morality rest's on God.

    Here are some videos that you might enjoy, regarding this topic.
  • God, omnipotence and stone paradox
    I am not familiar with all theistic moral theories, but I think that Richard Swinburne has argued that some moral statements - such as genocide is wrong - are necessary moral truths.

    Don't quote me on that though because I am just going by memory.
  • God, omnipotence and stone paradox
    Is something right because God says so (never mind figuring out what God “says” as this gets to religion), or does God say it is right because it is right (prior to Him saying so)?Noah Te Stroete

    The answer I hear from theists is that God is identical to Goodness.
  • God, omnipotence and stone paradox
    You asked,
    So logic is prior to God in your view.Noah Te Stroete
    and I think that theists reply that God's nature is logical.
  • God, omnipotence and stone paradox
    Did I define omnipotence incorrectly?
  • God, omnipotence and stone paradox
    Isn't stated that God's nature is logical?
  • God, omnipotence and stone paradox
    God's omnipotence entails him being able to do anything logically possible.
    So if you ask, "can God do X," then you must first examine whether X is logically coherent.
    If X is logically coherent, then God should be able to do it.
    If X is not logically coherent, then God should not be able to do it.
  • Megaric denial of change
    While this is true, what it says is merely that Eleatic monism and immobilism are false if you assume the opposite positions. You just assume plurality and and then you just assume locomotion. The things that the Eleatics deny. This amounts to "if Eleatism is false, then it's false", or, more correctly, it amounts to "if plurality and locomotion are true, then they're are true and, therefore, by consequence, Eleatism is false".Πετροκότσυφας

    I see. Well, I wasn't trying to say that Eleatism is false simply if we assume that mereological atomism is true.

    What I am saying is that both wings of the dilemma, that the Megaric school offer, can still be true if mereological atomism were true; thus, if we granted them that from nothing nothing comes and that what IS never came into being, then their own metaphysical beliefs don't necessarily follow since mereological atomism can satisfy both those wings of the dilemma.
  • What are some good laymen books on philosophy?
    If it hasn't been already recommended, then try buying an intro to logic book. that is always a good first step.
  • Megaric denial of change
    are all things one substance—one man, one horse, or one soul—or quality and that one and the same—white or hot or something of the kind? These are all very different doctrines and all impossible to maintain.

    This just seems like hasty thinking. Clearly, they will reject Aristotle's essentialism and so they can easily answer Aristotle's reductio ad absurdum.

    We, on the other hand, must take for granted that the things that exist by nature are, either all or some of them, in motion—which is indeed made plain by induction".Πετροκότσυφας

    This too seems like a weak argument. The obvious reply would be to make an analogy with space. We are only aware and experience our present location and while we experience our present location in space we are not aware of and experience other locations in space; however, it does not follow that the only location of space that exists is the location we experience. The same can be said of time. The fact that we seem to experience change does not mean that change is a real feature of the world- at least not any more than our experience of our current location demonstrates that that location is more real than other locations in space. Eternalism would save the Megaric school from Aristotle's experience based argument.

    they treat being as if it had just one meaningΠετροκότσυφας
    They sound like monists and Aristotle's disagreement can be seen to stem from his different metaphysical framework; I am guessing this is the real issue between the two?

    Aristotle employs the actuality-potentiality pair, through which he defines change as "the fulfillment of what is potentially, as such". The unmusical man is potentially musical and the fulfillment of this potentiality counts as change (from being unmusical to being musical).Πετροκότσυφας

    The thing is how does introducing potentiality and actuality solve the issue of whether change is real or not?

    To play devil's advocate, one could respond to Aristotle and say that X could potentially be in such and such way, since it is a logically possible state of affairs, and that X is actually in such and such way by virtue of X being a part of the real world. In this case, potentiality is nothing more than an acknowledgment that things could be different; Trump is actually president, but Hillary Clinton potentially could have been president. How is it that by pointing out that the actual state of affairs could have potentially been different demonstrate the change is a real feature of the world?

    Aristotle provides a similar argument to the one you make.Πετροκότσυφας
    Well, I try to answer the dilemma by positing the possibility of mereological atomism and it seems like Aristotle answers it differently.
  • Megaric denial of change

    Thanks for your reply. Would you like to help answer some of my questions? You seem pretty smart so I hope you may help me.

    In the first part of the dichotomy, we have something that IS and we ask where did it come from. The first option is that it came from what IS. But then there's nothing that came to be.Πετροκότσυφας

    The issue I have with this statement is that it seems like the "is" that the Megaric school is referring to needs to be defined and I am guessing that the "is" that the Megaric school is using depends on their metaphysics.

    It seems like one could agree with the Megaric school that what IS never comes into being and one could agree that from nothing nothing comes, but it isn't clear how the conclusion, that nothing changes, is cogent.

    One example of how this dilemma could be a false dilemma is if mereological atomism is true. In mereological atomism, the atoms may have never come into being, since they are eternal, and they can still change location. So change is still possible and the Megaric school's dilemma does not undermine that possibility.

    Of course, this is not a defense of mereological atomism, but I think that this is why I had a hard seeing why the dilemma must lead to the conclusion that change is not real.
  • The Definition of Infinity is Contradictory
    Devans you keep making similar threads about infinity. Here is the deal, infinity is used differently in mathematics than how its used in everyday conversation.
    Read this and you will see what I mean.
  • Is objective morality imaginary?
    I am guessing that "objective morality" means morality that exists as a real feature of reality and not just as part of human aesthetic preferences or cultural preferences?

    I am still a moral skeptic and I am not sure if morality exists.
  • Argument for an Eternal First Cause
    How can an event occur outside of time? How can causation happen from outside of time?S

    What is time exactly? And what is meant by causation?

    It seems like these two words need to be defined before we can answer whether it is possible that timeless (or changeless) causation can exist; although, I do agree that it sounds impossible.
    Intuitively, the word causation tends to imply a flow of time; thus, if I say "the dog's barking was caused by the cat's meowing," then I am saying the following two things: first, I am implying that becoming is a real feature of the world (A theory of time is true) and I am saying that what caused the dog to bark was the cat's noise. In this case, the word "caused" implies a flow in time, but timelessness denies that there is a flow in time. If there is no flow in time, then can change, or causation, of any kind, occur? If change or "becoming" is a necessary condition for time to flow, then I don't think the answer is yes.
  • Argument for an Eternal First Cause
    Doesn't quantum mechanics reveal that Einsteinian physics can't be used to describe whatever happened during the big bang or black holes?
  • The poor and Capitalism?
    If you read Karl Marx Manifesto about the extra surplus that workers make, why do the rich AND working class feel they deserve it?Drek

    Do you think capitalists play no role in the profits that are made?

    If you are a marxist, then I imagine you believe in Marx's theory of value?
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    How is the Real Madrid-Atlético de Madrid game the very same game in my smartphone, my tv set (which is very large) and my sister´s tablet in her apartment? It doesn´t make any sense.DiegoT

    The issue here is that this is a false analogy. The father, son and holy spirit are all distinct from each other in a real sense and not in the sense of how we experience God. Thus, the father, son and holy spirit are each fully God, distinct from each other and yet there is only one God.
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    I want to know if it is logically coherent. I am not asking for anyone to prove it as true or false.
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?

    1. The father is God, the holy spirit is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
    2. The father, son and holy spirit are distinct.
    3. There is only One God.

    How is it that Jesus, the father, and the holy ghost are each fully God, distinct from each other, and there is only one God?
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?

    I personally don't believe it is heretical, but other Christians have condemned it as such and I am just repeated their opinion on the matter.
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    If you reread what I wrote in the introduction, I never say that the video argues that the trinity is indeed illogical only that the video is a good introduction on the topic. Not even the maker of the video argues that the trinity is illogical, but you want to say that Aquinas solves the problem so please explain how he did it.
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    Of course, the video was only to help start a conversation.
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    I agree if you want to reduce Jesus as only a part of God, but the doctrine of the trinity means that Jesus is not just part of God, but fully God.

    In your example, a body and three persons can serve to explain partialism.
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    Since you brought it up, why not make the argument that you think Aquinas makes and then we can see if it is worth the time?
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    Modalism is a heresy. It is not illogical.
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    alright, but many Christians do consider what church fathers had to say as important though, but I am sorry for being presumptuous.
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    @ 0:26, the video explains what modalism is and states that it is considered heretical.
    Your example of how a man can be a father, husband, and brother sounds like modalism.
    Do you disagree?
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    Can you explain what you mean by "different forms"?
    In that video i linked, the person makes a comparison to how some people may think of Superman as "Kal -el", as "Clark Kent" and as "Superman," but each is only a name for one person.
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    The issue I have with that is if you consider the father, son and holy ghost to be only a part of God or are they all each fully God?
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?

    @ 1:44 the following stated about the Trinity:
    1. The father is God, the holy spirit, and the Holy Spirit is God.
    2. The father, son and holy spirit are distinct.
    3. There is only One God.

    How does a person make sense of these three propositions?
  • Divine Simplicity and human free will
    Hey noah, how exactly does the Christian theist even fit divine simplicity with his doctrine of the holy trinity and of Jesus Christ who is both fully human and fully God?
  • Is the trinity logically incoherent?
    alright, so can you go ahead and explain how the Trinity is indeed logically coherent?
    Here is this video for reference.
  • Has Politcal Correctness Turned into Prejudice?
    methodological individualism is hardly equivalent to calling anyone a child molester.
    Please confine yourself to describing what people-like-you think, and leave those with whom you disagree to express their own views.Pattern-chaser

    I am repeating how particular leftists and liberals/progressives have responded to that kind of definition of fairness; they view it as inadequate.
  • Has Politcal Correctness Turned into Prejudice?
    okay. Yes, you offer a good intuitive answer, but if you say that to a socialist or a social democrat, then you will be accused of engaging in methodological individualism or of being an apologist of the status quo for not seeing the systemic nature of the inequality in question.