Philosophy Now Forum

Oh no! forgot the link:

http://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2016/10 ... ty-in.html

At one time I'd hoped to find a human belief that was common to all societies. The belief I chose was not anti-murder but pro-hospitality to strangers. I still think the evidence favours generic pro-hospitality, but am willing to reconsider. As for murder being generically wrong, there is such a lo...

The mind can be located with some uncertainty by measuring the location of the brain that causes it relative to some frame of reference.

Ok, so clearly, you have an opposition between what is "real" and and what is "merely thought". This is a very common misunderstanding. Let me try to resolve it by showing you why you have it. Let me direct your attention first to nature. By nature I mean what is. Consider the fact that it admits, ...

I don't see how your 'greater to not exist' is applicable to St. Anselm's argument. Because if it is greater not to exist then his proof functions as a proof that god does not exist because else, were he (god) to exist, he would not be as great as a the same god not existing, and since god is that ...

Here is an argument, Why God is an Impossibility to be real. There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e. 1. Relative perfection 2. Absolute perfection 1. Relative perfection If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score. Perfect scor...

... If you argue God is a being itself or being-in-itself, God-in-itself, this is yet another form of the ontological God. In this case, Kant had demonstrated the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion. BTW I do not argue that God is a "being itself or being-in-itself" nor do I subscribe to the meaning o...

Your point is off the OP's in relation to the definition of the ontological God, i.e. as in stated in the OP; St. Anselm; The ontological God is a, "being than which no greater can be conceived ". -wiki Descartes; He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding al...

Generally ontology is the study of 'being'. In the OP I have defined the specific ontological being, i.e. the ontological God. Your post seem to have veered off point to ontology in general. As it turns out it is not off point as for example the syntax "greatest being" in the OP admits the possibil...

Generally ontology is the study of 'being'. In the OP I have defined the specific ontological being, i.e. the ontological God. Your post seem to have veered off point to ontology in general. As it turns out it is not off point as for example the syntax "greatest being" in the OP admits the possibil...

There is first a fundamental distinction between natural experiencing (what is) and ontological experiencing (that it is). One must make that distinction in one’s own experiencing. .... Generally ontology is the study of 'being'. In the OP I have defined the specific ontological being, i.e. the ont...

There is first a fundamental distinction between natural experiencing (what is) and ontological experiencing (that it is). One must make that distinction in one’s own experiencing. Then one must understand how ontological experiencing and natural experiencing occur, again in one’s own experiencing. ...

Sorry, second hit on the Submit button I guess.

Hmm...let me think. We seem to have stated our cases, and now be working over some of the same ground again. Ok, so I can summarize then: The main question is whether experiencing can be predicated onto a physical entity making the concept of the entity not just what is currently defined in science...

Hmm...let me think. We seem to have stated our cases, and now be working over some of the same ground again. Ok, so I can summarize then: The main question is whether experiencing can be predicated onto a physical entity making the concept of the entity not just what is currently defined in science...