Philosophy Now Forum

There are no objects whatsoever, only relations. Put another way, there is only the relating of a relation—a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity—relating to itself. Is the shadow of these dynamic relations a created “artifact”?

henry quirk wrote:So: god, for you, is not the architect/creator/sustainer?

Like I said, it's a waste of time. You will be satisfied only with a 'yes' or 'no' answer, but I can't give you that.

I musta side stepped into an alternate reality, then, cuz the Inglorious I've been communicating with is all about God (the biggest friggin' Artificer one can imagine). So, since I'm in a new universe, and we've never met: Hello! I'm Henry! Artifact: A man-made object taken as a whole. You inferred...

alpha wrote: i just noticed the part about different relation. if you mean in a different respect, then that would not oppose my position, the least bit.

Either way, your either/or dualism is falsified.

are you saying that we don't (or shouldn't) have any absolute logical principles? I'm saying that thinking in terms of axiomatic principles ("randomness" or "determinism" in this case) is not logical. Finding "absolute logical principles" was the aspiration of mathematicians, until Godel proved it ...

are you saying that we don't (or shouldn't) have any absolute logical principles? I'm saying that thinking in terms of axiomatic principles ("randomness" or "determinism" in this case) is not logical. Finding "absolute logical principles" was the aspiration of mathematicians, until Godel proved it ...

Alpha, Before the 19th century, consistency was not an issue because axioms delineated indubitable truths, so they could not be inconsistent. It was assumed that two contradictory statements could not be simultaneously true. That’s how the truth-value implied by the self-evidence generated by observ...

"This is merely a belief..." As is the notion the universe is an Artifact, as is the notion there is an Artificer. "...and one that is rather hollow." Better hollow than fanciful. I'll take a real bowl of real ramen over an imaginary feast laid out across an imaginary table any day. Now you sound l...

alpha wrote:yes, one end of the stick excludes the other end, the middle, and everything else. this end of the stick can't be be this end and that end at the same time.

No sense in continuing if you insist on being irrational.

Why must it be either/or, alpha? because of the law of no contradiction and the law of excluded middle (which i believe some dispute, such as leo). caused absolutely contradicts uncaused . this means that the same thing (a simple thing) can't be both caused and uncaused at the same time. it also ca...

henry quirk wrote: There is no inner theater, there is no indwelling spirit, there is no magic, there's only good, old fashioned, chemicals and electricity, working together in a certain way.

This is merely a belief, and one that is rather hollow.

What if Descartes said, "I experience , therefore I am" ? What kind of difference would that make? Experiencing things shows that the one that is experiencing exists, but how do I know you are experiencing it and you are not just but a memory in my mind(being my unconscious). If I can not 100% be s...

What if Descartes said, "I experience, therefore I am"? What kind of difference would that make?

Why must it be either/or, alpha?

There are gross and subtle, physical connections/interactions, yes. Not seein' how this translates into overmind. In fact, the interior of my head is the most private place I have, accessible to you only as I allow, and only by way of my communicating (physically) my interior experience. If the the...