I believe what you lack is an understanding of basic logic.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:29 amI see that for you it is quite impossible to go even just a bit outside the mentality I already described. As I said, it happened already in the past that certain things were thought as absolutely certain and that anything different was impossible to happen in the future, but then their thought proved wrong and what was conceived impossible to happen actually happened. If this happened in the past, nothing prevents it to happen again now and in the future. It seems that for you this is difficult to realize, so you prefer to repeat exactly the same error I described: you think that what is outside your understanding cannot exist and cannot happen in the future.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:19 am Can you show me the possibility that in the future, humans will be able to prove square-circles exist.
A square circle is outside your understanding, so you think that, as a consequence, it cannot exist and can never exist in the future. This is exactly what people thought, for example, about the sun rotating around the earth, and the earth conceived as the still center of the universe. You think that now we are more intelligent, we have more scientific and rational data, but this is exactly what they thought in the past: they thought they had reached a high level of knowledge, so that anything unexpected about this was impossible to happen. Now you think exactly the same about your thoughts.
Your mentality is identical to those who condemned Galileo: they thought that what was inconceivable to them was impossible to happen in their present and in their future.
- In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states
that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p). The law is not to be confused with the law of excluded middle which states that at least one, "p is the case" or "p is not the case" holds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
viewtopic.php?p=578127#p578127
To understand what is possible beyond what is known at present, note this;
In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell explain the function of "philosophy" as follows:
From the above you will note Russell stated science provide basic truth.Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable;
but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.
All definite knowledge – so I should contend – belongs to science;
all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; and this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. (p. xiii)
As such one must ground one's knowledge of science before stepping into No Man’s Land and invoking philosophy.
This mean that you cannot leap beyond No Man’s Land to jump into conclusion like theology.
What one need in No Man’s Land is sound philosophical reasoning [grounded on science] which you are not doing above.
So if you think what is outside your current understanding and can happen in the future, you have to comply with the above process of not jumping across the no-mans-land.you think that what is outside your understanding cannot exist and cannot happen in the future
Galileo complied with the above requirements on not jumping across the non-mans-land ungrounded but relied on the existing scientific knowledge.
What theists are doing with their belief in God is they are jumping across the no-mans-land ungrounded and insisting God is real at present and will be eternally in the future.
Btw, do not consider the OP,
Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative with its evidences,
is an impossibility?