Roman ⚔️🦦

Just someone trying to love wisdom well.

Philosophy. 🏛️ Metaphysics. 🌌 the Nature of things🦉💭 Truth. Arguments. First Principles.

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@sakalbu I personally think the point of discussing an ineffable nothingness is discovering it’s not even a coherent idea it’s logically unstable.

Nothingness is not anything and hence it’s not a cat. But for the same reason it’s not anything: it’s not [not a cat] hence it’s also a cat

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@sakalbu Objection: “Okay but I’m concerned with nothingness!”

Response: It still applies. Even if nothing is ineffable there could still be a point in discussing nothingness like: what it is not, examine implications, if anything corresponds to it 2/3

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@sakalbu Yes! I don’t think someone would be irrational if they held one contradiction as true.

It appears to be a true contradiction of Nothingness that: It’s both ineffable (it’s not anything, hence it’s not effable) and effable; we’re describing an idea.

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@sakalbu There are no violated logical laws in concrete reality but I don’t see why there can’t be in thought.

The self-reference paradoxes seem to be examples of true contradictions (in pure thought) staring us in the face:

Is the term ‘non-self-descriptive’ a self-descriptive term?

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@sakalbu Oh No! It violates non-contradiction

(Exists(nothing) ∧ DoesnotExist(nothing)

Excluded middle is:

(P v ~P)

It roughly says: at least one holds; P or ~P

That’s compatible with (P ∧ ~P)

If both P and ~P hold, one of them holds. Hence: (P v ~P) is satisfied.

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 … and It’s no mystery that an x that entails its own necessary existence and necessary persistence must have the reason for its own existence in itself. So if God is self-existent, God must be, in some sense, self-explanatory. 2/2

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@mostlyreplies @AleMartnezR1 Wouldn’t you say a self-existent being is self-explanatory in some sense? (its existence and persistence!)

If x is the sufficient condition of its own existence - self existent -(sufficient conditions are entailing!) then x implies x is necessarily existent and persistent 1/2

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@AleMartnezR1 @ident_smithjohn @MartinTweats It’s not question-begging. Don't be concerned, his AI slop doesn’t establish that. :)

Also, Martin blocked me for reasons unclear to me. The only thing I can think of is that I challenged some of his premises in his causal argument for God and against Infinite Regress

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@CertainSpeaks @JohnAndersn3c8 @AleMartnezR1 @anchoredso37497 Like do people even bother to read the conclusion? The conclusion of an argument should tell you what it’s arguing! It was already obvious in the conclusion

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

Today I learned Alexander Pruss participated in a Debate on Matter and Mind sometime November last year. Nice.

https://t.co/6FQ7KoYbGO

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

Saying this as someone outside the faith:

It is a great tragedy that some Protestants, while accepting Christ as God, do not revere the Mother who bore him - the very woman whom he loved and chose for himself

[JP @JPuncut]

1. I don't think about Mary

2. I don't pray to Mary

3. I don't venerate Mary

4. Mary didn't die for me

5. I have ZERO emotional or spiritual ties to Mary

6. Mary is NOT your Mother or my Mother.

I LOVE JESUS. THAT IS ALL.

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@anchoredso37497 \\ 2. Life without God is impossible

It seems to me any justification given for the truth of this premise must presuppose prior acceptance of the conclusion. In other words, it’s question-begging.

It’s a good arg for theists but toothless for winning over atheists & agnostics

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@anchoredso37497 \\ 1. If God doesn’t exist, life without God must be possible

Even the fool can see that this is a true and obvious conditional. No issues! 1/2

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@anchoredso37497 2 is a false dilemma

It could be the case Fred is neither lying nor telling the truth if it concerns something that

(i) Fred neither knows to be a lie nor does he know it to be true

Alice: Is the training arriving at 6?

Fred: I think so.

Fred is neither lying or telling the-

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@AleMartnezR1 Mere idea: non-identity
Def. Discernibility as opposed to indiscernibility; share all properties

1. x is non-identical to y

2. So, x & y do not share all properties (1, def)

3. So, there is a property p x has y doesn’t (frm2

C. So, there exists a property p -existential prop

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@CatholicCo200 @mostlyreplies \\ a lie is a privation of being

So a lie is not.

It follows that: If I lie it’s not true that the lie exists. So the lie does not exist; the lie is not

But if no lie exists… did I even I lie?

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@CatholicCo200 @mostlyreplies God has the ability to lie tho; he can bring himself to tell a lie the ability is just never realized. It’s not like there’s some mysterious force preventing God from bringing himself to speaking a lie. If all this is right, God has effete abilities: abilities that never realize

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@mostlyreplies @CatholicCo200 If God couldn’t think the indexical sentence: “I’m not omniscient” but Fred can, then something could exist without God thinking it. Namely, a sentence referring to one’s own non-omniscience.

Omnisubjectivity would solve this but first-person subjective experience seems private

[Roman ⚔️🦦 @Rome2147]

@mostlyreplies @CatholicCo200 I wonder how indexicals: “I’m a pervert” “I’m not omniscient” “I’m a sinner” fair with this view

Intuitively, God could not be thinking those. God could think Fred is not omniscient or God could think ‘Fred thinks Fred is not omniscient’ but he can’t think “I’m not omniscient“