19

Let us consider the being named Hpf. Like God, Hpf is eternal by definition. Hpf created the universe and will destroy it on Monday, August 9, 2021. Something whose existence is impossible cannot be conceived in the mind. Let's make an assumption that there is no Hpf. Since it will be eternal by definition, it did not exist in the past or in the future, ...


8

People in the answers seem to focus on premise 2 but I'm having an even bigger problem with premise 1: Something whose existence is impossible cannot be conceived in the mind. We can definitely conceive impossible things in our mind. People have been able to imagine a 4 dimensional cube even though it's "impossible" according to our eyes. You ...


6

Interpretation of the Platonic forms is a big wrangle and may be undertaken in many ways. But the simplest answer to your question "in what realm" might just be to say everywhere or in every "realm." Thus the "squareness" of a square, to use the old trope, is not "in" this or that particular square thing. In fact, any ...


4

Your point 2 is a poorly constructed argument that if God does not exist, it is impossible for God to exist. This borders on the silly. All sorts of things are possible that do not in fact exist. For example, there has never been any beer in my refrigerator. Yet such cold beer is clearly a possibility. "God is impossible ==> God does not exist" ...


4

There is an approach to the philosophy of mathematics called formalism. In fact, it is a whole family of related positions. In one of the more extreme versions of formalism, mathematical sentences are not considered to be propositions that state truths or falsehoods, but are just strings of symbols that are manipulated according to a set of rules that we ...


3

Option 1 is ruled out by Spinoza's conception of attribute. No two substances can share an attribute, because for Spinoza an attribute both specifies the qualitative 'kind' of an entity, and also its numerical identity. If two or more substances shared an attribute, there would be no reason why one substance is this particular and the other that particular. ...


3

If you're specifically interested in other physical realms that aren't part of the same space that we inhabit (i.e. you couldn't get there by traveling some distance in space), this article talks about how a French bishop named Etienne Tempier argued in 1277 that Aristotle was wrong to argue that the ground under our feet had to be a unique collection of the ...


2

Consider a two-dimensional time, so that you now have a "time plane" rather than a timeline. Mathematically, this means that the two time dimensions are independent. If you are restricted to only moving forwards in either direction, you will trace a zigzag diagonal across the plane. But such a linear path is mathematically still a line, a one-...


2

"... Since it will be eternal by definition, it did not exist in the past or in the future, and cannot exist." As you say, since it exists outside of human cognition it cannot be said to exist - according to human cognition. It is effectively nothing - like the noumenal - adding to the mystery of the concept of nothing. Unless you can intuitively ...


2

When you say, "how can I accept that the two populations have the same variations?" I suppose you are referring to a significance test for equality of variance. A significance test for equality of variance cannot reach the conclusion that the two populations have the same variance. The most it can say is that the observations given to it do not ...


2

What do you think of this argument? I think it is pretty easily dismantled by simple logic, not theology. Since logic is in the purview of philosophy, you're quite on-topic here. The fallacy of your argument is that you have not only one assumption, but that you have two: Assumption A: "God does not exist." Assumption B: "Something that is ...


1

The problem is you've changed the definition of "impossible" between points 1 and 2, making your second claim in point 2 wrong. Something whose existence is impossible cannot be conceived in the mind. Here, you're talking about something that's logically impossible. The converse way of looking at it, is if I can conceive of something, like faster ...


1

By this logic, all other gods are real too. The Monotheistic gods say there can be no other gods and there is only one true god. You're still left with the dilemma of making a choice: believing it or not.


1

The short answer is yes — the status of mathematical truth is sometimes described as “hypothetical” or even “fictive” given the objects it seems to properly apply to are ideal and so inexistent. Like theology it stands entirely suspended from its tautologies — that is, the “matter of fact” with respect to its universe of discourse seems tied to aspects of ...


1

If time has a single dimension like a path or a line, all events/travel must abide by that linear ordering. Adding a dimension would be like dropping 2D plane on top of the 1D line. Any point on the original line could then be gotten to from any other point on the line, without passing through points between them on the line by traveling up into the plane ...


1

Many early concepts of cosmology were quite finite; the (probably flat) Earth was surrounded by one thing and another on all sides, with as often as not a big lid, the Biblical "firmament", clapped over us. God's realm (and maybe also Hells of one kind or another) lay beyond. But many were pretty hazy about the scientific physicality of such ...


1

I haven't read through it but this book Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics (hopefully you can check it out online) has a lot of essays on holism, especially Ch. 3 by Tim Maudlin Part and Whole in Quantum Mechanics How Einstein presents the clearest view of a certain kind of reductionism in a letter, how Einstein presumably ...


1

I would say, don't be afraid to read the major texts by the principal philosophers themselves. One of the reasons the great philosophers are considered great is that they are worth reading. That said, some are hard to understand. Some of the greats of the 'modern' era are Spinoza's Ethics, David Hume's A Treatise on Human Nature, and Kant's Critique of Pure ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible