For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
bollocksTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:56 amIt couldn't be more relevant to the question of whether law is racist as an ontological fact.
Never mind the bollocks, that is philosophy.
It's not philosophy, its just words.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:54 amNever mind the bollocks, that is philosophy.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:37 ambollocksTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:56 am
It couldn't be more relevant to the question of whether law is racist as an ontological fact.
But my bollobks are not publicly experienced.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 2:43 pmPhilosophy, insofar as it's publicly experienceable, is just words.
The continual regress of causes eventually leads to a cause with no cause behind it, this regress leads to Nothingness which is uncaused.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:31 amNo, "acauasality" could be easily, easily disproven...just find or demonstrate the real cause, and you've done it for that item, phenomenon or event.
What "acausality" apparently cannot be is shown with reference to anything.
Yes 'we' ALREADY KNEW this. Quite 'some time' ago too, if thee Truth be KNOWN.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:41 amSo, to just CLARIFY, to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, what does the 'it' word here refer to, EXACTLY?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:38 pm1. The constant nature of the truth being "there are multiple truths" necessitates it as absolute. Absoluteness is consistency.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:17 am
REALLY?
Some can SEE and are SAYING that this appears to be an attempt at DEFLECTION, projected, itself.
OF COURSE, there are MANY, so called, "truths". Each and EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, has and holds their OWN, so called, "truth".
Also, so if 'this truth' is a singular entity as a 'singular truth', then does that mean that 'this truth' is irrefutable?
If yes, then does that now make 'this irrefutable truth' absolute?
And if yes, then would that now make 'this irrefutable and absolute truth', 'A truth of things'?
If yes, the I just refer to this kind or type of 'truth' as 'thee ACTUAL Truth of things', or shortened, 'thee Truth', which just makes expressing 'that thing' SIMPLER and EASIER.
OF COURSE.
Contrary to YOUR BELIEF 'this' has NEVER been DISPUTED.
What I did was ask you to PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of the 'a "specific thing", which you were 'trying to' CLAIM NOT everyone agrees with, which you THEN 'tried to' CLAIM was "one singular truth".
Talk about DEFLECTION.
To me, there are SOME 'things' that EVERY one does AGREE ON, so if this is True, then that would REFUTE your CLAIM here. And then, this THE OPPOSITE of YOUR CLAIM would NOW become 'one singular (irrefutable and absolute) Truth. Surely this NOT to HARD NOR COMPLEX to UNDERSTAND?
Also, the ONLY other thing I did here was to ask you, 'one WHAT, exists though many WHAT/S?'
What can be SEEN here is you have FAILED to answer my CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to you, as well as FAILING to PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of what I CHALLENGED you about.
Now, if you had been Truly OPEN and Honest, by PROVIDING BOTH the EXAMPLE and the ANSWER, then we could have come together in AGREEMENT, MUCH EARLIER, MUCH SIMPLER, MUCH QUICKER, and MUCH EASIER than we are going to now.
2. One form exists through many forms, this form is a loop as a form whose beginning is the same as the end when traced.
Except that there is no instance in which "Nothingness" created anything. Remember that "nothing" is not even "a thing." It is never in the causal chain at all. It's the absence of anything to BE in the causal chain.
Nothingness is acausal as it is absent of anything including a cause. The acausality of Nothingness can be observed from being emerging from nothing. Being emerging from nothing necessitates an uncaused state from which a causal chain exists. This being from nothing can be observed through a simple point in time and space where upon closer examination being expands from this point, from further examination being condenses back to this point.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:51 pmExcept that there is no instance in which "Nothingness" created anything. Remember that "nothing" is not even "a thing." It is never in the causal chain at all. It's the absence of anything to BE in the causal chain.
So something started the chain, and it can't be "nothingness." Rather, it has to be something. But that something has to be eternal itself, or the causal regress problem persists.
So what is eternal, that is not "nothing," and is also capable of creating a universe?
Unfortunately for this answer, there are precisely NO empirical case of "nothing" creating anything. And there is absolutely no evidence that what preceded the universe was a "nothing." So the answer given is obviously not founded on anything at all. It's a "nothing" answer.
It's not that nothing(ness) creates something. It's that things spontaneously appear, acausally. I forgot what exactly you misread this way earlier, too, but you're so used to thinking in terms of "everything has a cause" that you read acausality as positing a cause.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:51 pmExcept that there is no instance in which "Nothingness" created anything. Remember that "nothing" is not even "a thing." It is never in the causal chain at all. It's the absence of anything to BE in the causal chain.
So something started the chain, and it can't be "nothingness." Rather, it has to be something. But that something has to be eternal itself, or the causal regress problem persists.
So what is eternal, that is not "nothing," and is also capable of creating a universe?
We have no evidence either that any particular event was caused (and that includes deterministically (in an ontological sense) caused if we're making a distinction there) or that any particular event was acausal. It's not the sort of thing that we can have evidence of (as Hume well pointed out long ago).Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:05 pmUnfortunately for this answer, there are precisely NO empirical case of "nothing" creating anything. And there is absolutely no evidence that what preceded the universe was a "nothing." So the answer given is obviously not founded on anything at all. It's a "nothing" answer.
Whatever did start the universe had to be an eternal entity. And that eternal entity could decidedly not be "Nothing." That much, we know.
Give one.
Being expanding from and contracting through a point.