Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:08 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:37 pm Those achievements are grounded in pure mathematics, and number, which are not empirically provable. Prove the number 1 empirically, you can't, yet it is used for empirical studies. Empiricism is empty in itself and dependent upon abstractions which are pure thoughts.

You are arguing merely for arguing sake without realizing that is making you stupid practical wise.

Let say it is proven by the authorities on an empirical basis there is 1 [one] real time bomb which will explode in 1 hour inside your house, would you ask the authorities to prove to you the number 1 empirically?

Empiricism is not imperatively grounded on pure mathematics and numbers.
What empirical knowledge is grounded on is the credibility of the framework and system of Reality, e.g. the framework and science which do not need pure mathematic or numbers in every case of empirical proofs.

"You are arguing merely for arguing sake without realizing that is making you stupid practical wise" is an ad hominum and diverts from the point being made. Ad hominums only show a weakness in the argument.


No it proves some knowledge is not grounded in an empirical nature, and that some phenomenon are taken as provable a priori. The concept of 1 bomb in the house necessitates a dependence upon some knowledge, the number 1, as existing prior to the knowledge of the bomb in the house. Some knowledge requires pure knowledge which exists outside the empirical framework given the empirical framework is empty in itself. This emptiness of empirical framework necessitates pure reasoning as existing beyond the empirical framework.


One of these a priori concepts is God.

Sorry for the ad hominens but I think they are necessary to jog and trigger some realization you are off the wrong path of knowledge [JTB].

Whatever is a priori must be based on a priori experiences of human ancestors embedded in the DNA.
In the above case, the existence of the bomb do not need the concept of 1. Where a bomb is verified as dangerous, one need to response according. There is no need to prove the concept of 1 exists for that purpose of survival.

In your case, whatever is a priori is not grounded on possible experiences, past, present or future. Thus it [e.g. God or square circle] would be impossible to be real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:45 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:08 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:34 am
You are arguing merely for arguing sake without realizing that is making you stupid practical wise.

Let say it is proven by the authorities on an empirical basis there is 1 [one] real time bomb which will explode in 1 hour inside your house, would you ask the authorities to prove to you the number 1 empirically?

Empiricism is not imperatively grounded on pure mathematics and numbers.
What empirical knowledge is grounded on is the credibility of the framework and system of Reality, e.g. the framework and science which do not need pure mathematic or numbers in every case of empirical proofs.

"You are arguing merely for arguing sake without realizing that is making you stupid practical wise" is an ad hominum and diverts from the point being made. Ad hominums only show a weakness in the argument.


No it proves some knowledge is not grounded in an empirical nature, and that some phenomenon are taken as provable a priori. The concept of 1 bomb in the house necessitates a dependence upon some knowledge, the number 1, as existing prior to the knowledge of the bomb in the house. Some knowledge requires pure knowledge which exists outside the empirical framework given the empirical framework is empty in itself. This emptiness of empirical framework necessitates pure reasoning as existing beyond the empirical framework.


One of these a priori concepts is God.

Sorry for the ad hominens but I think they are necessary to jog and trigger some realization you are off the wrong path of knowledge [JTB].

Whatever is a priori must be based on a priori experiences of human ancestors embedded in the DNA.
In the above case, the existence of the bomb do not need the concept of 1. Where a bomb is verified as dangerous, one need to response according. There is no need to prove the concept of 1 exists for that purpose of survival.

In your case, whatever is a priori is not grounded on possible experiences, past, present or future. Thus it [e.g. God or square circle] would be impossible to be real.

The only thing the ad hominums prove is the weakness of the argument you presented.


Actually it does not need to be embodied within prior experiences of DNA as the number 1 exists beyond the empirical senses, thus empirical experience.

The existence of what constitutes the bomb requires measurements which are grounded in a priori concepts (numbers).

A priori experiences are grounded in all possible experiences of past, present, future measurements as these measurements require a priori concepts.

God as the totality of being, with omnipresence being the self reflection of all the exists (being through being), exists as an apriori concept as all being requires an a priori definition of being to occur. Being is a priori and a posteriori, God as the totality of being is a priori.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:45 am Sorry for the ad hominens but I think they are necessary to jog and trigger some realization you are off the wrong path of knowledge [JTB].

Whatever is a priori must be based on a priori experiences of human ancestors embedded in the DNA.
In the above case, the existence of the bomb do not need the concept of 1. Where a bomb is verified as dangerous, one need to response according. There is no need to prove the concept of 1 exists for that purpose of survival.

In your case, whatever is a priori is not grounded on possible experiences, past, present or future. Thus it [e.g. God or square circle] would be impossible to be real.

The only thing the ad hominums prove is the weakness of the argument you presented.


Actually it does not need to be embodied within prior experiences of DNA as the number 1 exists beyond the empirical senses, thus empirical experience.

The existence of what constitutes the bomb requires measurements which are grounded in a priori concepts (numbers).

A priori experiences are grounded in all possible experiences of past, present, future measurements as these measurements require a priori concepts.

God as the totality of being, with omnipresence being the self reflection of all the exists (being through being), exists as an apriori concept as all being requires an a priori definition of being to occur. Being is a priori and a posteriori, God as the totality of being is a priori.

Your postulation of what is a God is merely a thought but impossible to be realized in reality.

I'll repeat again;
In your case, whatever is a priori is not grounded on possible experiences, past, present or future. Thus it [e.g. God or square circle] would be impossible to be real.

Your idea of a God [a final cause, absolutely-absolute Being] is similar to the thought of a square-circle.
Thus it is empirically impossible and cannot be possibly experienced as real.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:46 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:45 am Sorry for the ad hominens but I think they are necessary to jog and trigger some realization you are off the wrong path of knowledge [JTB].

Whatever is a priori must be based on a priori experiences of human ancestors embedded in the DNA.
In the above case, the existence of the bomb do not need the concept of 1. Where a bomb is verified as dangerous, one need to response according. There is no need to prove the concept of 1 exists for that purpose of survival.

In your case, whatever is a priori is not grounded on possible experiences, past, present or future. Thus it [e.g. God or square circle] would be impossible to be real.

The only thing the ad hominums prove is the weakness of the argument you presented.


Actually it does not need to be embodied within prior experiences of DNA as the number 1 exists beyond the empirical senses, thus empirical experience.

The existence of what constitutes the bomb requires measurements which are grounded in a priori concepts (numbers).

A priori experiences are grounded in all possible experiences of past, present, future measurements as these measurements require a priori concepts.

God as the totality of being, with omnipresence being the self reflection of all the exists (being through being), exists as an apriori concept as all being requires an a priori definition of being to occur. Being is a priori and a posteriori, God as the totality of being is a priori.

Your postulation of what is a God is merely a thought but impossible to be realized in reality.

I'll repeat again;
In your case, whatever is a priori is not grounded on possible experiences, past, present or future. Thus it [e.g. God or square circle] would be impossible to be real.

Your idea of a God [a final cause, absolutely-absolute Being] is similar to the thought of a square-circle.
Thus it is empirically impossible and cannot be possibly experienced as real.

1 is empirically impossible thus is equivalent to a square circle from your stance.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:46 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:04 am
The only thing the ad hominums prove is the weakness of the argument you presented.


Actually it does not need to be embodied within prior experiences of DNA as the number 1 exists beyond the empirical senses, thus empirical experience.

The existence of what constitutes the bomb requires measurements which are grounded in a priori concepts (numbers).

A priori experiences are grounded in all possible experiences of past, present, future measurements as these measurements require a priori concepts.

God as the totality of being, with omnipresence being the self reflection of all the exists (being through being), exists as an apriori concept as all being requires an a priori definition of being to occur. Being is a priori and a posteriori, God as the totality of being is a priori.

Your postulation of what is a God is merely a thought but impossible to be realized in reality.

I'll repeat again;
In your case, whatever is a priori is not grounded on possible experiences, past, present or future. Thus it [e.g. God or square circle] would be impossible to be real.

Your idea of a God [a final cause, absolutely-absolute Being] is similar to the thought of a square-circle.
Thus it is empirically impossible and cannot be possibly experienced as real.

1 is empirically impossible thus is equivalent to a square circle from your stance.

1 is a mathematical concept, it is not an empirical concept.
It is NOT impossible, thus possible to produce 1 empirical car?
Surely Ford and other car manufacturers can do that.

But who can produce an empirical square-circle?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 7:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:46 am
Your postulation of what is a God is merely a thought but impossible to be realized in reality.

I'll repeat again;
In your case, whatever is a priori is not grounded on possible experiences, past, present or future. Thus it [e.g. God or square circle] would be impossible to be real.

Your idea of a God [a final cause, absolutely-absolute Being] is similar to the thought of a square-circle.
Thus it is empirically impossible and cannot be possibly experienced as real.

1 is empirically impossible thus is equivalent to a square circle from your stance.

1 is a mathematical concept, it is not an empirical concept.
It is NOT impossible, thus possible to produce 1 empirical car?
Surely Ford and other car manufacturers can do that.

But who can produce an empirical square-circle?

1 empirical car is not 1 existing empirically.

What is empirical is dependent upon what is not empirical. 1 cannot be expressed empirically except through a form yet forms are abstract as well. The most universal form is the loop given all phenomenon are composed of repetitive symmetry and are traceable as loops (any form is reduced to a loop as the beginning points of the trace results in the very same beginning point as an end). Yet the loop, as an approximate circle, necessitates the number one as grounded in abstraction.


1 equivocates to an infinite variety of forms, through the infinite variety of loops which exist, thus is grounded in the circle as the summation of these loops.


The square has the same beginning points as the end points given its traceability, thus is a loop. The square is an approximation of the circle thus a fractal of it.

Dually a circle and square, one inside the other, in its totality is a square circle.