Galahad

To stranger 寫得非常好啊！

希望 天下太平， 經濟繁榮， 肺炎不行， 人間有情， 路邊不見凍死骨， 四處但聞歡笑聲， 討論區，益見盛， 諸子出，百家鳴， 聚狂豪，會羣英， 他朝有日再相聚， 請君再進酒一酲。

康慈兄，想必如是 如果一位小姐真的有「母愛或女性的天性加上哲學的智慧」，又有西施的美貌，蘇蕙的才學，小弟着實不敢高攀。

嫁吾出? 為何讀哲學會 「嫁吾出」? 我想不會吧。

To 揣摩 //因為絕對就是答案的終結, 所以不能在"觀念"中找到"真"// WHY? 6|@.@| {?]

因為相信， 所以知道。

"哲學的大前題錯,所以結論錯." Wrong, false premises do not imply a false conclusion. Consider: A man is a snake A snake is a mammal Therefore,a man is a mammal Clearly,both premises are false, but the conclusion is true.

生命是何等頑強 讓我來改一改: 生命是何等頑強 這一剎的減 下一剎的生 生命是何等頑強 這一刻的悲 下一刻的喜

Proving God's existence If "X is unprovable" is provable, how can we prove that? We maybe not able to prove X now, but we can't deny the possibility that somebody in the future may be able to complete this task. How can we prove that something is unprovable?

An insight (or mere nonsense) If the existence of God is REALLY beyond the human reason, can we really know that the existence of God is beyond the human reason or not? If I know nothing about an entity A,can I really know that I know A or not? If I can really know that I know nothing about A, then ...閱讀更多

I am sorry. My previous post is to 羅樂俊 Kelson.

Doubt it You said that //otherwise everything on Earth is not to be proved, with such a premise// I would like to know why. Thank you.

Favorite Debussy: Clair de lune 正!

The ontological argument Let's define G as "a omniscient person which exists and is standing beside me." Now, let's try to shout "Hey! G, can you help me? I don't know if the ontological argument is sound or not." If someone answer you, tell me. P.S. In my humble opinion, the existence of God is bey...閱讀更多

P.S. Life is short, you know.

Why keep arguing? Isn't the so-called "omnipotence that does not include doing logically impossible things" the same as 「至能」? If so, why all you ladies and gentlemen waste your time here? Why don't you just stop this worthless debate and go out to enjoy your life?

Just get interested Shouldn't the negative team be called a "affirmative team" as they wanted to prove that omnipotent is impossible? If the so-called "negative team" want to use argument N to prove that omnipotent is impossible, they should have the burden of proof of showing that N is adequate.

多謝LOZ的指導。 我意你所說:「理解不相同」不表示沒有對錯之分。可是，這裹所謂的「對錯」不是「2+2是不是等於4」那種對錯，而只是遣詞用字上的問題而已。即使messy thinker 錯了，也只不過是用字不當，令人誤解罷了。再者，看看「批評」這個詞語的意思時，我們可以發現它本身是有兩種含義的: 根據鍾文出版社的辭海一書，批評的意義為「判斷昰非好壞」，本身並沒有負面的意思。我們日常所用的「批評」，並不是「批評」的本義，只是其引申義而已。 再看一看「批評」的英文 criticize, 根據某紅封面英文字典，此字有兩個解釋: 1)Point out the faults of sb/sth 2)f...閱讀更多

大家好 愚以為其實整個爭辯的源頭是大家對 「批評」的理解並不相同。 messy thinker 所說的「批評」有「證明」，「提出意見」的意思。 而其他人則認為messy thinker 所說的 「批評」是含有負面的意思。 大家對「批評」的理解既然不同，再討論下去其實也不會有太大益處。愚認為 一個詞語的含義是取決於使用那個詞語的人想利用該詞語表達什麼意思。換言之，一個詞語的定義是應由使用詞語者去決定的。messy thinker對「批評」的理解與我們不同，但既然他已經就自己所用的「批評」的含義提出了解釋，大家就不要再在語義上爭拗了。 但我想messy thinker 你的言論未免太尖銳，太富攻擊...閱讀更多