I ask this in regards to (what I perceive to be) the paradoxical nature of time and its origins. Two things seem particularly troubling here: A) How could time have had a beginning? Isn't the concept of a beginning only meaningful when examined from a frame in time? B) If time did not have a beginning, wouldn't we have traversed an infinite period of time in order to get to the present moment? Isn't that as inherently impossible as, say, eating an infinite amount of cottage cheese? One thing is apparent: time exists! From this I can gather there is some flaw in my reasoning. I suspect it resides in B, though I cannot seem to articulate the precise reason why, but I am open to the possibility that A is somehow fallacious as well. Or, perhaps, both A and B are false. Anyway, you guys run a great site! Thanks for answering (if you indeed choose to do so).

What kind of scientific evidence, if any, could prove that free-will does not exist?

I know that Gödel shows that there are true claims S that are not provable. The epistemic question is "How do we know S is true". Is it "true" in the same way that axioms of Euclid's geometry are true?

I have been reading a little about realism and anti-realism which has left me thinking that my metaphysical beliefs put me in both camps? Let me explain. I'm inclined to accept the correspondence theory of truth which, I think, puts me in the realism camp as to my ontology. However, while I believe there exists a world external to mind, I do not think we come to know that world directly. Our experience and knowledge of the world is mediated by the brain which uses conceptual frameworks to make sense of all the raw data we are bombarded with daily. So it would seem, ontologically I'm a realist but epistemologically I'm an anti-realist. Does this make any sense?

If quantum mechanics or other fundamental theories of physics have it that small physical entities which make up everything else do not behave deterministically, does that indeterminism inherited by all other larger entities, whether those are molecules, gases, instantiated computer programs, and people? In general, does indetermism on one "lower" physical level imply indetermism on a "higher" one?

A friend of mine recently gave me a copy of an official report released by the United States Senate Subcommittee. Apparently they invited medical and scientific officials from all across the world to discuss the scientific status of a fetus. There wasn’t any debate. All agreed that human life began at some point during the initial conception except one who said he didn’t know. Here’s a quote from the report. “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981 I did some further snooping on the internet and found that the medical and scientific community is in universal agreement on the fact that human life begins upon conception. This leads me to a few...

Is it animal abuse to spay/neuter an animal? Most people justify spay/neutering by pointing out that if we sterilize animals, there will be fewer needier animals. But if that's true, why not forcibly sterilize people in third world countries (at least in areas with population problems)?

What does one must be in order to be called "a philosopher"? For example, Are those from psychoanalysis tradition - Zizek, for example, has been influenced by Jacques Lacan - are legitimately called "a philosopher"? If this is the case, what is a - or, is there a - boundary between those who ask "philosophical" questions and those who ask "phychoanalysis" questions?

All things being equal, should I care for my brother more than a stranger?

Do you think that etiquette is a proper subject of philosophy? I wonder why the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has several articles on morality and law but none on etiquette.