-->
@MAV99
And what do you mean by "part of" there are different ways to be a part of something.
in the same way one of your skin cells is part of you
but it is not the whole of you
What's the strongest argument for atheism?
Posts
Total:
590
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you describe a hammer ?
Formally?
A combination of a handle and some sort of blunt object attached to one end in some way.
Or if you want to talk about where it came from:
A tool made by a blacksmith or metal company
Or if you want to talk about what it is made of:
a combination of a handle and blunt object made of wood or metal or plastic, etc.
Or if youy want to talk about its purpose:
A thing used to hit objects. (But this could also be a club, a frying pan, etc.)
You see my point?
-->
@MAV99
You see my point?
yeah, you are incapable of describing its function
a hammer can be nearly any shape or size or material
the key to identifying a hammer
is by testing its ability to drive a nail into wood
-->
@3RU7AL
the key to identifying a hammeris by testing its ability to drive a nail into wood
Why?
I could use a nail gun. does not mean it is a hammer.
You clearly do not see my point. There are ways to describe things. Their purpose or function is one way to describe it
These descriptions ultimately do not say what it is. Care to give a demonstration as to why functionality is the same whatness?
-->
@3RU7AL
in the same way one of your skin cells is part of youbut it is not the whole of you
So we are all "physically part of god"
What about virtue which is not physical? Or numbers? Or purpose?
Unless you want to say those do not exist.
-->
@MAV99
Care to give a demonstration as to why functionality is the same whatness?
a chair that is impractical to sit in no longer serves the function of a chair
at that point it becomes a sculpture that may or may not resemble a chair
-->
@MAV99
I could use a nail gun. does not mean it is a hammer.
there is more than one way to drive a nail into wood
one way is to hammer it in with a hammer
but that is not the ONLY method
-->
@MAV99
So we are all "physically part of god"What about virtue which is not physical? Or numbers? Or purpose?Unless you want to say those do not exist.
i'm pretty sure the word "everything" includes abstract concepts
for example
your ideas are part of you
but your ideas are not the whole of you
-->
@3RU7AL
a chair that is impractical to sit in no longer serves the function of a chairat that point it becomes a sculpture that may or may not resemble a chair
And if someone asks me what it was,I answer "A chair"
Not "a thing functioning as a platform for your butt."
-->
@3RU7AL
your ideas are part of youbut your ideas are not the whole of you
I agree. But the point is that they are not physical which is how you have said we are parts of god
-->
@MAV99
And if someone asks me what it was,I answer "A chair"Not "a thing functioning as a platform for your butt."
it's only a chair if it performs the function of a chair
-->
@MAV99
I agree. But the point is that they are not physical which is how you have said we are parts of god
what are you talking about ?
when i use the term "everything" do you not understand what that means ?
-->
@3RU7AL
it's only a chair if it performs the function of a chair
So then we could not call a chair in a tiny model house a chair?
By definition you must have a thing before you have a thing doing something.
-->
@3RU7AL
when i use the term "everything" do you not understand what that means ?
So it is everything, but not everything in the same way? Abstract concepts are not physical.
By your example when I asked "what do you mean by parts?" you answered "as your cells are a part of you" Which means you are saying we are all parts of god physically.
I am pointing to those things not physical to ask how they exist if we are only physically part of god.
-->
@3RU7AL
By the way, you still have not answered The contradiction I pointed out about the universe causing itself.
Conservation of matter does not mean a thing must cause itself.
-->
@MAV99
So then we could not call a chair in a tiny model house a chair?By definition you must have a thing before you have a thing doing something.
chair
the word chair
unmodified
is a chair that is useful and performs the function of a chair for the average adult human being
a miniature-chair
is not a the same as simply "a chair"
notice the requisite modifier attached to it
-->
@MAV99
I am pointing to those things not physical to ask how they exist if we are only physically part of god.
i'm stunned that you can't seem to comprehend the concept of "EVERYthing"
everyTHING
EVERYidea
everyCONCEPT
EVERYconcievableANDinconcievableTHING
known
and unknown
up to and including the UNknowable
-->
@MAV99
By the way, you still have not answered The contradiction I pointed out about the universe causing itself.
please explain
-->
@3RU7AL
notice the requisite modifier attached to it
A requisite modifier that modifies a THING and is meaningless without the THING. It does not modify its functionality.
This argument is going nowhere. All you are doing is repeating that functionality is the same as whatness with nothing to prove it.
I will not keep arguing this until you give me a syllogistic demonstration that is perfectly logical, with a major term that one cannot disagree with to prove thtat whatness is the exact same as functionality.
-->
@3RU7AL
By the way, you still have not answered The contradiction I pointed out about the universe causing itself.
"please explain"
You have stated OOC. Which means: "omniscient omnipotent creator" is identical with everything. I.E. the universe.
You have called it a "creator" which means you have implied it has caused itself.
A thing cannot cause itself: WHY?
Causality implies the cause is seperate from the effect.
Causality also implies that the cause exists before the effect.
To say that the universe causes itself is to say it existed before it existed. Which is a contradition.
-->
@MAV99
Our Big Bang Universe is merely one such bubble among a possible infinity of other Big Bang universes in the ever-expanding inflationary vacuum! To start all this, a chunk of inflationary vacuum of only a kilogram was needed. Incredibly, the laws of quantum theory permit this to pop into existence out of nothing.
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm stunned that you can't seem to comprehend the concept of "EVERYthing"everyTHINGEVERYideaeveryCONCEPTEVERYconcievableANDinconcievableTHINGknownand unknownup to and including the UNknowable
Alright then. Lets look at your if-then syllogism:
(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists = omniscient omnipotent creator
This implies that what we say of the whole (which you said is god) we say of every part. But that quickly falls apart into blatant contradictions: OOC is physical and non-physical, wet and non-wet, dry and non-dry, etc at the same time and in the same way!
Well that is clearly wrong.
But you changed it at one point! Because it was obviously wrong:
(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists = a part of omniscient omnipotent creator
Which all you have done here then is to sy that "universe", "everything", "god" are all interchangable. Essentially all you have done is add another word arbitrarily to our vocabulary and confused what we mean by "god" and
Adding nothing to the conversation because all your saying is "the universe is the universe", "everything is everything", "god is god"
Which completely misses the point of the fundamental questions we ask about this topic in the first place, namly from where and why.
I see now why people called Spinosa an atheist. He did not believe in god, he believed in the universe! He just called it "god"
And if you adhere to this philosophy that makes you an atheist and not a deist. You believe in the universe. You just call it "god" and then say it answers those fundamental questions.
It would be as if I have an orange but I insist that it is a knife and it cuts.
-->
@MAV99
A requisite modifier that modifies a THING and is meaningless without the THING. It does not modify its functionality.
i can't believe you're suggesting that a miniature-chair has the same functionality as a chair
try swapping them out
-->
@FLRW
the laws of quantum theory
So a theory with theoretical laws...
permit this to pop into existence out of nothing.
permits something to come from nothing, i.e. an effect with no cause...
WOW! HOW MAGICAL IS THAT! I DID NOT KNOW SCIENCE COULD BE EXACTLY LIKE ALL THOSE FAIRYTALES!
-->
@3RU7AL
i can't believe you're suggesting that a miniature-chair has the same functionality as a chairtry swapping them out
This statement is implying that I identify functionality with whatness. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!
I AM SAYING THAT A CHAIR IS NOT IDENTIFIED WITH ITS FUNCTION! I AM SAYING THEY ARE BOTH CHAIRS AND HAVE DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS!!! COME ON! HOW HARD IS THIS FOR YOU!
-->
@MAV99
You have stated OOC. Which means: "omniscient omnipotent creator" is identical with everything. I.E. the universe.You have called it a "creator" which means you have implied it has caused itself.
can we agree that things that happen are caused ?
generally speaking, observable events are caused
and these observable events are caused by previous events
and those by even previous-er events
right ?
can we agree that this universal chain of events leads back to the dawn of time ?
what we normally call "the big bang" or "the initial singularity" ?
sure, we don't know what happened "before" the initial singularity
but whatever it was
it was "something"
are you contending that it was "NOthing" ?
-->
@MAV99
-->
@MAV99
permits something to come from nothing, i.e. an effect with no cause...
quantum foam is observable through its effects on particles, and hawking radiation has been observed in experiments, providing empirical evidence for its existence
-->
@MAV99
I AM SAYING THAT A CHAIR IS NOT IDENTIFIED WITH ITS FUNCTION! I AM SAYING THEY ARE BOTH CHAIRS AND HAVE DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS!!! COME ON! HOW HARD IS THIS FOR YOU!
an elephant and a sculpture-of-an-elephant do not have the same functionality
that is why the term "elephant" must be modified in some cases
-->
@MAV99
This implies that what we say of the whole (which you said is god) we say of every part.
if your hand is dirty
does that mean your mind is also dirty ?
But that quickly falls apart into blatant contradictions: OOC is physical and non-physical, wet and non-wet, dry and non-dry, etc at the same time and in the same way!
is your hair dry at the same time that your tongue is wet ?
how can you be BOTH wet AND dry at the same time ????!!!!!