What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 590
#481
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
What is it about "disimilarity" implies two things cannot interact?

similar substances interact proportionally to their similarity


have you ever observed two fundamentally dissimilar substances interacting ?
#482
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
have you ever observed two fundamentally dissimilar substances interacting ?
Who says I need to observe them to understand that it is possible? This is a question of reasoning, not evidence.
#483
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Who says I need to observe them to understand that it is possible? This is a question of reasoning, not evidence.
what mechanism would enable two fundamentally dissimilar substances to interact ?
#484
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
what mechanism would enable two fundamentally dissimilar substances to interact ?
by "mechanism" you mean what is the way one interacts with the other?

I think it depends on what we mean by "interact." This word, I do not think is univocal, as there are different ways two things can interact. This means the word is analogous.

They can interact essentially, (like the order of matter versus the matter itself, like the order of the molecules versus the molecules themselves like in water)

They can interact accidentally (like the interaction between me and what color I am, how much weight I have, etc...)

The only commonality between these things is Being. But not being in the same way, hence not fundamentally similar.

Being simply means you exist. But that does not mean you exist the same way or as the same thing.
#485
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
But not being in the same way, hence not fundamentally similar.
yes, fundamentally similar

comprised of detectable energy
#486
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
yes, fundamentally similar

comprised of detectable energy

No! They are not fundamentally similar.

And most certainly not detectable energy!

The whole point is that it is different being arrived at by reason.

It has nothing to do with matter
#487
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Being simply means you exist. But that does not mean you exist the same way or as the same thing.
there are things that "exist" as concrete nouns

there are things that "exist" as abstract nouns

the second type is contingent on the first type

qualification for the quality we call "exist" demands fundamental similarity
#488
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
there are things that "exist" as concrete nouns

there are things that "exist" as abstract nouns

the second type is contingent on the first type

qualification for the quality we call "exist" demands fundamental similarity
I am not talking about being in the mind

I am talking about different beings outside the mind tht are not fundamentally similar.

We arrive at the existance of those other beings through reason.
#489
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
We arrive at the existance of those other beings through reason.
can you support this claim ?
#490
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
can you support this claim ?
Sure!
I will try to summarize it as simple as possible since really it could be its own book.

We observe that things are made up of stuff. I am going to call that stuff "matter"

We observed through science that everything is composed of the basic matter: atoms

The order of these atoms is what determines what the thing is.

This order we call the form.

So, everything is matter and form that we can observe. I will use the word "observe" to mean any stimulation of the senses.

Now this distinction of matter and form is a distinction of reason. We see the order of the matter and the matter itself. That is how we recognize what the things is. That means that matter and form cannot be seperated in reality. It would no longer be what it is if they did somehow seperate.

But beause the distinction comes from reality, the being of matter and the being of form must be different. 

The conclusion then:

These are two beings that coexist in the same thing, but are not fundamentally similar. Being is not a univocal term, it does not have only one meaning. The being of matter is not the same as the being of form. They both exist but not as the same thing, but in the same thing

What we say of the form itself, we cannot say of the matter itself and vice versa.


#491
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
the being of matter and the being of form
matter is the territory

form is the map

the map is not the territory

the two are distinguishable concepts

but they are not fundamentally dissimilar
#492
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL

matter is the territory

form is the map


Bad analogy. You are talking about something representing something else.

I am talking about something that is only itself.

Totally different.
#493
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Bad analogy. You are talking about something representing something else.
is there another way you can try and frame this ?
#494
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
is there another way you can try and frame this ?
An Analogy. Think of a house.

The matter is all the wood, glass, stone, metal, etc

The form is the order, the design, layout of the house.

The design, order, layout by itself is not the same thing as all the wood, glass, stone, metal, etc
#495
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze

i copied this topic and it currently has 400 comments and 4000 views
#496
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
The design, order, layout by itself is not the same thing as all the wood, glass, stone, metal, etc
you are describing two aspects of the same thing

they are not fundamentally dissimilar
#497
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,919
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
matter is the territory

3RU is correct. Occupied space { territory/terra-firma } includes fermionic matter and bosonic forces with the latter being what is exchanged between Fermionic particles

form is the map

3RU is correct again. Aka Meta-space pattern ergo geometry and that is what ' form ' is more specifically. Form boards hold the concrete in specific shape when it is poured and hardens over time.

the map is not the territory the two are distinguishable concepts
but they are not fundamentally dissimilar

3RU is correct again. We cannot have occupied space, without its  complementary Meta-space pattern/geometry/form/shape.

I love it when I see others around here espousing  logical, common sense critical thinking truths here at DArt. Kudos!

#498
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
two fundamentally distinct substances cannot interact
The so-called “interaction problem” is contrived, simply declaring the observed and experienced interaction between mind (or soul) and physical reality is metaphysically impossible is not a coherent argument.  It is nothing but an unwarranted and faith based ontological commitment which buys us nothing in the way of insight or explanation.

The self-evident experiential reality of the interaction between the mental and the physical is undeniable, the contrived “interaction problem” is based on denial of the evidence.


#499
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
The self-evident experiential reality of the interaction between the mental and the physical is undeniable, the contrived “interaction problem” is based on denial of the evidence.
body = hardware

mind = software

no magic required
#500
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)



there is no argument required to be unconvinced



are you perhaps unconvinced of the claim that bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster is real ? [presumably you are unconvinced]

do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your (presumed) non-belief in bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster ? [presumably you are not compelled]


are you perhaps "not-an-astronaut" ? [presumably you are not]

are you perhaps "not-a-dinosaur" ? [presumably you are not]

are you perhaps "not-a-hippie" ? [presumably you are not]


do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your lack of self-identifying as one of these labels ? [presumably you are not]



THE CLAIM IS: there is no argument required to be unconvinced

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ARE EMPLOYED TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT

in other words

if you don't feel compelled to explain why you are "not-a-stamp-collector"

then you already understand why it is nonsensical to goad someone into explaining why they call themself an ATHEIST (simply, NOT-A-THEIST)
#501
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
you are describing two aspects of the same thing

they are not fundamentally dissimilar
They are fundamentally dissimilar.

You cannot say of the form what you say of matter.

The form and the matter are two different causes in the same thing

effects coming from fundamentally different causes are fundamentally different.
#502
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
You cannot say of the form what you say of matter.
form is a concept

data

on the hard drive

in your head

a pattern of energy

the same energy that forms matter


fundamental similarity
#503
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
form is a concept

No it is not.

Is the order of the matter in the thing itself in your head?!?!?!

That would mean the thing itself is in your head.

Sounds like a nasty headache.
#504
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The self-evident experiential reality of the interaction between the mental and the physical is undeniable, the contrived “interaction problem” is based on denial of the evidence.
body = hardware

mind = software

no magic required
And no contrived interaction problem.
#505
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
That would mean the thing itself is in your head.
identification of form is a concept
#506
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
And no contrived interaction problem.
apparently we're in agreement
#507
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
identification of form is a concept
Your knowledge of it is a concept.

Not the form itself.
#508
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
the "form itself" is wholly comprised of material
#509
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
No. The form itself is not composed of matter. The thing is composed of matter and form.
#510
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
No. The form itself is not composed of matter. The thing is composed of matter and form.
all matter has form

even liquid

matter and form are inseparable concepts