Total posts: 331
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there must be a fundamental similarity
Is Physicality the only fundamental similiarity? If so how do you prove that?
Because I think there are other fundamental similarities by which to interact that affect something physical.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you believe that software is magical ?
No.
uncreated and uncaused
I never said that, nor implied it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
All you have done is repeat what you said before. For Example:
in order to interact with the physicalit must have some physical capability or component
No proofs, no explanation. This does not answer my question I asked. This conversation is going nowhere.
Do have anything you want to say to me?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
data storage can be identified
Is that the same as the concept itself? Nope...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
the word you're looking for here is "origin"
Origin is a type of principle. It is not the only kind of principle.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Atheism does just does not answer that question.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
He is the only logical conclusion to the ultimate question. Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it's tautological
Then show me why it is tautological.
NOthing can "co-exist" with the "infinite"
Only if the "infinite" was only material. There is more than just matter in the universe. Any solid philosophy says that.
Once again showing a univocal idea of being....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
if they are designed by YHWH and caused by YHWH then they are obviously reflections of (at minimum the minifest will of) YHWH if not obviously and necessarily wholly composed of the energy of YHWH
This is implying that only Matter exists and nothing else. Once again showing a univocal idea of being.
There are more ways to exist than by matter alone. Any solid philosophy says that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
if YHWH has physical capability then some part of YHWH is physicalthe capability to impregnate women is one example
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the idea-of-an-elephant is not the same as an actual elephant
There still has to be a whatness between the actual elephant and the idea of elephant or we cannot say elephant of both in any way whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
AND "infinite" is not part of this equation
It most definitely is if you want to talk about cause and effect.
which means it cannot be contained by anything anywhere, not by a word, or a physical barrier or any conceivable or inconceivable conceptional barrier
That is why it is a negation word in our language.
anything that is truly "infinite" is NECESSARILY in all places at all times in every possible sense
Why? You have to prove that. Until you do, I am disregarding it since all you have done is assert it. and by prove I mean you have to prove the "in every possible sense" part. Because right now it is a contradiction.
it would penetrate and completely obliterate all distinctions ideas and things
What does that even mean??? This entire conversation you have been implying a univocal meaning of what it means to be and here you are trying to say there is a distinction in what it means to be. Can you make up your mind?
Have you studied logic before? It really does not seem to me that you have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
all of creation is imbued with some amount of the omnipotent
This implies that sameness, or existence, is only one thing in one way. I have already said no to that and explained why I think that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) OOC is the first cause (THEN) every conceivable event is caused by OOC
That is getting much closer, but not quite yet.
I called Him the first cause. He is th cause of the existence of something, but not immediately the cause of a happening as there can be other causes involved. He is remotely a cause to all happenings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting that YHWH has no physical capability or component ?
I am not saying he does not have the capability.
Of himself he is not physical. He cannot be. That would contradict Him being infinite and uncaused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So the idea of "elephant" is still in all those different functions.
Once again showing function is not the same as whatness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) would you say that OOC was reduced or diminished in some way after this exercise ?
If you are trying to get at "how is he not different after the intial cause if it all came from him?"
The answer is that He is infinite. No matter how much or what you take away there is no difference in relation to Him. That is what infinite means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) would you say that OOC was reduced or diminished in some way after this exercise ?(2) or would you say that OOC was exactly the same as they were before the first creation event ?
1. No I would not.
2. He has to be unchanging, at least intrinsically to Himself. So He would be the same as before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but you believe that this omnipotent god was the very first cause, right ?
Yes... well I know He is because I have reasoned to it. Not strictly speaking belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
how would you change the definition in order for it to be made more accurate ?
to exist or to be is not a univocal term.
A thing can exist as something individual and by itself. Like you and me.
A thing can exist only as "in another" like the color blue.
A thing can exist as becoming into existence or going out of existence. We call this change
certain things can only exist in the mind, like numbers or negatives.
With this understanding of what it means to exist (an analogous term) and the understanding of cause and effect, I think Spinosa missed alot and was oversimplifying.
That division above btw comes from Aristotle initially but explained in detail by Thomas Aquinas. They call it the division of being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this is exactly the same case for spinoza's god
No. Spinosa is saying that all effects together equal the cause.
I am saying that no effect, even taken altogether is greater than the intial cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
at what point does omnipotent not include all power and all energy ?
Ominipotent means he has ability to cause whatever is possible.
This comes from the understanding that an effect is not greater than the cause. Even every effect taken as a whole cannot be greater than the intial cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
which of the five key terms do you believe is misrepresented ?
"Exist"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, so it sounds like you agree with spinoza here
No. I dont agree with him.
Spinosa said the universe is god.
I am saying He is sperate from it as its cause and the universe is the effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
quantum foam is observable through its effects on particles, and hawking radiation has been observed in experiments, providing empirical evidence for its existence
OK! So quantum foam is the cause of its effects... what causes the quantum foam?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
an elephant and a sculpture-of-an-elephant do not have the same functionalitythat is why the term "elephant" must be modified in some cases
But if functionality determines WHAT A THING IS, why call the sculpture an elephant?
And does a sculpture of an elephant do things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The existence of God was reasoned to over 2,000 years ago.
You can have the time to catch up if you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
how can you be BOTH wet AND dry at the same time ????!!!!!
because it is not in the same way. I.E. what is said of my parts cannot be said of the whole.
The point I am making above is that by your intial syllogism, what you say of the whole you are saying of every part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it is based on the theological claim that "god is omnipotent and omniscient and the creator of all things"spinoza merely pointed out that there is only one solution to this definition
Then Spinosa had a mistunderstanding what they are saying there or a misunderstanding of Being. I am going to go with he had a misunderstanding of being. I.E. He had a crappy philosophy.
maybe you could write a conditional statement for that one
That is not a parody of the IF-Then syllogism. It is a parody of the conclusion that follows from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
can we agree that things that happen are caused ?
Yes.
can we agree that this universal chain of events leads back to the dawn of time ?
Yes.
what we normally call "the big bang" or "the initial singularity" ?
Yes.
sure, we don't know what happened "before" the initial singularitybut whatever it wasit was "something"are you contending that it was "NOthing" ?
Yes. And being logical and following what I agreed to above I ask: "what caused the Big Bang?" Since you know, it happened. Here my reason takes over because we have no experiances of before the big bang.
Its cause? Must be whatever made it boom! Seems to me like God could make a big boom like that.
Furthermore, this God must be uncaused and infinite or we very quickly fall into blatant contradictions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm paraphrasing YOU
Where did I say the soul is not a thing? Got a reference?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
because a principle is a description of something and not a thing in and of itself
a principle is not a desription.
Principle: That from which anything proceeds in any way whatsoever.
That "that" is a thing. Like a point is the principle of a ray, your soul is the principle of self movement.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
organic chemistry
That means everything that is part of our life must be organic.
Abstracts concepts, a part of our intellectual life are not organic. You cannot touch them. So there must be something more than just organic chemistry.
Unless you can give me where science has tagged in the brain where concepts themselves are, there is no way around that.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
soul is not a thingsoul is a principle
I do not think I have seen someone contradict themselves so quickly.
Then what is the thing that gives our body life?
so to you it is merely a description of a processand not a source of anything in and of itself
Actually, I said it was the source of our movement. The thing by which we move.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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."
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
read the posts numbered 19, 23, 24, 30 and 36
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
JUST SAY "SOUL" IS UNEXPLAINABLESINCE THAT'S YOUR ANSWER ANYWAYWHY EVEN BOTHER TALKING ABOUT ITIF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING
I did explain what the soul is.
Did you not read what I said?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
solve for xyou are the sum of your biology + experience + xtell me what you think x might beand don't say "soul"unless you're ready to explain how your "soul" makes decisions that are not influenced by your "soul's" metabiology + experience
Invalid question with invalid, unproven, unexplained points.
What I am is defined by my nature. Which is human nature. i.e. Body and rational soul. This nature exists in me an individual of that nature. Nothing more to it. My memory, experiances, biology (which is my body) can all be reduced in their essences to body or soul.
I have already explained what the soul is.
This is what I mean by the philosophy of Spinosa. You keep proving my point perfectly. Being is not mathematical. It is not univocal.
You keep giving senseless equations that have the presumption of Being as mathematical. Common sense and other, way more solid philosophies than Spinosa show this.
I am sorry if you cannot see that. Maybe look at other philosophies older than the 1600s.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created: