Find your name!
Oh no! He caught me! Woe is me! My argument is completely refuted by Minimalist! I only wanted to bring everyone into a cult and make them drink kool-aid!
...
Oh, you caught me, too! You figured out that this opens up multiple possibilities for things you don't believe in! You better cover your eyes and not address the issue!
...
Finally, while you're mostly insulting me, you actually have substance to your post. The honest answer to why I invoked the idea of an imaginary universe with a single oxygen atom is because its easier to explain it like that. Really, I just need the oxygen unbonded, otherwise I have to expand the argument, and I really didn't feel like doing that in that opening post.
How do you like your oxygen atom? Would you like it here or there? Would you like it in a house? Would you like it with a mouse?
Anyway, if any unbonded oxygen atom lacks necessary quantity for whatever, it was never oxygen in the first place. Therefore, quantity matters. Further, while we can shoot electrons, we cannot shoot quantity. Quantity is in reality and is not material.
This really doesn't apply to my argument. By the end of the forum, I hope to make a logical case that we have a soul. That's about it.
I am going to assume this is an insult and not a counter argument, but only because I think you're smarter than what counter argument can be pulled from that.
I thought you were a Platonist? That's all Aristotelian terminology. I'll just answer both sides. In Aristotelian philosophy, quantity isn't about form. Form and matter make the substance, then "accidents" are applied. Accidents include quality, quantity, relation, color, position, action, passion, time, and place (although I think relation includes all after it). Plato would say that the quantity is in the form, such that a triangle must have 3 edges and only 3 edges. However, in Aristotle's teachings, the triangle isn't a substance. A raccoon is a substance, a pine tree is a substance, but a triangle is not. A person usually has 10 fingers, but if they have 9, they aren't less human.
Cool, you choose option two.
But we all use "2" and "3". Different systems is meaningless to my argument. I don't care if its 3 liters or 3 gallons, I care about 3. If I look at 3 containers, each 1 liter of gasoline (or petrol, whatever you'd like), I see 3 containers. Now, only get the 3. I don't want the containers, I just want the 3. "Three containers?" No, just 3. Not only are we perceiving containers, but we're perceiving what the group has that is not physical, quantity. If I remove a container from the group, the quantity has changed.
However, this group is artificial. I made 3 containers and the group is in my mind. But it isn't always, which is my atom example. I did not create the atom (duh), but the atom has numerical requirements in order for it to retain identity. These are not in our head. These are in reality.
That statement isn't an argument.
Minimalist Wrote:You already know your argument is garbage. I wonder why you even bothered?
Oh no! He caught me! Woe is me! My argument is completely refuted by Minimalist! I only wanted to bring everyone into a cult and make them drink kool-aid!
...
Whateverist Wrote:Oh the novelty! Who the hell is this guy? Gosh darn, what really is real?
Oh, you caught me, too! You figured out that this opens up multiple possibilities for things you don't believe in! You better cover your eyes and not address the issue!
...
cato123 Wrote:Trick fucking question. C'mon Tex, cowboy up. Be honest and explain to AF why you have to invoke the idea of an imaginary universe to allow the existence of a 'single oxygen atom'.
Finally, while you're mostly insulting me, you actually have substance to your post. The honest answer to why I invoked the idea of an imaginary universe with a single oxygen atom is because its easier to explain it like that. Really, I just need the oxygen unbonded, otherwise I have to expand the argument, and I really didn't feel like doing that in that opening post.
How do you like your oxygen atom? Would you like it here or there? Would you like it in a house? Would you like it with a mouse?
Anyway, if any unbonded oxygen atom lacks necessary quantity for whatever, it was never oxygen in the first place. Therefore, quantity matters. Further, while we can shoot electrons, we cannot shoot quantity. Quantity is in reality and is not material.
cato123 Wrote:I also don't need to invoke hypothetical universes to prove that my lord and saviour exists.
This really doesn't apply to my argument. By the end of the forum, I hope to make a logical case that we have a soul. That's about it.
psykhronic Wrote:Eyes only see material things and a soul perceives the immaterial... yeah it figures you exclude the brain.
I am going to assume this is an insult and not a counter argument, but only because I think you're smarter than what counter argument can be pulled from that.
Minimalist Wrote:Odd since his god only exists as a figment of his imagination.Quote:Freaking philosophical genius right here...
[quote='fuitlethewinds']Great apes and even dogs can perceive the immaterial as well, does that mean they also have souls?
We're getting ahead of ourselves here =) Technically, yes (plants as well). However, they lack other abilities that poeple have, so there is a unique human soul (commonly called, "Rational Soul"). Historically, this is Aristotle (Greek Pagan), Avicenna (Muslim), and Aquinas (Catholic).
[quote='ChadWooters'] I'm not convinced that any specific number doesn't have substantial content since it makes reference to a formal property of material things. However, a unit or a whole defines an immaterial form, i.e. the formal cause that allows specific numbers to exist.
I thought you were a Platonist? That's all Aristotelian terminology. I'll just answer both sides. In Aristotelian philosophy, quantity isn't about form. Form and matter make the substance, then "accidents" are applied. Accidents include quality, quantity, relation, color, position, action, passion, time, and place (although I think relation includes all after it). Plato would say that the quantity is in the form, such that a triangle must have 3 edges and only 3 edges. However, in Aristotle's teachings, the triangle isn't a substance. A raccoon is a substance, a pine tree is a substance, but a triangle is not. A person usually has 10 fingers, but if they have 9, they aren't less human.
the Germans are coming Wrote:numbers are mesuring units attributed through the human mind.
Cool, you choose option two.
the Germans are coming Wrote:Oh yeah, you use a different system! which pritty much shows how variational messuring units are...
But we all use "2" and "3". Different systems is meaningless to my argument. I don't care if its 3 liters or 3 gallons, I care about 3. If I look at 3 containers, each 1 liter of gasoline (or petrol, whatever you'd like), I see 3 containers. Now, only get the 3. I don't want the containers, I just want the 3. "Three containers?" No, just 3. Not only are we perceiving containers, but we're perceiving what the group has that is not physical, quantity. If I remove a container from the group, the quantity has changed.
However, this group is artificial. I made 3 containers and the group is in my mind. But it isn't always, which is my atom example. I did not create the atom (duh), but the atom has numerical requirements in order for it to retain identity. These are not in our head. These are in reality.
the Germans are coming Wrote:What makes you think that there is something that any civilisation on this planet would call an argument in (that) phrase...
That statement isn't an argument.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
