(June 24, 2016 at 9:39 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: You can't define a possibility into a reality.

Possibility is defined by its contrary, necessity.

(June 23, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: You can't have a creator God without an infinite regress.

Mere assertion.

(June 23, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: ...morality comes from empathy for the wellbeing and suffering of conscious creatures.

Mere assertion.

(June 23, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Morality from a god would be a-moral, it's not a moral system at all it's just a system of law.

Straw man.

(June 23, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: Free your mind...

Use your mind.

These are all points I have substantiated earlier in this thread ad nausium.

(June 24, 2016 at 9:34 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Rather than restating your objection, which I obviously fully understand, please address my concern about different kinds of objects that have nothing else in common except their existence.

You haven't addressed the fact it's a completely separate question.

To address your concern, if all properties in common between objects are exactly the same then they're identical objects by definition.

(June 24, 2016 at 11:35 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 9:34 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Rather than restating your objection, which I obviously fully understand, please address my concern about different kinds of objects that have nothing else in common except their existence.

To address your concern, if all properties in common between objects are exactly the same then they're identical objects by definition.

That's the exact opposite of what i asked. What about different object that have no properties in common other than existence, like a bridge and a story?

What about them?

(June 24, 2016 at 12:08 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 11:35 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: To address your concern, if all properties in common between objects are exactly the same then they're identical objects by definition.

That's the exact opposite of what i asked. What about different object that have no properties in common other than existence, like a bridge and a story?

Oh you're right I did misread that.

I don't understand the concern? They're completely different objects, with completely different properties and the 'existence' they 'share in common isn't' a property, it just means they exist.

How many ontologists does it take to change a light bulb?

(June 24, 2016 at 3:24 pm)robvalue Wrote: How many ontologists does it take to change a light bulb?

None - they've invented torches

(June 24, 2016 at 3:24 pm)robvalue Wrote: How many ontologists does it take to change a light bulb?

Depends. Is it a greatest conceivable light bulb or the everyday kind? If it's the greatest conceivable kind, you wouldn't have to change it because it would necessarily be lit all the time in all possible worlds!

Cracking answers, I like it! Ontology humour! That must be a rare beast.

(June 24, 2016 at 3:24 pm)robvalue Wrote: How many ontologists does it take to change a light bulb?

However many you wish to define into existence using Jesusy Bullshittery Apogetics ™