(September 18, 2026 at 11:24 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I’m not doing my due diligence because you don’t know shit?

You won't even listen to theology professors who admit problems in Christian theology.
I guess they don't know shit either? No one knows shit but you? Got it.

I agree with them. Christianity is an irrational mess. The trouble is that your “Christianity” is their mess plus your mess.

(September 18, 2026 at 11:40 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I agree with them.  Christianity is an irrational mess.  The trouble is that your “Christianity” is their mess plus your mess.

That doesn't sound very consistent.  Earlier you said I was hallucinating theological problems.  Now you call the whole thing an irrational mess.

Of course you haven't managed to identify anything irrational, at least not in my theology.

(September 17, 2026 at 1:47 pm)Jal Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 12:20 pm)Angrboda Wrote: My post had nothing to do with self-locomotion so your claim that your reply concerning self-locomotion was cogent is simply false.

I didn't reference self-locomotion at all, so in replying about self-locomotion you werre just hallucinating something that you thought I'd said.

Stop making shit up about me opining about self-locomotion when I did nothing of the sort.  Is lies and hypocrisy all that you are?

You said, "The point is that you are explicitly allowing yourself a move, assuming, that you are imposing as a constraint upon the determinist.'"  I honestly thought you were talking about self-locomotion. My apologies.

Other than that, you again divest me of any basis for intangible-pushes-tangible complaint.  And here again I reply it's a tautology.
- The very definition of tangible matter is "collision-al substance" (participatory in physical impacts).
-  The very definition of intangible reality is non-collision-ality (non-participatory in physical impacts).
Therefore an intangible will have no physical impact on the tangible, as I earlier tried to illustrate by the hypothetically intangible golf club attempting to impact a golf ball.

Your original formulation was quite different from the formulation that you have shifted to now. To wit:

(September 1, 2026 at 1:17 pm)Jal Wrote: Axiom: the intangible cannot impact the tangible.   

As already noted, the definitions of tangible and intangible concern our ability to touch the thing. That is one principle. And now you have posited a principle that emphasizes collidability, in line with your focus on insisting things behave like billiard balls and physically contact to compel motion. But this is not a variation on the first principle you gave, but a sub-class of it. It's true enough for collisionable objects but the initial principle did not focus solely on billiard-ball-like interactions but simply one thing affecting another thing. And the reason for the disconnect is simple.

Invisible forces do not act by physical interaction, by any billiard-ball-like direct contact imparting force to another object. So while your revised principle is true enough on its own, it does not cover intangible objects whose interaction with other things is without contact, totally unlike billiard balls interacting. So the intangible includes a class of things which are nowhere covered in your revised principle as that principle only deals with physical contact imparting force. But this is not the way forces like gravity and the strong nuclear force work. They impart force without physical contact. Thus this revised principle of your deals with a hypothetical class of intangibles whose impartation of force occurs through physical contact. Thus your intangibles are not the same thing as the intangibles under discussion and are only covered by the original principle.

Since your revised principle having to do with collisions is irrelevant to them, as they are not imparting force through contact, tautological though it is, it is a red herring of sorts, a strawman that is suggesting that the intangibles in question can only impart force by contact. But this is not what their proponents are suggesting, so it is a misrepresentation of the question. It is not, can an intangible impart force via a collision, but rather can an intangible impart force without collision, as that is how these intangible forces operate.

Thus while your statement is tautologically true, that is of no support for the position that gravity and such cannot impart force to the tangible as your tautology doesn't forbid or allow the contactless operation of this forces. So while true enough in its domain, it is irrelevant to the intangibles in question. For that we must look to the original form of the principle, and that is not a tautology but a mere, arbitrary assertion. Thus it is not evidenced or supported, and your revised principle is a red herring having nothing to do with the actual case.

The same problem infects your analogy in imaging that the intangible forces operate through contact. But this is not the way these forces impart force. Thus the analogy is completely disanalogous.

(September 17, 2026 at 1:47 pm)Jal Wrote: This whole analysis is just as tautological as insisting that a square has four sides. So please stop saying that I have afforded no evidence or proof.

As noted above, your tautology has nothing to do with the actual case and is nothing more than a straw man. Your tilting at windmills of your own creation tells us nothing about the actual case and are quite irrelevant. They neither support nor disaffirm the actual case and so they are mute in terms of providing evidence or support. Thus I have correctly identified that you have not provided any evidence or support and will continue to do so until you provide actual support and evidence relevant to the case. This tautology of yours is nothing but a worthless digression which is silent on the question at issue.

(September 18, 2026 at 11:55 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(September 17, 2026 at 1:47 pm)Jal Wrote: You said, "The point is that you are explicitly allowing yourself a move, assuming, that you are imposing as a constraint upon the determinist.'"  I honestly thought you were talking about self-locomotion. My apologies.

Other than that, you again divest me of any basis for intangible-pushes-tangible complaint.  And here again I reply it's a tautology.
- The very definition of tangible matter is "collision-al substance" (participatory in physical impacts).
-  The very definition of intangible reality is non-collision-ality (non-participatory in physical impacts).
Therefore an intangible will have no physical impact on the tangible, as I earlier tried to illustrate by the hypothetically intangible golf club attempting to impact a golf ball.

Your original formulation was quite different from the formulation that you have shifted to now.  To wit:

(September 1, 2026 at 1:17 pm)Jal Wrote: Axiom: the intangible cannot impact the tangible.   

As already noted, the definitions of tangible and intangible concern our ability to touch the thing.   That is one principle.  And now you have posited a principle that emphasizes collidability, in line with your focus on insisting things behave like billiard balls and physically contact to compel motion.  But this is not a variation on the first principle you gave, but a sub-class of it.  It's true enough for collisionable objects but the initial principle did not focus solely on billiard-ball-like interactions but simply one thing affecting another thing.  And the reason for the disconnect is simple.  

Invisible forces do not act by physical interaction, by any billiard-ball-like direct contact imparting force to another object.  So while your revised principle is true enough on its own, it does not cover intangible objects whose interaction with other things is without contact, totally unlike billiard balls interacting.  So the intangible includes a class of things which are nowhere covered in your revised principle as that principle only deals with physical contact imparting force.  But this is not the way forces like gravity and the strong nuclear force work.  They impart force without physical contact.  Thus this revised principle of your deals with a hypothetical class of intangibles whose impartation of force occurs through physical contact.  Thus your intangibles are not the same thing as the intangibles under discussion and are only covered by the original principle.  

Since your revised principle having to do with collisions is irrelevant to them, as they are not imparting force through contact, tautological though it is, it is a red herring of sorts, a strawman that is suggesting that the intangibles in question can only impart force by contact.  But this is not what their proponents are suggesting, so it is a misrepresentation of the question.  It is not, can an intangible impart force via a collision, but rather can an intangible impart force without collision, as that is how these intangible forces operate.  

Thus while your statement is tautologically true, that is of no support for the position that gravity and such cannot impart force to the tangible as your tautology doesn't forbid or allow the contactless operation of this forces.  So while true enough in its domain, it is irrelevant to the intangibles in question.   For that we must look to the original form of the principle, and that is not a tautology but a mere, arbitrary assertion.  Thus it is not evidenced or supported, and your revised principle is a red herring having nothing to do with the actual case.

The same problem infects your analogy in imaging that the intangible forces operate through contact.  But this is not the way these forces impart force.  Thus the analogy is completely disanalogous.

(September 17, 2026 at 1:47 pm)Jal Wrote: This whole analysis is just as tautological as insisting that a square has four sides. So please stop saying that I have afforded no evidence or proof.

As noted above, your tautology has nothing to do with the actual case and is nothing more than a straw man.  Your tilting at windmills of your own creation tells us nothing about the actual case and are quite irrelevant.  They neither support nor disaffirm the actual case and so they are mute in terms of providing evidence or support.  Thus I have correctly identified that you have not provided any evidence or support and will continue to do so until you provide actual support and evidence relevant to the case.  This tautology of yours is nothing but a worthless digression which is silent on the question at issue.

Intangible fields imparting forces to tangible matter through non-contact.  Yeah right. (And they accuse me of being the one to believe in the magical/supernatural). The definitions and tautologies should apprise you that such is logically incoherent. You see, truth is what it is. It doesn't frankly care that you WANT to believe everything that your science professors taught. Some of it just isn't true.   This is where definitions and tautologies can be quite handy - they can be a lighthouse when navigating possible nonsense.

I stand by the tautology. An intangible reality won't push a tangible one.
If a sphere of (allegedly) intangible reality manages to push or pull a tangible mass, you'll need to revise the allegation. That sphere is tangible.

(September 18, 2026 at 11:43 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 11:40 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I agree with them.  Christianity is an irrational mess.  The trouble is that your “Christianity” is their mess plus your mess.

That doesn't sound very consistent.  Earlier you said I was hallucinating theological problems.  Now you call the whole thing an irrational mess.

Two things can be true. From my pov it’s all pointless. You guys are bickering over christs eye color in so many words when the whole notion of Christ is intellectually vacuous and morally irredeemable.

Funnily enough, the guy who invented Christianity warned you about this at the very start. As soon as you start thinking like The Greeks there’s going to be trouble.

(September 18, 2026 at 12:11 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 11:43 am)Jal Wrote: That doesn't sound very consistent.  Earlier you said I was hallucinating theological problems.  Now you call the whole thing an irrational mess.

Two things can be true.  From my pov it’s all pointless.  You guys are bickering over christs eye color in so many words when the whole notion of Christ is intellectually vacuous and morally irredeemable.

Funnily enough, the guy who invented Christianity warned you about this at the very start.  As soon as you start thinking like The Greeks there’s going to be trouble.

Maybe I can't expect you to prove your accusations. But shouldn't you at least explain them?  Most of the time, I have no idea what you're referring to.

Vicarious redemption, as an idea quite independent of whether or not gods exist and what their attributes or natures are, makes no sense and is evil.

How many dead Palestinians should it take to clear my unpaid parking tickets, in your estimation?

(September 18, 2026 at 10:19 am)Jal Wrote:

(September 18, 2026 at 10:14 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Still gibberish in a panpsychic world Jal.  If gibberish is a problem for your superstitious beliefs…I’ve got some bad news for you….

Superstitious? You're a liar. I have defined Yahweh as simply one of us - the first of us to evolve. He has no magical powers, no supernatural abilities, as I have defined Him.

Yet more than once, you've tried to associate my views to supernatural magic. Which makes you a bald-faced liar.

Superstition (n)

1. [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.88)]irrational belief usually founded on ignorance or fear and characterized by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, etc[/color]
   
   
2. [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.88)]a notion, act or ritual that derives from such belief[/color]
   
   
3. [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.88)]any irrational belief, esp with regard to the unknown[/color]
   

The court finds you guilty as charged and sentences you to read ‘Science for Kids.’

Boru