(July 20, 2013 at 4:25 am)Consilius Wrote: Light cannot pass through an apple. And apples do not become redder when their skins are thicker.
Unlike an apple, water is not a solid blue. As its depth increases, the light passing through it reflects more blue.

So what? Its still the water that is blue. Like I've said many times already, it doesn't matter how it becomes blue, what matter is it is blue while none of its parts are.

(July 20, 2013 at 4:34 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 20, 2013 at 4:25 am)Consilius Wrote: Light cannot pass through an apple. And apples do not become redder when their skins are thicker.
Unlike an apple, water is not a solid blue. As its depth increases, the light passing through it reflects more blue.

So what? Its still the water that is blue. Like I've said many times already, it doesn't matter how it becomes blue, what matter is it is blue while none of its parts are.

Correct. Water actually is intrinsically blue. It's not an illusion.

Still, one more problem.
An apple, under white light, is red.
Water, under white light, is blue? Not exactly. If the water is deep enough, yes, and, depending on how deep the water is, some samples of water are bluer than others. To say 'water is blue' is an assumption based on certain samples of water. If we have a shallow pool, the water remains colorless.

This isn't a good example of the whole being different from the parts because it is not a definite attribute of a particular whole.
It would be if you could say, "When water comes together, is becomes 90% blue."
What we have is, "When enough water is arranged deep enough, it becomes a particular shade of blue based on how deep it is."
That would be like saying, "Bricks are short, but when they are piled on top of one another, they become tall."

(July 20, 2013 at 10:40 pm)Consilius Wrote: Still, one more problem.
An apple, under white light, is red.
Water, under white light, is blue? Not exactly. If the water is deep enough, yes, and, depending on how deep the water is, some samples of water are bluer than others. To say 'water is blue' is an assumption based on certain samples of water. If we have a shallow pool, the water remains colorless.

This isn't a good example of the whole being different from the parts because it is not a definite attribute of a particular whole.
It would be if you could say, "When water comes together, is becomes 90% blue."
What we have is, "When enough water is arranged deep enough, it becomes a particular shade of blue based on how deep it is."
That would be like saying, "Bricks are short, but when they are piled on top of one another, they become tall."

Your unending stupidity is getting a bit tiring. You have given no new arguments but are simply parroting the same thing over and over again without even realizing that it does nothing to undermine the facts.

So, let's keep going, shall we?

The pool, under white light, is blue. The water is not. A good example of whole not having attributes of its parts.

Bricks are short. Wall made of bricks is not. Another good example of whole not having attributes of its parts.

Salt not sharing the attributes of sodium or chlorine - another good example.

A machine made of unbreakable parts is breakable - another good example.

If you can't even recognize a simple and obvious logical fallacy,how do you expect to engage in a rational debate? Or if you have recognized it and are simply repeating the same pointless evasions over and over again simply yo avoid admitting that you're wrong - again, what's the point of debate?

You are using the fallacy of composition to justify that universe has a cause. You assume that everything within it is caused - not necessarily true and certainly not true for all aspects - which means universe itself was caused. That is a fallacy of composition. It is known and accepted. And rather than acknowledging that well-known fact, you have led this thread into a long-winded pointless side-debate by inanely repeating what causes water to be blue.

But then, you are the one trying to prove that the universe had a cause. If you want to waste your time in side-debates - I'll humor you. And since you are simply repeating what you've said many times already - I'll do the same.

Under white light, water is colorless. Under white light a pool - which is a body of water made entirely of water - is blue. The whole does not have the attributes of parts. Ergo, fallacy of composition.

Now, go ahead and tell me once more exactly why the pool is blue.

(July 20, 2013 at 10:40 pm)Consilius Wrote: Still, one more problem.
An apple, under white light, is red.
Water, under white light, is blue? Not exactly. If the water is deep enough, yes, and, depending on how deep the water is, some samples of water are bluer than others. To say 'water is blue' is an assumption based on certain samples of water. If we have a shallow pool, the water remains colorless.

This isn't a good example of the whole being different from the parts because it is not a definite attribute of a particular whole.
It would be if you could say, "When water comes together, is becomes 90% blue."
What we have is, "When enough water is arranged deep enough, it becomes a particular shade of blue based on how deep it is."
That would be like saying, "Bricks are short, but when they are piled on top of one another, they become tall."

Consilius, comrade, it is easier to end this charade by agreeing that water (any volume of it) is only slightly blue. Pale blue. It is incredibly transparent and weakly reflective of blue light while strongly reflective of white light. Is this fine?

(July 20, 2013 at 6:54 am)MikeTheInfidel Wrote: Correct. Water actually is intrinsically blue. It's not an illusion.

Thanks, dude.

(July 21, 2013 at 3:44 am)genkaus Wrote: Your unending stupidity is getting a bit tiring. You have given no new arguments but are simply parroting the same thing over and over again without even realizing that it does nothing to undermine the facts.

So, let's keep going, shall we?

The pool, under white light, is blue. The water is not. A good example of whole not having attributes of its parts.

Bricks are short. Wall made of bricks is not. Another good example of whole not having attributes of its parts.

Salt not sharing the attributes of sodium or chlorine - another good example.

A machine made of unbreakable parts is breakable - another good example.

It's funny how I'm the parrot. I get an insult and then you assert where you think you're right. Again.
The 'whole is the same as its parts' only makes sense when the attribute in question is absolute. 'Small', 'tall', 'short', and 'large' are all matters of perspective. The brick thing makes no sense.
The argument also has no weight when the grouping of the composite parts does not affect the whole. Water is blue because its deep, an insescapable part of being in a lake. Sodium and chlorine also compromise their attributes in salt because of electron exchange. An uncaused universe made of caused things can't exist unless there is a reason for it to be.
If our unbreakable machine does not have its parts infallibly connected, these joints will become breakable and will break. Inertia is also a weak method of keeping machine parts together, because inertia can be broken.

(July 22, 2013 at 5:41 am)Consilius Wrote: It's funny how I'm the parrot. I get an insult and then you assert where you think you're right. Again.
The 'whole is the same as its parts' only makes sense when the attribute in question is absolute. 'Small', 'tall', 'short', and 'large' are all matters of perspective. The brick thing makes no sense.
The argument also has no weight when the grouping of the composite parts does not affect the whole. Water is blue because its deep, an insescapable part of being in a lake. Sodium and chlorine also compromise their attributes in salt because of electron exchange. An uncaused universe made of caused things can't exist unless there is a reason for it to be.
If our unbreakable machine does not have its parts infallibly connected, these joints will become breakable and will break. Inertia is also a weak method of keeping machine parts together, because inertia can be broken.

As long as you keep repeating your mistake, I'll keep correcting you.

The 'whole is same as parts' doesnt make sense even if the attribute in question is absolute. And you are the one who brought up the brick.
And the grouping of composite parts need affect the whole - that is the crux of this discussion. And the same way that water is colorless, while the lake is blue or that the attributes of sodium and chlorine are not present in the salt, an uncaused universe can be made of caused things.

As for the unbreakable machine - once again you are reinforcing my point. Something made of unbreakable pars can be breakable. The fallacy of composition applies in all examples. This discussion cannot go any further until you see your error.

How are you supporting the idea if an uncaused universe genakaus? Both caused and uncaused could involve a God I'd think.

Absolutely could. I've always enjoyed the idea of a god just happening upon a universe it didn't create - and saying "hey, lookie here, wonder what I can do with this?".

Plenty could be explained away with such a pedestrian god.