(June 7, 2016 at 1:26 am)madog Wrote:Absent any demonsration I can understand considering the initial observation trivial. And yet it is the obviousness of it that gives its power. It puzzles me that something so readily apparent meets with such resistance. Quibbling over the exclusionary qualifier, only, is just a diversion since out of 4 possible options, two are irrelevant and the one remaining is incoherent:(June 6, 2016 at 11:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So, madog, you agree with the observation that only actual things can cause change?
Are you trying to play a word game with me? I have been very clear with you .... "only" implies it can't be something else .... I never state something is not possible only that there are varying degrees of likelihood.
If something is trivial, trivial evidence is usually sufficient, but when something has important consequences the evidence must be more substantial.
I agree with the term "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ....
Something that actually exists can cause change and does.(the observation)
Something that actually exists could cause change but does not. (Irrelevant)
Something that doesnt actually exist could cause change but does not (irrelevant)
Something that doesn't actually exist can cause change and does (incoherent).
If all possibilities are logically exhausted then my use of 'only' is justified. There really isn't any way to weasel out of it. Not even quantum mechanics will save you. Nothing does not exist.