(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.
