What is "FAITH"

[genkaus]

As for our machine analogy, inertia, the stuff that is keeping our unbreakable metal fragments together, is weak, and is not an unbreakable joinage. Hence, the machine can be broken.

Inertia is not any sort of "stuff". There is no "joinage". Anything that can be considered as "joinage" is also made of unbreakable material. And yet, the machine can be broken.

A whole of something is the total of all its parts.

That would be the fallacy of composition.

If all its parts are blue, the whole will be blue.

Wrong.
Drops of water are colorless.
A body of water (lake/pool/ocean) is entirely made of drops of water.
Therefore, all bodies of water are colorless - yeah, not so much.

Atoms are invisible to the naked eye.
Everything is wholly made of atoms.
Therefore, everything should be invisible to the naked eye - dammit, missed again.

If all its parts are strong except one, the whole is only as strong as its weakest link.

It can, however, be weaker than the weakest link.

[Consilius]

MFM:
http://www.volokh.com/2009/03/11/tinkerbell-returns/
If every piece of a machine is strong, will that make it weak?
And you didn't explain why that second quote of mine is wrong.

[Walking Void]

MFM:
http://www.volokh.com/2009/03/11/tinkerbell-returns/
If every piece of a machine is strong, will that make it weak?
And you didn't explain why that second quote of mine is wrong.

What exactly do You mean by strong? Resistant to trauma?

As in, if I pulled or pushed an object, it will not misshape (change its physical form).

[Consilius]

Inertia is not any sort of "stuff". There is no "joinage". Anything that can be considered as "joinage" is also made of unbreakable material. And yet, the machine can be broken.

The machine can be broken because the inertia can be broken.

Wrong.
Drops of water are colorless.
A body of water (lake/pool/ocean) is entirely made of drops of water.
Therefore, all bodies of water are colorless - yeah, not so much.

Atoms are invisible to the naked eye.
Everything is wholly made of atoms.
Therefore, everything should be invisible to the naked eye - dammit, missed again.

Water is not intrinsically blue. The colorless attribute of water does not change. It's only an illusion created by light, and not a property of the water body. If the lighting is changed, so does the water's color. The attribute is not definite.
The attributes of the atoms are not invisibility and visibility. They are small and big, which are subjective terms. They are not opposites.

---

MFM:
http://www.volokh.com/2009/03/11/tinkerbell-returns/
If every piece of a machine is strong, will that make it weak?
And you didn't explain why that second quote of mine is wrong.

What exactly do You mean by strong? Resistant to trauma?

As in, if I pulled or pushed an object, it will not misshape (change its physical form).

Strong as in unable to be broken.

[genkaus]

If every piece of a machine is strong, will that make it weak?

It could. Depends upon how they are put together.

A few more examples of compositional fallacy - because its goddang fun.

Every word, phrase and sentence in your post has meaning.
Your post is entirely made up of words, phrases and sentences.
Therefore, your post is meaningful - yeah, you wish.

Sodium Chloride is completely made up of elements Sodium and Chloride.
These elements are highly reactive and toxic to humans.
Therefore, sodium chloride is also highly reactive and toxic to humans - that doesn't sound right.

[Walking Void]

What exactly do You mean by strong? Resistant to trauma?

As in, if I pulled or pushed an object, it will not misshape (change its physical form).

Strong as in unable to be broken.

Such a property is naught.

[genkaus]

The machine can be broken because the inertia can be broken.

Inertia can be broken - that's the first I'm hearing of it.

Water is not intrinsically blue. The colorless attribute of water does not change. It's only an illusion created by light, and not a property of the water body. If the lighting is changed, so does the water's color. The attribute is not definite.

If it has color, then its colorless attribute has changed.

The attributes of the atoms are not invisibility and visibility. They are small and big, which are subjective terms. They are not opposites.

Small and big are not opposite? Which school did you do to?

Regardless, the point that the whole is different than simply the sum of its parts - that it can have aspects not found in any of its parts or have aspects found in every part missing - still stands. All your rationalizations and evasions about "how" it becomes different wouldn't change the fact that it is - in fact - different.

[Walking Void]

Consilius, is it illegal to break someone's inertia, or any inertia for that matter? The answer is yes. Very illegal.

[Consilius]

If every piece of a machine is strong, will that make it weak?

It could. Depends upon how they are put together.

A few more examples of compositional fallacy - because its goddang fun.

Every word, phrase and sentence in your post has meaning.
Your post is entirely made up of words, phrases and sentences.
Therefore, your post is meaningful - yeah, you wish.

Sodium Chloride is completely made up of elements Sodium and Chloride.
These elements are highly reactive and toxic to humans.
Therefore, sodium chloride is also highly reactive and toxic to humans - that doesn't sound right.

If the connections between the parts are weak, the machine becomes weak.
Sodium chloride is a chemical compound and not a mixture. The parts do not retain their attributes. Neither sodium nor chloride can be picked out in their original form.

---

If it has color, then its colorless attribute has changed.

The attributes of the atoms are not invisibility and visibility. They are small and big, which are subjective terms. They are not opposites.

Small and big are not opposite? Which school did you do to?

Regardless, the point that the whole is different than simply the sum of its parts - that it can have aspects not found in any of its parts or have aspects found in every part missing - still stands. All your rationalizations and evasions about "how" it becomes different wouldn't change the fact that it is - in fact - different.

Bodies of water appear to have changed their attribute of colorlessness because of an outside influence—light. Simply being in one place does not make clear water turn blue. It needs light to do it, which may or may not be present in a particular state. Being in a dark place does not change the color of a white table.
The Earth is small to the universe. The Earth is big to you. You can't be ultimately one way or the other.
Oxygen is colorless to me. Oxygen is colorless to a deer. Oxygen is colorless to Napoleon.

[genkaus]

If the connections between the parts are weak, the machine becomes weak.

And if there are no connections?

Sodium chloride is a chemical compound and not a mixture. The parts do not retain their attributes. Neither sodium nor chloride can be picked out in their original form.

What are you saying? That once the parts become part of the whole the whole does not display attributes of the parts? Good, we agree then.

Bodies of water appear to have changed their attribute of colorlessness because of an outside influence—light. Simply being in one place does not make clear water turn blue. It needs light to do it, which may or may not be present in a particular state. Being in a dark place does not change the color of a white table.

The element of light is present when we consider the parts as well. The very light under which the drops of water are colorless, the whole is blue. Sorry, try again.

The Earth is small to the universe. The Earth is big to you. You can't be ultimately one way or the other.
Oxygen is colorless to me. Oxygen is colorless to a deer. Oxygen is colorless to Napoleon.

The atoms are invisible to me. The atoms are invisible to a deer. The atoms are invisible to Napoleon.