Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Mudhammam]

What form(s) would that be? The forms of "[insert random number]-ness"?

Why is that a problem?

I'm just asking for clarity. I don't know that it is, I'm just trying to understand what you mean by form. Do they go on for infinity? Because physical things are not infinitely divisible.

[Esquilax]

Hey, if you want to posit things beyond the physical universe then please, go right ahead and justify that statement with some evidence.

Having already shown that the whole of reality, the All, does not change because it is in full actuality, we must account for why the sensible bodies within reality do. The physical universe, taken as a whole, is one such sensible body that changes. Everyone agrees that something that exists only in potential cannot affect change since only things that actually exist can do anything. Thus no sensible body can come into being on its own. Nor can anything move from potentially being to its actuality except by something that already exists. Therefore since the physical universe continually comes into being, i.e. goes from potential to actuality, it must be subject to something other than itself and which already exists in full actuality.

And please don't just posit some nonsense argument from ignorance about how materialism can't explain X, therefore non-material reality. Or just assert a bunch of things. Please?

*Sigh*

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why is that a problem?

I'm just asking for clarity. I don't know that it is, I'm just trying to understand what you mean by form. Do they go on for infinity? Because physical things are not infinitely divisible.

Forms are not physical.

---

*Sigh*

I have shown by means of reason applied to experience a fact about reality. You can't face your imagined implications of that fact so you retreat into your meaningless mantra about 'assertions'.

[KevinM1]

Define and/or prove the All. And how it differs from the known universe.

[Surgenator]

Define and/or prove the All. And how it differs from the known universe.

Technically it is different from the known universe. It is possible to have an infinitely many different types of stuff (not just physical stuff) that will never interact with the physical stuff. Since we, being made of physical stuff, can never interact with this supposed other stuff, we can never prove or disprove other stuff exist. Thats where Occam's razor comes in and eliminates it. Or you can use the pragmatic approach (a favorite of mine), who gives a fuck if other stuff might exist if we can never know it.

[Esquilax]

I have shown by means of reason applied to experience a fact about reality. You can't face your imagined implications of that fact so you retreat into your meaningless mantra about 'assertions'.

Sorry, but you can't just demand that your assertion is a fact. And given that you made no attempt to justify anything in your last paragraph, or provide observations, you certainly can't say that you were working from experience, and hence from accurate reason, since reason requires observations... and you've never once provided even one to support your assertions.

I asked that you not simply demand we take you seriously because you said so for a reason, you know.

[Mudhammam]

Forms are not physical.

Right. But you also said...

what is conceived in the intellect partakes of the same form that is manifest in sensible bodies.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Forms are not physical.

Right. But you also said...

what is conceived in the intellect partakes of the same form that is manifest in sensible bodies.

Right. Forms manifest in sensible bodies to various degrees of perfection. By means of abstraction the intellect is able to conceive an idea of the form.

---

...provide observations, you certainly can't say that you were working from experience

Anyone can see that things preserve their identity throughout change. This the basic observation analysed by means of reason.

I don't know...maybe you haven't made any personal observations that things that exist or noticed any process of change. In either case you would have no content about which to reason.

[Mudhammam]

Right. Forms manifest in sensible bodies to various degrees of perfection. By means of abstraction the intellect is able to conceive an idea of the form.

You still haven't answered my question. So, in your view, the number of forms goes on for infinity but those "manifest in sensible bodies" are finite?

[Faith No More]

Having already shown that the whole of reality, the All, does not change because it is in full actuality, we must account for why the sensible bodies within reality do. The physical universe, taken as a whole, is one such sensible body that changes. Everyone agrees that something that exists only in potential cannot affect change since only things that actually exist can do anything. Thus no sensible body can come into being on its own. Nor can anything move from potentially being to its actuality except by something that already exists. Therefore since the physical universe continually comes into being, i.e. goes from potential to actuality, it must be subject to something other than itself and which already exists in full actuality.

Isn't the use of the term "body," especially when trying to understand causality, inadequate and outdated? We now know that these "bodies" are really illusory manifestations of quantum particles linked together. When observed individually, these particles defy our understanding of cause and effect, and any attempt to classify and understand reality and its principles that doesn't take into account this behavior on the quantum scale is insufficient.