Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Will Bouwman]

Yep.

[henry quirk]

No. It's a bit like saying you understand baseball because you know that some guy has to swing a bat.

And yet, a man swinging a bat is the heart of the game. Without that man swinging that bat: you ain't got baseball.

Anyway...

Thanks for your time.

[Will Bouwman]

Aw.

Got the feelin' I'm gettin' brushed off.

meh

[henry quirk]

Aw.

Got the feelin' I'm gettin' brushed off.

meh

[bahman]

Yep.

Cool. So think of a change in a substance (by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties that define the formation of the substance) like a falling apple. The state (by state I mean the set of properties) of the substance changes if the substance is subject to change. Let's focus on consecutive states and call them X and Y. X and Y cannot lay on the same point in time since otherwise they are simultaneous and there cannot be any change. Therefore, X and Y must lay on two points of time separated by a gap. But the substance in X cannot possibly cause the substance in Y because of the gap. Therefore there must exist another substance that causes the substance in Y that I call the mind. The mind is a changeless substance with the ability to experience and cause as well (I can show these but before that let's see if we could agree on what it is stated so far).

[Immanuel Can]

"Existence" requires the distinction of no less than two distinct items or entities.

Not in the way you argue for.

It has nothing to do with "the way I argue for." It has to do with simple good sense.

Let's suppose I hand you a piece of white paper. I say, "A dot exists somewhere on this paper; can you find it?"

And if I can't, does the paper therefore not exist?

The only way the paper exists is if there is something not-paper. Otherwise, nothing can "exist."

This is an old realization, Will. The Eastern Traditions figured this out long ago. The problem with any monism -- and in their case, it was Pantheism -- is that if everything is one thing, then nothing can exist. Existence itself ceases to mean anything.

So is the argument to hard for you, Will, or are you simply trying to avoid the obvious problem? If all is "idea," then nothing exists which is not "idea," and then the very concept of "idea" no longer has any meaning. What does it mean to predicate that something "is an idea," when everything "is an idea"? It ceases to be any predication at all.

Thus Idealism is inherently self-defeating.

I have already told you that I am not committed to idealism.

So why defend it? If it isn't even plausibly true, and can't be made coherent, as you see is the case, why plug for it anyway?

[FlashDangerpants]

Everything is contained in a universe. Oh shit, only one universe? Nooooo!

And that is how Immanuel Can proved here is no universe. Well done everyone, we can wrap that production up now, it's all been solved, reality was just a clerical error.

[Will Bouwman]

...think of a change in a substance (by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties that define the formation of the substance) like a falling apple.

Is falling part of a falling apple's substance in your view?

[Will Bouwman]

"Existence" requires the distinction of no less than two distinct items or entities.

Not in the way you argue for.

It has nothing to do with "the way I argue for." It has to do with simple good sense.

Descartes saw you coming. These are the opening words to the Discourse on Method:

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm

It's a shame that joke goes over the heads of those who most need to get it.

Let's suppose I hand you a piece of white paper. I say, "A dot exists somewhere on this paper; can you find it?"

And if I can't, does the paper therefore not exist?

The only way the paper exists is if there is something not-paper. Otherwise, nothing can "exist."
This is an old realization, Will.

So you don't understand contemporary quantum field theory. This might help: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

[Immanuel Can]

And if I can't, does the paper therefore not exist?

The only way the paper exists is if there is something not-paper. Otherwise, nothing can "exist."
This is an old realization, Will.

So you don't understand contemporary quantum field theory.

Well, somebody doesn't understand something. On that, I guess we can agree.

[Will Bouwman]

The only way the paper exists is if there is something not-paper. Otherwise, nothing can "exist."
This is an old realization, Will.

What else has to exist in order that your god exist?

So you don't understand contemporary quantum field theory.

Well, somebody doesn't understand something. On that, I guess we can agree.

Absolutely. There isn't anyone alive who understands everything. The point is that one of your areas of weakness is quantum field theory, which we can add to western philosophy:

The Eastern Traditions figured this out long ago. The problem with any monism -- and in their case, it was Pantheism -- is that if everything is one thing, then nothing can exist.

I haven't studied the "Eastern Traditions" in any depth, so I don't really understand them. In the western tradition, the "realization" that there had to be more than one thing was a response to the monism of Parmenides by pluralists like Anaxagoras and Empedocles. If by "realization" you mean what I mean by realisation, then you don't understand that monism, dualism and pluralism are all hypotheses that can be supported by exactly the same evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

The only way the paper exists is if there is something not-paper. Otherwise, nothing can "exist."
This is an old realization, Will.

What else has to exist in order that your god exist?

It's not a "god" problem, Will, unless one posits that God-physical world is a monistic entity: i.e. that "all is god," as the Eastern Traditions so often hold, and as Pantheism holds. And a little foray into Trinitarian Theology will disabuse you of the mistake, too.

...you don't understand that monism, dualism and pluralism are all hypotheses that can be supported by exactly the same evidence.

No, I don't agree that that is the case. It's not that I don't understand; I understand what is being asserted, and find it implausible. That's quite different.

The only way you're going to get the result you're describing is by arbitrarily limiting what will be accepted as evidence to the things that cannot differentiate between the various views. Then, yes, you'll get same evidence, any conclusion. But once you add in things like "mind," you're not going to get Physicalism. And you don't gratuitiously suppose that your normal experiences are mere illusions, you're not going to get Mysticisms of various kinds. And once you do some conceptual analysis, and notice what Idealism presuppositionally requires, you're not going to get Idealism anymore, because it reveals itself as incoherent.

So what will you accept as evidence? That's going to be a decision one makes presuppositionally, based on one's suppositions about ontology, and it's going to set the possible parameters of the epistemology that will produce the results.

[Will Bouwman]

The only way the paper exists is if there is something not-paper. Otherwise, nothing can "exist."
This is an old realization, Will.

What else has to exist in order that your god exist?

It's not a "god" problem, Will, unless one posits that God-physical world is a monistic entity...

So before God created the universe, what not-god existed without which God would have been nothing?

So what will you accept as evidence? That's going to be a decision one makes presuppositionally, based on one's suppositions about ontology, and it's going to set the possible parameters of the epistemology that will produce the results.

As I said:

Right, now we're getting somewhere. One chooses one's epistemological route, doesn't one?

[Immanuel Can]

So before God created the universe, what not-god existed without which God would have been nothing?

Time to study Trinitarian Theology, Will.

So what will you accept as evidence? That's going to be a decision one makes presuppositionally, based on one's suppositions about ontology, and it's going to set the possible parameters of the epistemology that will produce the results.

As I said:

Right, now we're getting somewhere. One chooses one's epistemological route, doesn't one?

I don't think we're "getting" quite where you might hope. I've been saying that for a long while. I believe my words were "ontology precedes epistemology," or something very similar.

But the problem is that not all epistemological strategies are equal. For example, if one presuppositionally insists that none of the relevant evidence from things like mind, consciousness, rationality, identity, experience, morality, and so on is allowed to count, then sure, one is going to end up at Physicalism. But it's the fact of having ruled as "inadmissible" all evidence to the contrary before "the court" even opened that's going to guarantee that convinction. That's not a good epistemological strategy. And Idealism, like Physicalism, has its own form of ruling out all the important evidence before the alleged "trial" is even allowed to commence. But at the end of the day, the argument for Idealism is even worse than that for Physicalism: because it really amounts to "You can't prove that Idealism isn't how things are (because nothing from the external world, or other human experience, or social practice, or physical science, or even rational consistency is allowed to count) therefore, Idealism is how things are." That's a truly wretched way to reason, of course, but it's also difficult to defeat if Idealism is suppositionally allowed to rule out all the relevant evidence before all court even opens.

[Harbal]

Time to study Trinitarian Theology, Will.

That's fascinating; it would never have occurred to me that there could be such a time.