• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Matter Really Exist?

Iacchus said:
And this is assuming you know God doesn't exist? Oh well, I should have guessed! ;)
Click to expand...
I don't see how you read that in what ID posted. "Not assuming god exists" is much much different from "assuming god doesn't exist". The first is an open-minded position, the second is not. The first leaves you open to examine evidence, the second leaves you in the same position you, Iacchus, are--scrambling to find evidence that fits your pre-existing assumption.
 
Iacchus said:
And this is assuming you know God doesn't exist? Oh well, I should have guessed! ;)
Click to expand...

Quote the contrary. Begin inquiring by admitting ignorance. "I know nothing." - Socrates. Inquire, explore, learn, accumulate knowledge, think critically. Come to a conclusion.

Go on, give it a whirl. That sort of reasoning has given us, amoung other things, the computer you're using to deny its validity.

Edit: Spelling
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
If you take a can, and a quantity of soup, you can make a set out of it. It is the set of things which are either soup or cans. To be a member or a subset of that set a thing must be either a can or soup or both.
Click to expand...
Really, and I don't see how this differs from anything that I've said. In fact that's exactly what I've said ...That the can of soup is the set, and the "can" and the "soup" are subsets of that.

The set "can of soup," being both, is a subset of this larger set. The can is not a subset of the can of soup, and the soup is not a subset of the can of soup.
Click to expand...
What larger set? And why should it make a difference, since I'm only speaking of the can of soup?
 
Iacchus said:
Really, and I don't see how this differs from anything that I've said. In fact that's exactly what I've said ...That the can of soup is the set, and the "can" and the "soup" are subsets of that.

What larger set? And why should it make a difference, since I'm not speaking of anything greater than the can of soup? Is it because I'm speaking of a "single" can of soup?
Click to expand...


::Wave:: Iacchus, I'm over here. Are you going to rebutt, or ignore the point?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Quote the contrary. Begin inquiring by admitting ignorance. "I know nothing." - Socrates. Inquire, explore, learn, accumulate knowledge, think critically. Come to a conclusion.

Go on, give it a whirl. That sort of reasoning has given us, amoung other things, the computer you're using to deny its validity.

Edit: Spelling
Click to expand...
So, then, at what point does one "begin" to know? Or, are you suggesting this is not possible?
 
Iacchus said:
So, then, at what point does one "begin" to know? Or, are you suggesting this is not possible?
Click to expand...

No conclusion in science or critical thinking is permenant. In the sense I think you mean, nothing is ever "known". Conclusions are drawn from observations. Conclusions are examined, tested and revised to fit and explain reality with higher degrees of accuracy.
 
Mercutio said:
I don't see how you read that in what ID posted. "Not assuming god exists" is much much different from "assuming god doesn't exist". The first is an open-minded position, the second is not. The first leaves you open to examine evidence, the second leaves you in the same position you, Iacchus, are--scrambling to find evidence that fits your pre-existing assumption.
Click to expand...
And why does he/she assume that it's merely an assumption on my part? Because they apparently know something I don't know? :confused:
 
ImaginalDisc said:
No conclusion in science or critical thinking is permenant. In the sense I think you mean, nothing is ever "known". Conclusions are drawn from observations. Conclusions are examined, tested and revised to fit and explain reality with higher degrees of accuracy.
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps you should stick with not knowing then and stop assuming so much.
 
Iacchus said:
And why does he/she assume that it's merely an assumption on my part? Because apparently they know something I don't know? :confused:
Click to expand...

Why do I think you're merely looking for support for your assumption? Could it perhaps be because you haven't once refuted evidence against your point with evidence, but with goal-post moving, and the masterful technique of putting words in quotations in order to reduce their meaning to something so bland and thin that posters have to ask you eight times what you mean by that, since you seem to be rufsing to search for appropriate words to suit your meaning.

I conclude that you presume the existance of this higher being, and will persist in this until you provide evidence to the contrary. That is, evidence that you have a sound line of reasoning which inexorably draws you to the conclusion that not only does god exist, but that he loves it when you use quotations.

Edit: Bah, spelling
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Well, perhaps you should stick with not knowing then and stop assuming so much.
Click to expand...

I have made no assumptions. Even if I had, that would be a case of the heaping pile of soot, crude oil and tar calling the eight-ball black.
 
Iacchus said:
And why does he/she assume that it's merely an assumption on my part?
Click to expand...
Because you are unable to support it, that's why. Or if you are able, you have refused to. In the absence of evidence or other support, your belief is nothing more or less than a faith-based assumption.

That's why.

You could, you realize, prove that it is not merely an assumption on your part, by providing the evidence that supports it. Thus far, all such attempts on your part have been either circular, or not supportive of your position.
 
Iacchus said:
Really, and I don't see how this differs from anything that I've said. In fact that's exactly what I've said ...That the can of soup is the set, and the "can" and the "soup" are subsets of that.

What larger set? And why should it make a difference, since I'm only speaking of the can of soup?
Click to expand...

No. Just no. You are completely, irretrievably, thoroughly and obstinately wrong. You do not understand at all.

The definition of a set is the definition of a property that all members of the set have in common. All members of a subset must also belong to the set. To be a member of the set "cans of soup" a thing must be a can of soup. A can is not soup and soup is not a can, therefore the set "cans of soup" cannot contain as subsets either empty cans or canless soup.
 
Yeah! Then it would be the set of cans-of-soup, empty-soup-cans, and canless-soup!

ROTFLMGDFAO ....
 
soup8qe.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom