• 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?

Mojo said:
On second thoughts, let's think about your pie.

Take your pie, and cut it into halves A and B. You now have two pieces of pie which are subsets of the whole pie. Now cut half A into two again. The halves of piece A are not the same as piece B.
Click to expand...
So what, it's all still a subset of the whole pie, so long as it remains "in context" with the whole pie.
 
Mojo said:
No, it's a subset of the set of cigarettes in the pack.
Click to expand...
So what, what is one wolf compared to a pack of wolves? And, if it and the rest of the pack fell into a ravine? You would have a pack of wolves within the context of a ravine.
 
Iacchus said:
A package of cigarettes is a package of cigarettes, before you've done anything to them. Now, if it was meant for the cigarettes to remain in the box, and never be smoked -- for example, in the way some people carry a full pack of cigarettes around to prove that they've quit smoking -- you still have a full pack of cigarettes. ;)
Click to expand...

A package of cigarettes is not primal. It's an object assembled out of parts. A Pack of cigarettes is defined by its contents and empty without them. Remember a set can be a subset of itself. It is not a pack of cigarettes unless someone (or some machine) gathers up some already existing cigarettes and packages them. Sure, the individual cigarettes then become a subset of the assembled pack, but the pack has little if any identity beyond that assemblage. IF it had been meant for the cigarettes not to be used, then you'd always have a full pack, smokers would not buy them and the cigarette makers would go bust and your pet pack would acquire some new value, having lost its original intent, but the identiy and meaning of the pack would still be entirely dependent on its contents being there.

If God is omnipotent and complete and perfect, his creation cannot logically be a subset of himself unless it is either not a creation or not separable, as a subset must be.
 
Mercutio said:
Wrong. If what you were saying were true, you would be able to demonstrate that truth with either logic or evidence or both. The circular argument you gave here would be (as it is now) totally irrelevant, and it would still be circular. If this is the only "evidence" you have, then you have no evidence at all.

You are quite simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Can you prove that materialism is true any more than an idealist can prove idealism is true? So, by all means, tell me which line of reaoning is not circular?
 
Iacchus said:
So what, what is one wolf compared to a pack of wolves? And, if it and the rest of the pack fell into a ravine? You would have a pack of wolves within the context of a ravine.
Click to expand...
Or, to follow one of your earlier analogies (used for precisely the same purpose as this one), what if you cut one of the wolves in half?
 
Belz... said:
What in the blue hell are you talking about ?? Someone get a doctor!
Click to expand...
The fact is, you don't have to put wolves in a box in order to have a pack. The same thing goes for Cub Scouts, except I understand Michael Jackson had to give them up, because he was up to two packs a day!

:dl:
 
Mojo said:
Or, to follow one of your earlier analogies (used for precisely the same purpose as this one), what if you cut one of the wolves in half?
Click to expand...
Only if you wish to take it out of context. Now, if you were to take several parts of the wolf (not actually remove them) and referred to them in terms of parts of the whole, that would be okay.
 
Iacchus said:
Only if you wish to take it out of context. Now, if you were to take several parts of the wolf (not actually remove them) and referred to them in terms of parts of the whole, that would be okay.
Click to expand...
So wolves falling into a ravine is OK, but cutting them up isn't?
 
Mojo said:
Do you have any evidence to support this statement?
Click to expand...
Not outside of my ability to reason about it, just like you. This is why idealists in fact choose to be idealists -- and, justifiably so -- because materialism cannot be proven.
 
Iacchus said:
Can you prove that materialism is true any more than an idealist can prove idealism is true? So, by all means, tell me which line of reaoning is not circular?
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Actually, Belz, Iacchus is now using an argument he did not understand from a different thread in which he argued the opposite. I would have to disagree with you, and say that we cannot prove materialism true; it is based on axiomatic assumptions which are, indeed, assumed.

On the other hand, Iacchus's brand of idealism (he claims to be a dualist rather than an idealist) is every bit as much the product of axiomatic assumptions. And his dualism is internally flawed.

To answer Iacchus: You still have a flawed idea of what constitutes circularity. You can have circular attempts at proving either materialism or idealism, but neither philosophy in itself need be circular. So your question, as it stands, is meaningless. You would need to address a particular argument before I could tell you if it is circular. Thus far, if you want examples of circular arguments, you have a better than 90% chance of getting one by looking at any of your old arguments.
 
Mojo said:
So wolves falling into a ravine is OK, but cutting them up isn't?
Click to expand...
Depends on whether you throw the parts back into the ravine or not. ;) Thus allowing you to keep the contents of the ravine (like the box the cigarettes came in) in context.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom