What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 509
#451
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting that "spirit" is composed of energy ?
No. I am suggesting it spirit is different from anything material, as the word implies, and it has the ability to interact with what is more fundamentally in things, namely what they are and not what they are made of.
#452
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
No. I am suggesting it spirit is different from anything material, as the word implies, and it has the ability to interact with what is more fundamentally in things, namely what they are and not what they are made of.
ok, the mechanism one level below the mechanism

sure

but the question remains

is the mechanism of "spirit" influenced by its design (fundamental nature) ?

and

is the mechanism of "spirit" influenced by its experiences ?
#453
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
is the mechanism of "spirit" influenced by its design (fundamental nature) ?
It is not influenced by its design. It does what it is designed to do. There is  difference to act according to what you are and to act because of an outside influence. Different origins of action.

is the mechanism of "spirit" influenced by its experiences ?
It is not in its design to have experiances. Experiances are for the body. They originate in the senses and then the brain produces an image which the soul, by design, takes unto itself to produce understanding. That is not the same as experiance.
#454
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
It is not influenced by its design. It does what it is designed to do. There is  difference to act according to what you are and to act because of an outside influence. Different origins of action.

(IFF) OOC designed "spirit" (AND) "spirit" does what it is designed to do (THEN) "spirit" is controlled by OOC
#455
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
 takes unto itself to produce understanding. That is not the same as experiance.
"soul" does never learns from experience

but it does learn by osmosis


try this,

does "soul" accumulate data ?
#456
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
does "soul" accumulate data ?
The soul makes data (if you want to use that word).
#457
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) OOC designed "spirit" (AND) "spirit" does what it is designed to do (THEN) "spirit" is controlled by OOC
That is a fallacy
To design does not mean it necessaily controls. 

All you are trying to do is make the original IF-THEN syllogism fit the philosophy I use, which I have said from the beginning isincompatible with the philosophy I use.

#458
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
(IFF) OOC designed "spirit" (AND) "spirit" does what it is designed to do (THEN) "spirit" is controlled by OOC
That is a fallacy
To design does not mean it necessaily controls. 

All you are trying to do is make the original IF-THEN syllogism fit the philosophy I use, which I have said from the beginning isincompatible with the philosophy I use.

it seems like you're saying OOC designed "spirit" to be unpredictable

#459
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
it seems like you're saying OOC designed "spirit" to be unpredictable
That is not really what I am saying. That is something besides the point of what I am saying.

There are causes that exist after the first cause. Those causes are what we immediately see.

13 days later

#460
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOHeNuWszTQ

it's like this thread, but as a live debate
#461
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
well, all things observable and knowable, both directly and indirectly, must necessarily be fundamentally comprised of the same substance, if you're looking for a "god" we can be certain that any "god" is fundamentally comprised of the same substance as everything else - - - because if it wasn't, it would be mutually undetectable
#462
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
must necessarily be fundamentally comprised of the same substance
Nope.

To say they are the same substance is to say they are the same actual thing.
That is absurd.
#463
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
must necessarily be fundamentally comprised of the same substance
Nope.

To say they are the same substance is to say they are the same actual thing.
That is absurd.
two fundamentally distinct substances cannot interact
#464
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
two fundamentally distinct substances cannot interact
Why? 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "substance"
#465
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "substance"
are you familiar with neutrinos ?
#466
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
are you familiar with neutrinos ?
Ah! Ok! I see where you are going with this.
So, materially speaking, everything is the same. I agree!

But... are they the same thing...formally? Meaning are the different neutrinos, electrons, neutrons, protons, whatever you want to call them, ordered the same way in everything?

#467
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Ah! Ok! I see where you are going with this.
So, materially speaking, everything is the same. I agree!

But... are they the same thing...formally? Meaning are the different neutrinos, electrons, neutrons, protons, whatever you want to call them, ordered the same way in everything?
they are all made of energy

that is the fundamental similarity that we can observe

different configurations of a fundamental substrate

now, if we hypothesise another layer more fundamental than that

maybe, "spirit" or whatever you want to call it

that we cannot observe scientifically

we can know for certain

that if this "spirit" can interact with observable energy

then energy and "spirit" must share some fundamental substrate
#468
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
maybe, "spirit" or whatever you want to call it
No. I do not call it a spirit. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

We most definitely can observe the order of the particles. That is what I am talking about. In fact, I will argue this "order of the particles" is what makes something what it is.

#469
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
maybe, "spirit" or whatever you want to call it
No. I do not call it a spirit. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

We most definitely can observe the order of the particles. That is what I am talking about. In fact, I will argue this "order of the particles" is what makes something what it is.

how can your god be considered "separate" from the material world

if your god can interact with the material world

the two must share a fundamental substrate
#470
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
He is "seperate" in the sense that he is not of the universe.

Does not mean He cannot interact with it.
#471
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
the two must share a fundamental substrate
You still have not answered why...

#472
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
He is "seperate" in the sense that he is not of the universe.

Does not mean He cannot interact with it.

ok, so not fundamentally separate

your god shares some fundamental similarity with everything it can interact with
#473
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
the two must share a fundamental substrate
You still have not answered why...
if your god was made of neutrons, it would have a lot of trouble detecting humans

you can only interact with things you can detect

you can only detect things which are composed of fundamentally similar substance
#474
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
repeating your proposition does not prove it.

Can you answer why or not?
#475
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
repeating your proposition does not prove it.

Can you answer why or not?

there is no conceivable example of two fundamentally distinct substances interacting

we can observe interactions

some interactions are strong

these strong interactions are interactions between substances that share MORE properties

some interactions are weak

these weak interactions are interactions between substances that share FEWER properties

we use logic to conclude

that zero shared properties equals zero interaction
#476
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
So your argument is "because we cannot observe otherwise"

Yet what is unreasonable about saying they can?

You would probably say there is no evidence of that.

But what about the lack of evidence makes reasonable conclusions unreasonable?

#477
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
But what about the lack of evidence makes reasonable conclusions unreasonable?

there is extremely reliable evidence that shows property similarity is strongly correlated with levels of interaction


claiming otherwise would obviously contradict not only the evidence, but logic itself
#478
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
but logic itself
Why? I am not saying that things that have the same fundamental substratum cannot interact.

I am saying there is no reason to think that things that do not have the same fundamental substratum cannot interact.
#479
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,939
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
I am saying there is no reason to think that things that do not have the same fundamental substratum cannot interact.
similar substances interact proportionally to their similarity

by definition, fundamentally dissimilar substances are mutually undetectable
#480
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 160
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
by definition, fundamentally dissimilar substances are mutually undetectable
Then what is the definition? 

And you are not really answering why. You are just repeating your proposition. 

What is it about "disimilarity" implies two things cannot interact?