How can a substance be indentical when it is already itself. Look what I am saying is a āthingā , an entity is identified by its characteristics. Temperature is a state of being, when we say a room is hot, we mean the room A THING ( and its constituent characteristics) is at a high temperature which can be perceived and measured. In the universe it would be a contradiction ( which isnt possible) for a room to be exactly the same time to be getting warmer or colder. Because a rock and a icecle bot at the same time, becuase Nature/universe which is existance, has no contradictions.
By the way radiation and particles arenāt contradictory terms.
donāt call me ignorant, please have a bannana
i bet you are just a troll, throwing small comments with no real explanation but pretty formula you MADE UP
Temperature is a state of being??? PLEASE GO READ A SCIENCE BOOK! Temperature is a state function as it is one of the values used to define the state of an object.
1 Like
1 Like
You equated temperature, with change in temperature. They are not the same.
1 Like
Are you using babel fish to translate this from another language?
I still see no detailed definition of, or objective evidence for your phrase āSelf made soulā?
Bollocks, you seem to think repetition of a claim somehow validates it, having ignored all objections. No one gets to tell anyone else how they must feel about, or enjoy sex. You sound more like a theists with each post.
The main point is The Law of Identity is absolute. You said it yourself " a state of being" therefore a entity is indentified by its characteristics. A rock IS A SOLID OBJECT, the fact that it is made of elements and solid is its identity. So when i say a object cant be both freezing and melting, its because it would be contradicting the AXIOM law of identity.
I hope you understand what I am saying instead of being haughty like you and the rest of these atheist.
[quote=āTabooscientist, post:154, topic:382ā]
We either become independent thinkers and judge what is true, [/quote]
Fascinating.
One of my self labels is that of skeptic.IE I question everything, Including most crucially, my own beliefs and convictions .So- called truths tend to change with time as knowledge increases.
Iāve learned to avoid truth claims and superlatives.
Yes, we have a cerebral cortex, which enables critical thinking. I concede that most of us have the capacity for abstract and independent thought. However, Iām unconvinced that generally
speaking, human beings are capable of using those faculties all or even a lot of the time. Simplest observable demonstration I can think of: Listen/read true believers, religious or political, in full flight.
ON a daily basis, we seem to be driven by habit and instinct more than anything else.
The only thing about which Iām certain is that I have far less time to live than Iāve already lived.
Things I hold to be true have an implicit caveat 'āas far as I knowā.
This is something I hold to be generally true of human beings: That human beings are not so much rational beings as rational-ising beings.
2 Likes
We? Please speak only for yourself, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for anything beyond the physical or material?
adjective
- relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
Nonsense, please demonstrate some objective evidence for your claim that music does not relate the physical or material? This is religious woo woo youāre spouting.
This is a debate forum, I am not going to torture myself watching woo woo videos, if you canāt explain your arguments, and demonstrate some objective evidence to support them then I will to believe your claims, just as with all other claims.
i understand your perspective, I personally find truth to be hard to accept. But all human beings have the ability to use their critical thinking skills, some dont do it becuase it takes effort or it is easier to ābelongā in a group or society.
. A uncompromising effort to live in reality and all of its collieries. Thatās essentially what being rational means. Those who use logic to understand reality and know the nature of their actions are worthy of being called rational. Man has no instinct he is not a animal, all his behavior has been integrated by his subconscious and automatized by his mind.
Youāre not an atheist after all then, are you. Quelle surpriseā¦
The reason many people believe in religion is because itās very difficult to discover original ideas, and have valid philosophical premises, in which we use to asses the ideas we are purported.
Sheldon you are calling me thesis just based on my choice of vocabulary. Iām done trying to explain anything to you.
Rubbish, please consult a dictionary occasionally, rational means based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
What a tortured tautology.
Two entirely erroneous claims, of course humans have instincts, and of course humans are animals, two absurdly stupid claims.
Sigh, more woo woo, are you ever going to stop reeling off unevidenced rhetoric, and offer something approaching objective evidence for your claims?
Done? You never even started explaining anything, just reeled off a string of unevidenced claims. You have from the start used woo woo religious phrases and words, and offered no expansion or objective evidence that they actually mean anything at all.
I ask again, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that anything exists beyond the material or physical?
Watch the video then, i dont have time to fucking explain how 1) logic and reality are interrelated. And rationality is being logical, but you can only be logical if you understand how logic operates and it is under the bases that reality is real.
Think before you type nimrod
Oh for fucks sake!!!
Please, oh rational one- what the fuck are we ( humans) if we are not mammals, uh less specific -
ANIMALS
1 Like
That was not what I said and it is not my position. My position is that Iām not convinced there is any such thing as an objective truth, except for mathematics.
Formal logic is about logical inferences/conclusions, which may or may not be true. As a general principle logical inference is true if and only if the premise is true. Thereās at least one exception, but I forget what it is.
My position is that we humans are not rational beings in any consistent sense.
A life observation is that truths proclaimed loudly with great sincerity are truths most likely to be falseā¦
It is also my observation that in any internal conflict between emotion and reason, that emotion invariably wins. I guess there a probably exceptions, but Iāve never seen oneā a rationlisation can look awfully like a reasoned position.
Finally, it is also my observation that human beings rarely seriously question their beliefs and/or world view. My reason tells me that if they did, there would be be vastly more atheists in the worldā¦