Relativist

More paragraphs with contradictory statements can't fix the internal inconsistencies. Why can't you acknowledge that your statement entailed a contrad...

You should word all your statements in a way that doesn't entail contradictions.

No, I want you to acknowledge that your statement ("Consider two states of a physical (consider an electron as an example of a physical), S1 to S2, in...

What is it that YOU don't understand about what I said previously?: Your statement "the brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time ...

Then this statement of yours is incoherent:

It matters that you make contradictory statements. I've been questioning whether or not you have a coherent account at all. Since you justify it with ...

So do they, or don't they, have the same identity?

Do you agree that you've made contradictory statements?

You seem to be saying the electron at t1 and the electron at t2 have the same identity. But this can't be an enduring identity, because the t2 electro...

Then this statement is worded incorrectly: Nothing goes from one state to another, because that entails existing in both states. You often word your s...

The electron at t1 has been annihalated at t2, so this is an impossible scenario.

Fine. I get it that every physical objects are composed of sets of elementary particles, each of which which is a quantum of a quantum field at a poin...

That's a false assumption, isn't it?

. In this statement: "The brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time t1" "The brain" is a particular that exists at both t0 and t1,...

2 questions: 1. Is the electron at t1 the SAME electron that exists at t2? 2. Are there intermediate points, between t1 and t2, at which this electron...

The explain what this means:

Your so-called "vertical causation" is an "efficient cause", not a material cause, is it not?

Per your claim below. it is impossible for an electron to exist at t0 and t1. This invalidates your entire argument, at least in its present form.

You said you agreed that "The brain at t0 is composed of a set of matter arranged in a particular way. Nearly everyone would agree that this material ...

If the matter composing the brain at t0 is the same matter that composes the brain at t1, then that matter is, by definition, the material cause of th...

States of a physical what? If you mean a "physical object" then you are implying this same object exists at both points t1 and t2, and thus it has "ex...

The brain at t0 is composed of a set of matter arranged in a particular way. Nearly everyone would agree that this material continues to exist at t1, ...

The problem with filling in the missing premises is that if you then challenge it, he'll respond "I didn't say that". No. He tends to be vague a lot. ...

Modus Ponens has to start with a material implication. This is classically stated as "if A then B". You have no "if .... then ...." in your argument.

You're omitting the last word (the verb) of this traditional statement. The full statement is "ex nihilo nihil fit." This translates to "nothing comes...

Show me. Modus Ponens: "It can be summarized as "P implies Q. P is true. Therefore, Q must also be true." Identify the "P implies Q" in your argument,...

I have several problems with your account, but you need to Show that you can have an honest. 2-way exchange, by doing what I asked: Click on this webs...

Raskin is very good. So is Pete Buttigieg. A problem is that most non-Trumpists will fulfill their Constitutional duty. Their only discretion will be ...

:100: Dems need someone who's smart and articulate to regularly put forth an easy to understand narrative (i.e. the truth).

I'm not going to look at a different argument until you acknowledge that: (the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S...

Click on this website, then enter: from nothing Then respond with the answer it gives you.

That sounds reasonable. In practice, it's worse than that. What often gets poo-pooed is a caricature of the other side's position.

Yes, you did. Here:

You posted responses, while denying the obvious errors in your logic. I can only assume you don't understand logic. You made the absurd claim: (the ph...

MoK- I posted the AI analysis for your benefit, since you seem to lack an understanding of basic logic. Your argument is objectively invalid. I showed...

Here's what you said: To which I responded: "Then it was created from nothing". You haven't reconciled this, you just rejected using the term "ex nihi...

For the fun of it, I asked DeepSeek to evaluate the op argument. I asked, "what's wrong with this logic? then pasted the op into it. It did a remarkab...

So if God creates from nothing, it's ex nihilo. When mind creates from nothing, it isn't. This is ludicrous.

It's more than political support: 'Game changer': US reportedly threatens to revoke Ukraine's Starlink access over minerals

Yes, I did. I'm done. You seem incapable of having a rational discussion.

Then it was created from nothing, which means ex nihilo. See this.

Prove it. I've shown you at least twice. Read through my posts.

Your evasiveness is frustrating. If brain at t1 was not created ex nihilo, then it was created FROM something. What is that something? Answering "not ...

We're discussing the error in your op that I exposed. Keep up. Examined as a whole, the universe at t0 is the cause of the universe at t1. Physical th...

Prove it. Change entails a cause for that change (per the PSR).

No, not unless you remove the ambiguity. If I were to do it myself and identify another problem, you could blame it on my misinterpretation. You didn'...

So you don't have a problem with non-reductive physicalsim? I lean toward reductive physicalism. If it could be established that there is actual ontol...

Under reductive physicalism: both are weak. Are you accepting that non-reductive physicalism has no problems? You asked me to comment on your Op argum...

One physical state of affairs (S1) caused another physical state of affairs (S2). S1 includes the potential energy in the tectonic plates that caused ...

Because it was an example of a functional entity. Prove it. Sure. I hope you can now recognize that your argument depends on assumptions that reasonab...