Deleted User

Thoughts (apple-image, apple-thought) exist, no matter what you say. Your reductionism excludes them. If you say they don't exist you've just decided ...

It isn't a reductionism because nothing is excluded. You've misunderstood. Nothing you mentioned is excluded. Whereas you're committed to excluding so...

So by extant you mean physical. So you're asking us to show you some physical thing that isn't physical.

I wonder if you've ever picked up Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents. The oceanic experience Freud describes in the opening pages - Freud writes...

The apple-image, the thought-apple, I ate in my nightdream or daydream last night or this afternoon, respectively, that I don't doubt you'll be glad t...

That's evident. Insults - it's true of any art - require - practice, practice, practice - and you are - pondscum narcissus - concertmaster. Enjoy the ...

Sorry. Not interested. You're a bully and I'm only interested in abusing you.

Your abuse doesn't bother me because I know your heart: you're a pompous, ignorant bully. I abuse you because you're a bully. Good night.

What a benevolent human being you are. Aside from the litany of verbal abuse you've wreaked on your forum neighbors. What a nice bully you are. So it ...

If the law of non-contradiction ceases to obtain in light of god's decision to simultaneously kill and not kill himself, how will you know?

This is a ridiculously ignorant assertion and the end of this exchange. Arrogant ignorance. Take care.

How do you know god isn't alive and dead simultaneously? And how can it be known when in this special case the law of non-contradiction has ceased to ...

Childishness.

Answer the question or shut your mouth.

How do you know he isn't exercising it? What evidence can you present?

So the law of non-contradiction can be violated.

Again, childish, ludicrous, and further evidence of your lack of credentials. Every concept of god is that of god as a person?

So god lacks the power to be simultaneously alive and dead?

How can this be known?

Answer the question or shut your mouth, doc:

Answer the question or shut your mouth, doc:

Like I said: I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation. Your ridiculous assertions and the abusive pomposity in which you couch them make fo...

You can't fool us. No serious philosophical journal has published your ludicrosities, doc.

Meaningless bald assertion, Doctor of Ludicrosity.

God is a person? A PhD in ludicrosity? So we find out what god is by asking people? A PhD in pop theology?

If god has the power to simultaneously kill and not kill himself how can it be known that he hasn't simultaneously killed and not killed himself?

Can god violate the law of non-contradiction?

God can simultaneously kill and not kill himself? God can simultaneously be and not be god? God can simultaneously be and not be omnipotent?

Total nonsense and more evidence that you have no philosophical credentials.

According to Bartricks definition of omnipotence god can simultaneously kill and not kill himself. Sure, it's a contradiction, but that's no problem, ...

It's obvious to everyone on this forum who's spent any time studying philosophy that you have no qualifications. Everyone knows. It's obvious.

No, you don't.

No, you don't.

I'm sorry, it's obvious you don't have a PhD. Have fun playing at the man behind the curtain. Watch out for Toto, he's coming for you.

What are your qualifications?

Thanks. :smile:

The wise, I imagine, are a smidge less pompous. I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation.

You sound preposterous to me - just truly ludicrously magnificently irrevocably confused. Enjoy! I can only hope you're eight years old. What have you...

He divests himself of power so that he's no longer god and therefore no longer omnipotent? Can he become god again? How does he become god if he isn't...

So god creates a rock so heavy he can't lift it?Then god lifts that rock?

Is he free to lift that rock?

Why no clear description and instead an obvious evasion or shrug? Your lines are misdrawn. I can eat fruit and I can eat an apple. I can't eat the abs...

It would be almost the same as eating the thought of an apple.

So the thought of an apple can cause a physical effect but the abstraction, fruit, can never cause a physical effect? How can this be known? Is it imp...

This suggests analogies but doesn't clearly describe.

How do you describe the distinction between and relationship of thoughts and abstractions? I suppose you might argue that abstractions like freedom an...

This is an important knottiness where folks like to get lost. Mistaking a methodology for an ontology.

Abstractions never cause physical effects?

It's unknown. What's known is that the distinction between physical and non-physical is centered on the idea that ideas are non-physical. Without that...

If thoughts are physical, is there something non-physical anywhere in the universe? How can something be "to some... degree" physical? If we're measur...