LOL According to me it is false.
People make some of the most hilarious inferences and assumptions at times.
No. I don’t think l have.
Great question. I have still not yet worked out what it is that “mr cat” wants to debate.
Myself and @ghatzige understand and agree to the debate and that is all l ask and that is all that is needed. So anything you say is superfluous.
But a so-called honest or true materialist, that is one who, in regards to the opening post, cannot veer into spirituality, metaphysical, or anything else non-physical, cannot and thus does choose to live. As I pointed out a true or honest materialist can only live because it knows nothing else but to live or survive.
See, only a non-materialist can ‘choose’ to live, or to die. An honest materialist can’t ‘choose’ anything because, as I explained, one has to veer into thoughts. Thoughts are not yet known to be physical or not.
Now, if anyone wants to debate anything here, then debate whether thoughts, which are what is needed to ‘choose’ whether to live or not, are physical or not.
A true materialist cannot ‘choose’ anything because matter itself cannot, and thus does not, make ‘choices’.
No. Make your own debate.
If Philosophy is the human intellect’s reaction to Infinity, and somebody denies infinity’s existence, then the trigger for Philosophy would be the core existential question about why choose life?
Whether my opponent denies infinity’s existence or not …
Whether my opponent even agrees that Philosophy is the intellect’s reaction to Infinity …
… the core existential question about why choose life, is seen to be the trigger of all philosophy, as evidenced in how it turns so many people inside out, just the sight of the question, and so here we are, with multiple attempting to preclude the debate. Because it is a silly debate topic. Or because we can just debate it now, in the challenge thread, where blocks of text will appear. Some of those blocks of text will have some sense, or maybe not. Ultimately it will be a mass of text and thus the debate will have haemorrhaged out and become obfusticated. And so we need not be unsettled, audited, examined. If only the debate can be foreclosed here instead of being allowed to happen. There has to be a way …? I mean, the way l speak, it’s just, you know … sinister. It makes no sense. So why am l asking for a debate? It’s silly to ask for a debate. Strange and sinister. No, it cannot be permitted. No, something must be done about this.
^^^^ Sorry, but it is already decided that the debate shall proceed. All that’s needed is the title and an idea of what my OP shall be.
These two things have been tendered and agreed upon. Me and my opponent await the debate now.
@anew1 Focus on making your own formal debate, a better debate, the way you want it, and l shall volunteer to participate. This debate is already decided on. You can message @ghatzige and advise him on avenues of thought.
What are you basing your claim “Matter is not a physical property” on exactly?
If matter is atoms, or anything made up of atoms, but which are not a physical property, then what is matter exactly?
I also asked you, What are particles exactly?
Copying text from other sources is not showing that you know what you are talking about.
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.How is space physical?
If ‘physics’ is the study of physical things, and “physicits” are just human beings who study physical things, then “physics” just saying and claiming that “ ‘space’ is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics “, does not make, and thus does not, mean that ‘space’ is one of the few fundametal quantities of physics.
Again, my question was, and still is, how is ‘space’, itself, physical?
A “physicist” claiming that ‘space’ is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics, would be like a “theist” claiming that ‘God’ is the one who created the Universe.
God could also be claimed to not be defined via other quantities, therefore God is the fundamental source of the Universe, because lol nothing more fundamental is known as the present. Would an atheist or atheist physicist accept this claim? If they would not, then why would a critical thinking human being accept the claim that space, itself, is physical?
What is the actual bases for both claims? Where is the actual proof for both claims?
And, as I pointed out, I have already provided the answer.
LOL Yet here you are, still in this thread, trying to work out, or debating about, what you are going to debate over and how you are going to do it.
If you two supposedly understand and agree to the debate, then just do it.
Alright then. Will you stop debating then?
LOL You can’t even comprehend my words when I wrote, ‘I do not do debate’.
But, then again, you also claimed that you do not have the time to read up on what I write.
Which would explain a lot about some of your replies to what I write.
Okay then and so if you are not debating, cheerio!
I DO NOT DO DEBATE.
Why human beings ‘choose’ to live is because they instinctively, or unconsciously/not yet consciously, know that living is better than the alternative. There is also the fact of the Life Source, or the Energy itself co-existing with and within matter, itself, which means matter has ‘no choice’ in what happens, including ‘no choice’ in whether it lives or exists, or, dies or not.
So, there is nothing at all to ‘debate’ here. Facts cannot be ‘debated’.
Either what is said, is either true and right or it is not. If something can be debated or argued over, then it is not even worth arguing nor debating over.
LOL What even is ‘it’ exactly that you imagine I am debating?
I have already provided the answer to you question, which, by the way, cannot be debated.
On the fact that “matter” is not a (fundamental) property recognized by Physics.
A concept.
Yes, and in general, you seem to be asking for revelations—in fact, you seem to think you’ve had those:
Well, no. A physicist claiming that space is one of the few fundamental quantities in Physics is like a monotheist claiming that God is one of the few fundamental entities in monotheism.
You still seem to think “physical” necessarily refers to matter, the body, and/or etc. But most fundamentally it refers to nature. This is evidently what Mr Cat means when he says:
You must not veer into anything supernatural.
This is interesting to me. However, if thoughts are physical, I think one can “veer into thoughts” without being able to make choices, at least in the sense of free will…
And science is all about taking phenomena which are not known to be physical or not as physical. (It’s religion which does the opposite, taking at least some of those phenomena to be non-physical, “metaphysical”, “spiritual” etc.) Likewise, philosophy has always been about taking phenomena of which it’s not known whether they take revelation or not as taking only reason to be understood.
Not a precondition of this debate
I am Theist, my views are true to that.
Exactly. You are neither a materialist nor an atheist. So when you say:
This does not apply to yourself. You don’t have to give answers true to materalism. You can veer into the supernatural.
you are confusing the concept of something with the reality of something. Yes, the concept of matter exists (as a concept). That doesn’t mean that what that concept refers to doesn’t exist.
Right. What is your point though? @Zeroeth_Nature