@TheIllustriousMrCat he is responding to @anew1. Let’s wait for the proper thread to open. Here there are so many things discussed, that we lose track on the original goal of your debate.
Since you gave me your OP, I have prepared the first answer. Once @Carleas opens the thread and your OP is introduced, I will give you my first round.
Oh sorry, l understand now
@Zeroeth_Nature okay l get it, you were citing the conditions of debate
I just zero out when looking at anew1’s posts now, he is hard core debating. But stolidly refuses to officially debate. And then debates the debate. Then when the storm passes, begins debating again. Repeat cycle.
That’s right, but it also doesn’t mean it does. So, that it’s a concept is an established fact. That it’s something beyond the concept is not.
For sure, so what matter is (or isn’t) is not a concept. What is a concept is the concept of matter, that refers to matter (matter existing or not).
‘Physics’ is the study of “the physical”.
Human beings who study physical things are called “physicists”.
Nothing is recognised by ‘physics’, itself. Some human beings might say and claim that ‘matter’ is not a fundamental property. Just like human beings who claim God exists, also known as “theists”, “recognise”, say, and claim that God is a fundamental property.
But, just because some human beings, of any name, “recognise”, and say and claim, somethings never means that what those individuals “recognise”, say, and claim is some absolute irrefutable Truth.
So, to you, atoms and every thing that is made up of atoms are not actual physical things, but are just ‘concepts’, themselves.
If I am reading your words incorrectly here, then will you please say and write what you actually do mean.
You could have, instead, just been honest and explained that you do not yet know.
What are the ‘other’ fundamental entities to a “monotheist”?
If you also do not yet know the answer to question as well, please do not advise me to ask a so-called “monotheist”.
Why did you arrive at this conclusion?
Are you suggesting that matter, body, and whatever else is in your “etc” is not natural, or not of nature, itself?
Also, why did you not answer the questions I asked? Why did you deflect? Why did attempt to detract away from them?
You appear to be going way of tangent here.
But that is what people do when they want to detract away from the very thing/s I was pointing out.
By the way, I have already addressed “mr cat’s” absurd seeking out of a so-called “honest materialist”, and “mr cat’s” telling of others that they must not veer into the non-physical.
Which, by the way, you have already noted your belief that human bodies are only concepts, and thus are not matter/material anyway. But then, you also believe that human bodies, which are made up of atoms, are not physical property as well, right?
‘one’ what exactly?
I agree that if thought, itself, is physical, then it could be said and argued, that ‘choices’ themselves could not be made.
Presuming or believing something is physical, before the truth becomes known, is why a lot of people who do “science” are still so far behind.
To me, “science”, itself, is just the study of the physical world. “Science” also only looks into things that are not true. Once something is true, then there is nothing more to study about ‘it’.
Maybe because the things in Life that are not physical are sometimes known as ‘metaphysical’ or ‘spiritual’. See, some people are open, while some are closed shut.
A person who believes that there is only physicality, or materiality, and that every thing is physical, or material only, is closed shut, and thus has missed the opportunity of being able to notice, see, and understand what the actual Truth is, exactly.
Like with the words “science” and “physics” you have and use a different definition than me, so to with the word, “philosophy” you also have a use a completely different definition than me, which is how and why we have come to understand and see very different things here.
For example, I understand and see human beings to be made up of ‘matter’, and are physical things. Whereas, you understand, see, and believe human bodies as being ‘concepts’, only.
For one who claims to be a “theist”, how exactly can absolutely any thing be above, beyond, or separated from Nature, Itself? (Which is what the word “supernatural” implies.)
All “mr cat” wants here is to just have, another, debate against one with opposing views.
Which, if, anyone who is open would have already noticed and understood, is something human beings have been debating over for thousands and thousands of years, and have gotten absolutely nowhere.
For one who believes God does exist to seek out one who believes God does not exist, just so they can ‘fight’ or debate with another, is just something those who are truly bored in Life and who do not yet know how to find True and Right answers like to do.
Those who seek “opponents”, shall find them.
But the original goal of “mr cat’s” debate was never lost. “mr cat” is seeking out an “opponent” from what “mr cat” believes is absolutely true.
In other words, “mr cat” is looking for one who believes the exact opposite of what it does.
Which, by the way, there are many upon many here.
Why do you two wait for someone else to just open a thread for you?
Why don’t either of you just open a thread yourselves?
Or, why do you not just “battle it out” and debate here in this thread?
Obviously, neither of you is going to have a “win” anyway.
Is there absolutely anything in the whole Universe, including the Universe, Itself, that could not be ‘a concept’?
Atoms, human bodies, the Universe, Itself, is made up of ‘matter’, which is ‘a concept’ in and of itself. However, contrary to your claim and belief ‘matter’, itself, is more than just ‘a concept’ only, just like atoms, human bodies, and the Universe, Itself, is more than just ‘a concept’ only.
Unless, of course, you want to follow the line of thinking that acknowledges that absolutely nothing can be proven to exist other than ‘thoughts’ alone, and of course the ‘I’ who is aware of ‘thoughts’, which obviously do occur.
But, and again as I pointed out earlier, no one yet knows if ‘thought’, itself, is physical matter or not.
Absolutely every thing can be ‘a concept’, but not absolutely every thing is ‘physical’ nor ‘matter’.
As has already been proved.
I was going to say, “Well put”, but then I wondered, how could ‘matter’ not exist?
Because @Carleas is the moderator and the thread will be open only for the participants of the debate. No off-topic posts will be added there.
Sure, but “physical” here primarily means “natural”, as opposed to “artificial”, not “bodily” as opposed to “mental”.
You know this also applies to yourself, right?
Not necessarily just concepts, but not necessarily anything beyond concepts, either, no.
I do not yet know of any revelations, no. I thought it was obvious I did not claim to know.
Depends on the brand of monotheism. To some, it’s evil (which, like good, by God, may be personified by some person, the Devil). Other examples include (the primordial matter of) the Creation, as distinct from God the Creator. Monotheism does not have to be monism.
No, just that nature may include more than such things.
Wrong. You conflate being true with being known to be true.
How do you know?
As for “matter” in Physics: how are physicists to measure how “material”, if at all, a phenomenon is?
And by the way, aren’t you that A-guy, Jupiter something, who used to post about the +=- stuff all the time?
Just because there are no other participants does not mean that either of you two will not make off-topic posts.
Where did you pluck this “primarily’ word from, and what are you basing this on exactly?
In case you were unaware there is absolutely nothing that is “artifical”, as opposed to “natural”. Unless, of course, you provide the examples here. Which, I for one, would love to see you present.
You ask this question as if you inferred or presumed that I thought the opposite.
Of course, I know it. After all, I was the one who said it and made it clear.
If you want to keep saying and claiming that things made up of atoms are not necessarily anything beyond just concepts alone, then so be it. Have you found anyone who agrees with you on this concept of yours here?
You have, once again, misconstrued or misinterpreted what I was saying and meaning.
What I meant is -
You could have, instead, just been honest and admitted that you do not yet know what are particle is exactly.
Although it might be obvious that you do not yet know what a particle is exactly, when you talk about particles, as though you do not know what they are, then this puts up a deceptive face, which is what a lot of people do to try to cover up and mask what the actual truth is.
Are you now trying to suggest that there are brands of “monotheisms” that claim that there are “fundamental entities” to the one and only Entity, that a “monotheism” could hold?
Are you aware that is ‘two’, and not ‘one’? The word, ‘mono’ implies or means one, not two. the word, ‘theism’ implies or means, belief in something. The word, ‘monotheism’ would therefore imply or mean a belief in One only fundamental Entity, and not two nor more entities.
I do not know of any religious “mono-theologian” who believes that there are two different ways or two different entities in regards to the Creation. Do you know of any?
I, however, do know of many religious “scientists” who believe that Creation began at or from primordial matter itself.
But, both of these types of religious believers have absolutely no proof at all for their beliefs and claims. Just like you, they do not yet know. Although, they also try to deceive and try to hide behind masks and labels.
Okay, but since we were only talking about “monotheism”, I am not sure why you brought this up, as though the readers or I did not already know. Except, of course, maybe you did mention it to try to deflect or deceive
But Nature includes all things, naturally and obviously. Full stop.
Name the true things, for there is more to know
LOL What made you presume and then infer such a thing?
Again, the word, ‘physics’ refers to the study of physical things. ‘Physics” can’t decide things. Human beings decide things.
How are you defining ‘material’ and ‘matter’ here?
To me, how human beings measure ‘material’ is with tools like rulers and scales, among others.
What do you mean by, “A-guy”?
What do you mean by, “Jupiter something”?
There is someone in this forum who goes under the name and label “jupiter” who posts with the symbols +=, but I am not sure if that one does it ‘all the time’.
If you are asking if I am that one, then the answer is, No.
If that is what you were asking, then why?
In live debates, it is up to the moderator to keep the discussion on-topic. Here, I guess it is up to the participants to decide if the discussion goes off-topic.
On the fact that that’s why Physics is called Physics: it is the name first given to Aristotle’s studies on the natural things, as opposed to the customary things (the Ethics).
That may be, but the very concept of nature arose in distinction to the artificial, the (man-)made, which includes the customary (laws, morals, rights, etc.).
Well, so far your Truth claims are just that, claims.
So in your monotheism, evil is not fundamental? Everything is fundamentally good, fundamentally God?
If something’s true in a forest and no one’s around to study it, it’s still true but it’s not known to be true, see?
That’s because length and weight, among other things, are quantifiable properties, measurable quantities; “materiality” is not, however.
Yes, because you reminded me of him and I hadn’t seen him around in a while. Then again, as I realized later, I have him on ignore… Still, I’d think I’d have seen his new threads and hidden posts in the background.
There is the Trinity in Christianity, for starters. Then, according to the monotheistic religion and denomination, we can have angels, satan, demons, Jinns (for Islam) and perhaps other fundamental entities.
So, exactly like I said and stated, just because there are no other participants does not mean that either of you two will not make off-topic posts. Which is the exact opposite of what you said and tried to claim.
A moderator also can’t stop you from adding off-topic posts.
You deliberately cut-out the next part of my response:
“Here, I guess it is up to the participants to decide if the discussion goes off-topic.”
If you modify other people’s answers, you can end up to any conclusion you want. Sorry, I am not interested in participating in this type of discussion.
LOL Are you here trying to suggest that ethics is some unnatural thing?
Did you not notice the contradiction you made here?
To you, are things made by women natural or so-called “artificial”?
Human made things ARE natural. As I said before, there is absolutely nothing that is not natural.
Just because human beings have ‘concepts’ never necessarily means that those concepts reflect Reality, Itself. There is no artificial thing that is disinct from Nature, Itself. Even every ‘concept’ is a part of Nature.
What?
You seemed to have completely and utterly missed the point.
It appeared that you inferred something that I was never even thinking, let alone ever said nor meant.
LOL your Truth claims are just claims.
What do you mean by “my monotheism”?
You are the one who introduced that word. You then spoke about there being more than one fundamental entity in a “monotheism”. I am not sure how there could be two, when it is implied there is only One. So, I then questioned you, about your claim.
Wow, you have really gone off-track here.
No, I do not see.
What are you imagining is true in a forest, which you claim there is more to study about it?
I have always been talking about what is actually True, which is obviously what also has to be known to be True.
What have you been talking about?
Again, I said, Name the true things. You saying, If something is true, does not suffice. As well as being completely off track as well as completely missing the mark.
So, once more, things like atoms, human bodies, bags of sand, tree trunks, and mountains are not ‘materiality’, correct?
Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
Were you not yet aware that “they” refer to the one and only One?
But they are not fundamental entities.
Look at what the word, “monotheism” could only mean and be referring to. The other entities you referred to are only lesser beings or nonfundamental beings.
There is only One Entity, which is fundamental, in and to Christianity. Even “jesus christ” itself was just a lesser, and thus nonfundamental being.
There is only ever One Entity, which is fundamental, in monotheistic religions and denominations.