How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[Windfish]

Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist. Setting aside that this appeal does nothing to support their affirmative claim, how does one effectively respond to it?

The appeal is somewhat of a colloquial rearrangement of Russell’s teapot. I think the comparisons are faulty for several reasons. Except in folklore and legends, no one has ever seriously believed in such entities. Asserting otherwise, then, would be just that, an arbitrary and contrived assertion, and there could only ever be arbitrary and contrived reasoning to support it. The same can be said of other atheist standbys like the Greek and Viking gods/goddesses. By contrast, the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, in principle, would not be arbitrary, but necessary. Epistemologically, the comparisons are nonsensical.

Perhaps some of you will disagree with me, but I think I have shown, if only briefly, that the comparisons fail.

Atheists also bring these comparisons up to show that a negative cannot proven. If this is the case, why make a positive claim denying the existence of God? But is it true that a negative cannot be proven? If I say that there are no mints in pockets, I can empty my pockets and show you that there are no mints in them. Boom, negative proven. So how about the claim that unicorns don’t exist? Can that be proven?

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

 

[AntiTheist]

how does one effectively respond to it?

One effectively responds by noting that the comparison in question is not between the entities themselves – making references to the number of people who seriously believe in them irrelevant – but to the standards of evidence in each case.

In each case, the default position is disbelief until the claim is demonstrated with evidence.

The same can be said of other atheist standbys like the Greek and Viking gods/goddesses. By contrast, the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, in principle, would not be arbitrary, but necessary.

Special pleading. You could take any claim and baldly assert – without evidence – that it’s “necessary.”

Atheists also bring these comparisons up to show that a negative cannot proven. If this is the case, why make a positive claim denying the existence of God?

We don’t make a positive claim. Atheism is the observation that there is no evidence for the existence of any gods – some atheists use a different context for the word “exist” (defining exist to mean “that which manifests in a detectable way”) and can thus claim that no gods – to current human knowledge – exist.

EDIT: And yes, of course, within a limited context you can prove a negative; but you cannot absolutely prove a universal negative. I can definitely prove that there are no mints in your pocket. But I can’t prove that there are no leprechauns anywhere in the universe or outside of the universe.

 

[Windfish]

AntiTheist, you are not the only atheist on the internet. Many, and I would say most, atheists on the internet do make the positive claim. When challenged, they typically resort to the aforementioned comparisons fully intending to relate them to the Judeo-Christian God. I appreciate, though, that you are unlike these other atheists.

AntiTheist:

In each case, the default position is disbelief until the claim is demonstrated with evidence.

Agreed.

AntiTheist:

Special pleading. You could take any claim and baldly assert – without evidence – that it’s “necessary.”

I don’t think it’s special pleading. The universe doesn’t depend on the existence of a unicorn or Thor, both of which are clearly arbitrary and contrived. By contrast, in principle, the existence of the Judeo-Christian would be necessary, and evidence and reasoning flow naturally from this necessity.

 

[Windfish]

Forgot the comma in the title. There is no such thing as a “leprechaun unicorn.” :doh2:

(Man, I love any excuse to use these awesome smileys.)

 

[AntiTheist]

AntiTheist, you are not the only atheist on the internet. Many, and I would say most, atheists on the internet do make the positive claim.

Do you read the posts you respond to? I said the following:

some atheists use a different context for the word “exist” (defining exist to mean “that which manifests in a detectable way”) and can thus claim that no gods – to current human knowledge – exist.

Under that definition of “exist,” you can indeed make the positive claim that no gods exist, in the same way that I can make the claim that no leprechauns exist.

 

[rvilbig]

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

Really, these folks need our prayers. Anyone who looks on the Cross of Christ and claims He’s no more than a leprechaun is in a very sad place in their life. I’d say ignore them and pray for them if they start on the fairy and unicorn talk. And don’t underestimate the power of prayer. Servant of God Elizabeth Leseur prayed her atheist husband to conversion and ultimately to the priesthood.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[JohnDamian]

The totality of things predicated by contincency cannot be caused by some thing that is within its own totality; this leads only to things not predicated by contincency which must nessecarily be nessecary; furthermore, as the totality of contingent things is per se essentially ordered and not accidentally ordered it nessecarily means that some thing is the prior and the totality the posterior; it follows from this that at least a nessecary creator exists.

Therefore; if one does not accept in general a posteriori reasoning for a nessecary creator then they are irrational. If they are rational and accept a posteriori reasoning however; this does not lead them to the Abrahamic God per se - they could simply resort to Russels Teapot were they of that disposition. Nonetheless; a nessecary creator (of some shape and form) is a certainty.

 

[inocente]

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

Not all atheists would want to use this kind of comparison.

Occam’s razor fails in this case because although the no-god assertion sounds more simple in principle, no one has been able to present such a case in practice. It is like saying “I dunno” is better than Ohm’s Law. Multi-verses is an example of a rather complicated alternative to God. The simplest alternative, that the universe started from a single quantum fluctuation, fails to explain the origin of quantum mechanics and so is just another version of turtles-all-the-way-down.

Russell’s teapot fails at the first fence because it makes the crazy assertion that God is a material object.

The leprechaun argument tries to mask that failure by making the teapot imaginary instead of physical, but then fails miserably by trying to compare two non-physical concepts that only have one property in common (that we can’t prove or disprove either of them).

None of these invisible pink unicorns have any power to inform or inspire, or to do very much at all except preach to a choir.

 

[R_Daneel]

The totality of things predicated by contincency cannot be caused by some thing that is within its own totality; this leads only to things not predicated by contincency which must nessecarily be nessecary; furthermore, as the totality of contingent things is per se essentially ordered and not accidentally ordered it nessecarily means that some thing is the prior and the totality the posterior; it follows from this that at least a nessecary creator exists.

This is just another example of the fallacy of composition. How many times does this need to be pointed out?

 

[Dale_M]

Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist.

Actually, that isn’t true. In Iceland, beliefs about the fairies and gnomes often influence life.

Highway engineers in recent years have been forced to reroute roads around supposed elf dwellings. Similarly, builders of the country’s first shopping mall took care to lay electrical cables and other underground installations well away from suspected abodes of gnomes and fairies. Couples planning a new house will sometimes hire “elf-spotters” to ensure the lot is free of spirit folk.

In Iceland, such precautions are seen as simple prudence.

“It can be a strange country,” said Arni Bjornsson, head of ethnological studies at the National Museum of Iceland. “Even hard-headed engineers, who say they don’t hold with superstition, will build a road around a certain hill or boulder rather than take the risk of offending elves.”

seattlepi.com/national/elvs25.shtml

One effectively responds by noting that the comparison in question is not between the entities themselves – making references to the number of people who seriously believe in them irrelevant – but to the standards of evidence in each case.

Yes, truth is not contingent on the number of people who believe something to be true. If this were so, science would never advance. And surely Christians would not say that their faith was truth, even 2000 years ago when only a few thousands of people believed in it.

In each case, the default position is disbelief until the claim is demonstrated with evidence.

For a hypothetical outsider, sure. However, each person’s understanding of the world is shaped by social and cultural forces which act on us individuals. We believe what we are taught and what those around us encourage us to believe. For many, if not most, Icelanders the fairies are believed real because they were raised with this belief and because physical phenomena are continuously interpreted by friends, family, or respected persons in the community, as the actions of the fairies.

The default position for any one person is socially and culturally dependent. If you were raised to believe that medical disorders are caused by an imbalance of the humors and almost every authority claim that it is true, then you will scoff at and dismiss the idea that tiny invisible creatures cause disease. The humors will be your default position.

 

[JohnDamian]

This is just another example of the fallacy of composition. How many times does this need to be pointed out?

This is not a fallacy of composition.

If a thing is predicated nessecarily; then the entities which are so predicated belong to a species or genera which dicates nessecarily the predicates of itself. To say all red thing’s are red is not a fallacy of composition. Likewise to say all contingent things are contingent is not a fallacy of composition. The genera; or totality of contingency nessecarily predicates all it’s sub-entities with the predicate of contingency.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is not a fallacy of composition.

If a thing is predicated nessecarily; then the entities which are so predicated belong to a species or genera which dicates nessecarily the predicates of itself. To say all red thing’s are red is not a fallacy of composition. Likewise to say all contingent things are contingent is not a fallacy of composition. The genera; or totality of contingency nessecarily predicates all it’s sub-entities with the predicate of contingency.

Two examples.

1. The floor is composed of white tiles. Therefore the whole floor is white. A correct generalizaton.
2. The floor is composed of square tiles. Therefore the whole floor is square. An incorrect generalization.

You speak of the collection of contingent entites and assert that the collection is also contingent. It needs to be proven, and not just asserted. Your generalization is unfounded. In this particular case the concept of contingency cannot even de defined for the collection. Example: all humans have a mother - therefore humanity also has a mother. The attribute of “having a mother” cannot be defined for the collection of humans (or humanity).

The problem is that those “proofs” try to skim over the problem of defining an attribute (in this case contingency) for the collection. None of them actually prove that the attribute can be meaningfully defined for the collection. That is the fundamental problem which cannot be circumvented. And, no, it is not obvious that the attribute of contingency can be defined for a collection, just like the attribute of a “having a mother” cannot be meaningfully defined for a collection of humans.

 

[JohnDamian]

Two examples.

1. The floor is composed of white tiles. Therefore the whole floor is white. A correct generalizaton.
2. The floor is composed of square tiles. Therefore the whole floor is square. An incorrect generalization.

You speak of the collection of contingent entites and assert that the collection is also contingent. It needs to be proven, and not just asserted. Your generalization is unfounded. In this particular case the concept of contingency cannot even de defined for the collection. Example: all humans have a mother - therefore humanity also has a mother. The attribute of “having a mother” cannot be defined for the collection of humans (or humanity).

My dear R Daneel… It was made patently clear in my original post that the totality of contingent things is essentially and not accidentally ordered; therein it is nessecarily true that the prior thing of this totality is contingent; for else it would be nessecary (in which case it would not be in the genus). Therein; your analogy is incorrect; it is self evident in and through the essential ordering of the species within the genus that the totality is itself contingent.

Your analogy was incorrect; here would be a better analogy;

This (hac) floor is composed of only white tiles. Therefore this floor cannot have anything contrary to this fact - such as a red tile, for that would violate the law of noncontradiction. However; accidents are not contrary to essences; so some of the tiles may be square; chipped; round and so forth.

Likewise; the totality of contingent things is composed of essentially contingent things. All things within the genus nessecarily predicate themselves with contingency. It then follows from this that nothing contrary (noncontradiction law) can be tolerated here; and by consequence nothing **within **the genus may be composed with nessecity as a predicate.

Furthermore; as it is an essentially ordered totality it nessecarily has a prior entity in the totality; as aforementioned is contingent by nessecity.

It appears you are mistaking the genus; which is a concept; for an actual thing. The genus and the entities within it are really distinct; because the prior may be without the posterior. This however does not contradict the fact that if the posterior were to be actualised in quanta or materials; which as we can see has to be as according to it’s essences.

Therein; as a universal may exist as a nominological or abstract concept per se; the quanta or entities actualising this genus in reality nessecarily must follow their predications. I shall make this clear, in case you are lost:

The totality of contingent things is REALLY distinct from it’s members.
The totality of contingent things is NOT contingent.
The entities composing the totality of contingent things in reality is nessecarily contingent.

I am not equating the totality with it’s members, nor did I in my original post do so. It is self evident that the genus is seperate from the quanta. Nonetheless; as the quanta exist the matter of fact stands; the entities per se actualise the** nessecity for a nessecary being**. The genus is per se irrelevant, as it is really distinct. Consequently there is no fallacy of composition.

NB: if you still feel I was equating the genus with it’s members (composite fallacy), could you quote where I said that?

 

[R_Daneel]

My dear R Daneel… It was made patently clear in my original post that the totality of contingent things is essentially and not accidentally ordered; therein it is nessecarily true that the prior thing of this totality is contingent; for else it would be nessecary (in which case it would not be in the genus). Therein; your analogy is incorrect; it is self evident in and through the essential ordering of the species within the genus that the totality is itself contingent.

Your analogy was incorrect; here would be a better analogy;

This (hac) floor is composed of only white tiles. Therefore this floor cannot have anything contrary to this fact - such as a red tile, for that would violate the law of noncontradiction. However; accidents are not contrary to essences; so some of the tiles may be square; chipped; round and so forth.

Likewise; the totality of contingent things is composed of essentially contingent things. All things within the genus nessecarily predicate themselves with contingency. It then follows from this that nothing contrary (noncontradiction law) can be tolerated here; and by consequence nothing **within **the genus may be composed with nessecity as a predicate.

Furthermore; as it is an essentially ordered totality it nessecarily has a prior entity in the totality; as aforementioned is contingent by nessecity.

It appears you are mistaking the genus; which is a concept; for an actual thing. The genus and the entities within it are really distinct; because the prior may be without the posterior. This however does not contradict the fact that if the posterior were to be actualised in quanta or materials; which as we can see has to be as according to it’s essences.

Therein; as a universal may exist as a nominological or abstract concept per se; the quanta or entities actualising this genus in reality nessecarily must follow their predications. I shall make this clear, in case you are lost:

The totality of contingent things is REALLY distinct from it’s members.
The totality of contingent things is NOT contingent.
The entities composing the totality of contingent things in reality is nessecarily contingent.

I am not equating the totality with it’s members, nor did I in my original post do so. It is self evident that the genus is seperate from the quanta. Nonetheless; as the quanta exist the matter of fact stands; the entities per se actualise the** nessecity for a nessecary being**. The genus is per se irrelevant, as it is really distinct. Consequently there is no fallacy of composition.

NB: if you still feel I was equating the genus with it’s members (composite fallacy), could you quote where I said that?

Well, eventually I must ask: what the heck is “nessecity” or “nessecarily”? These are words I have never seen before. I suspect that you mistyped “necessity” and “necessarily”, but I am not certain (since you typed them so many times). Since you use so many made-up words, I am confused. Let’s stop taking about “genus”, which is borrowed from biology. Let’s talk about elements, properites and sets of elements or compositions of elements. I am also confused by what you mean “necessary existence”, if that is what you are talking about. In a sequence of A->B->C, B is contingent upon A and necessary in relation to C. Some philosophers talk about “other possible worlds” and declare “necessary” existence, as something that exists in all “possible worlds”. Maybe you use it in this manner, but I am not certain.

Generally speaking I find your terminology esoteric and unnecessarily (not unnessecarily!) complicated. When I read the books of many philosophers, I see the same inclination to use overly complicated structures of sentences, highly unusual words, which - upon some scrutiny - reveal themsleves as simple concepts disguised in complicated form, to hide that fact that they have nothing to say. They rely on the fact that most people are scared of declaring that the “emperor has no clothes”. They are afraid to be labeled as “ignorant” if they would point out that the pompous words are without meaning. I am not that kind.

I am willing to say that “essentialy ordered” or “accidently ordered” are meaningless, for example. I am willing to say that “essence” is a concept which is contingent on an observer and a point of view of that observer. There is no disembodied “essence”.

To go to specifics. The Universe is the set (or composition) of its members. Even if it were true that all the members would be “contingent” on something else (whatever contingent means in this case), from that fact it does not follow that the Universe itself is contingent upon something else. To assert that would be a fallacy of composition. Of course the elements of the Universe (STEM - space, time, energy, matter) are not contingent on anything. They simply exist. According to the principle of the conservation laws, matter, energy cannot be created or destroyed. You may try to criticize that principle, and you are welcome to do so, but this principle is so well established that a possible “it may not be true” just does not cut it.

 

[JohnDamian]

Well, eventually I must ask: what the heck is “nessecity” or “nessecarily”? These are words I have never seen before. I suspect that you mistyped “necessity” and “necessarily”, but I am not certain (since you typed them so many times).

That would be me making a spelling mistake; albeit repeatedly. Pettifogging over spelling is rather pointless.

Since you use so many made-up words

Such as?

Let’s stop taking about “genus”, which is borrowed from biology.

It was not “borrowed” from biology. It is terminology used by Aristotle in Corpus Aristotelicum as part of the Genus-Differentia distinction. It is simple predicate logic.

Some philosophers talk about “other possible worlds” and declare “necessary” existence, as something that exists in all “possible worlds”.

Necessary is a predicate which means a thing “must” exist. This can be used in general, for example “x is necessary” or it can be used in particular; for example “x is necessary for y”

I am willing to say that “essentialy ordered” or “accidently ordered” are meaningless, for example. I am willing to say that “essence” is a concept which is contingent on an observer and a point of view of that observer.

This is a predication of ordered sequences. Causality operates in numerous ways. I assumed you knew the difference as you seem reasonably well read, but I shall elaborate;

Accidentaly and essentially ordered causal series are different in that; in an accidentally ordered sequence A need not act simultaneously with B in order for B to cause C. In an accidentally ordered sequence; the causes may be of the same ratio and order; wheras in an essentially ordered sequence the causes belong to a different ratio and order. In an essentially ordered sequence A must exist at the very time B produces C.

There is no disembodied “essence”.

This position is called nominalism or conceptualism. It is a perfectly respectable position but is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Aquinas and Ockham were both nominalists and used similar arguments to Realists of the time.

To go to specifics. The Universe is the set (or composition) of its members. Even if it were true that all the members would be “contingent” on something else (whatever contingent means in this case), from that fact it does not follow that the Universe itself is contingent upon something else. To assert that would be a fallacy of composition.

If the universe has a higher existance than merely a genus of it’s members; in that we say the universe has it’s own existence as an entity per se; the universe itself is either necessary or it is contingent; to deny this is to deny the law of noncontradiction. Sub species of the universe are relevant only insofar as to say that they operate causally with the universe.

Of course the elements of the Universe (STEM - space, time, energy, matter) are not contingent on anything. They simply exist.

Now that is a particularily odd claim. How can you say matter “just exists”… I can understand people who claim that space and time are universal; I can even understand people like Kant who claim space and time are simply a priori systems for compartmentalising knowlege. But I have never heard a credulous individual seriously posit that energy and matter exist completely necessarily.

According to the principle of the conservation laws, matter, energy cannot be created or destroyed. You may try to criticize that principle, and you are welcome to do so

“It just is” is not an argument at all… You can state all you like about operations and functions of entities per se. Just because we have not observed matter or energy appear or disappear does not mean we accept it was always there; this would be a no-black-swan fallacy.

 

[R_Daneel]

That would be me making a spelling mistake; albeit repeatedly. Pettifogging over spelling is rather pointless.

That is fine. I was simply wondering.

It was not “borrowed” from biology. It is terminology used by Aristotle in Corpus Aristotelicum as part of the Genus-Differentia distinction. It is simple predicate logic.

Well, if I remember correctly, in the time of Aristotele people thought that everything is composed of the four elements of fire, air, water and earth. They thought that the brain is merely an organ to cool the blood. In other words, they were incredibly ignorant. Thus they engaged in speculation about the nature of things. I don’t put any value on those musings.

People love to categorize things into neat little boxes. The trouble is that those neat little boxes are artifical constructs, and nature does not care about them. Physicist used ponder if light was composed of particles or if light is a wave. This particular dichotomy only existed in the minds of those people. In reality the dichotomy does not exist. Light is both particles and wave. This should be a fair warning to those who attempt to categorize things.

The categories develoeped by Aristotele belong to the books of history, as an interesting tidbit of how people attempted to make sense of the world around them. Apart from that they have no place in a discussion.

Necessary is a predicate which means a thing “must” exist. This can be used in general, for example “x is necessary” or it can be used in particular; for example “x is necessary for y”

Very good. So if something exists in all possible worlds, we apply the label of “necessary” existence. If it only appears in some of the possible worlds, the label is “contingent”. First, this dichotomy is just another example of those neat little boxes, which are meaningless. We can go into detail if you so desire. It is easy to prove that there is no “necessary” existence, when one speaks of ordinary objects. If one speaks of generalizations, then the only “mecessarily” existing thing is the STEM.

This is a predication of ordered sequences. Causality operates in numerous ways. I assumed you knew the difference as you seem reasonably well read, but I shall elaborate;

Causality works only one way: physical particles are exchanged and some change takes place.

Accidentaly and essentially ordered causal series are different in that; in an accidentally ordered sequence A need not act simultaneously with B in order for B to cause C. In an accidentally ordered sequence; the causes may be of the same ratio and order; wheras in an essentially ordered sequence the causes belong to a different ratio and order. In an essentially ordered sequence A must exist at the very time B produces C.

Another irrelevant dichotomy.

If the universe has a higher existance than merely a genus of it’s members; in that we say the universe has it’s own existence as an entity per se; the universe itself is either necessary or it is contingent; to deny this is to deny the law of noncontradiction. Sub species of the universe are relevant only insofar as to say that they operate causally with the universe.

There is no “higher” level of existence. Some attributes simply cannot be defined for the set, which can be defined for the members. Every human has an attribute of having exactly one mother, but for a set of humans this attribute cannot be even defined. For each human there is an attribute of gender, or ethnic origin. But these attributes cannot be defined for a collection of humans.

Now that is a particularily odd claim. How can you say matter “just exists”… I can understand people who claim that space and time are universal; I can even understand people like Kant who claim space and time are simply a priori systems for compartmentalising knowlege. But I have never heard a credulous individual seriously posit that energy and matter exist completely necessarily.

Because physicists usually no not engage in useless conversations of philosophy. They measure, calculate, set up hypotheses and check them. The proposed dichotomy of “necessary” and “contingent” existence is just another meaningless invention. It was thought that space and time are independent variables, unconnected to matter/energy. It was also thought that matter and energy are two different entities. All these concepts are outdated. There is only STEM, matter/energy/space/time.

“It just is” is not an argument at all… You can state all you like about operations and functions of entities per se. Just because we have not observed matter or energy appear or disappear does not mean we accept it was always there; this would be a no-black-swan fallacy.

It would be if it were stated as an absolute truth. But it is not. Actually we have observed virtual particles come and go. There is no causation involved in the process, as far as it can be ascertained.

 

[CosmicActor]

Look, we don’t deny the existance of fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, santa clause, & the flying spaghetti monster because we don’t have reasons for their existance. The absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, unless a substancial property is necessary. We deny the existance of those things because we got good evidence for why they don’t exist! Those are being whose existance should be observable from their basic acts.

“Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic… ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The negative claim of Atheim, that the proposition “There is a God” is false, can be stated as a positive claim. The pseudo-logic for many village atheists is to say atheism is the lack of faith in a god, but that is false. That resorts to a non-theism. Of which there are several categories such as the denial of god (atheism), not having a reason to believe or disbelieve (soft agnosticism), thinking its impossible to know (hard agnosticism), or saying the proposition “There is a God” isn’t really a proposition (Verificationism).

People during Aristotle’s day didn’t believe “in the four elements.” Their belief was in Plato’s Theory of Ideas. Aristotle’s “speculation” on causality is more rational than Hume’s, which states things can just pop into existance like rabbits out of a magicians hat! Any causality, since there is no set essences, would only be in the mind and therefore science is itself a construct. Hence, Kant seperating noumena and phenomena!

“Causality works only one way” That is what Aristotle argued & what some philosophers, like Kenny, try to put into doubt. “There is no “higher” level of existence” then all qualitative statements must be nonsese to you. Virtual particles don’t come from non-being, they need the quantum field. I’m contingent while math is necessary. These terms aren’t trivial, they are necessary! Physics can be crippled by philosophy from ever speaking truth. The last several hundred years has proved that.

 

[JohnDamian]

The categories develoeped by Aristotele belong to the books of history, as an interesting tidbit of how people attempted to make sense of the world around them. Apart from that they have no place in a discussion.

Just because you fail to understand them that does not make what you are saying true. As you mention with Light; light is composed of something; and to experiment to find out what is a good thing. Likewise; other entities are composed of other things. This is called the principles of individuation which discuss how things are made into particulars.

That is to say; how is a table different from a chair when all their constituant material elements are the same and so on. There are multiple theories about the principle of individuation; including both the views that universals are real things (realism) and are not (nominalism/conceptualism). It is very important to work out what makes a particular thing what thing (quiddity) and this thing (haecceity).

In the same way as Biology applies the ideas of species and genus to creatures; these same boundaries and understandings can be applied to objects and suchlike. To put it extremely simply; a wooden desk and a wooden chair are both within the genus of furniture; the species of wooden furniture; and the differentia is that their composition or form is different to one another. Likewise; we categorise apes and humans as different species within the genus of mammalia; and so on.

**Categorising things allows us to comprehend and study the universe. Without categorising thing’s we would be unable to make any meaningful distinction between a chair and a dog. **

The categories develoeped by Aristotele belong to the books of history, as an interesting tidbit of how people attempted to make sense of the world around them. Apart from that they have no place in a discussion.

Your lack of understanding of Aristotle seems evident; Aristotle developed a way of categorising objects and entities into seperate species and genera; which then allow us to make meaningful statements about them. Like I said earlier; if we do not have a system of knowlege to tell us what the specific difference between a dog and a chair is; then we are in a very poor state.

It is easy to prove that there is no “necessary” existence, when one speaks of ordinary objects. If one speaks of generalizations, then the only “mecessarily” existing thing is the STEM.

This is meaningless. You say that you can prove there is no nessecary existance of ordinary objects… No one is claiming nessecary existance of ordinary objects. Then you go and claim one thing as nessecary, space time energy and matter - an unverifiable and unsurported claim that is demonstrably untrue. Matter and energy cannot have existed forever; this is self evident.

Causality works only one way: physical particles are exchanged and some change takes place.

Causality does not necessarily apply to physical particles. It applies to all entities that are not self propelling or generative.

There is no “higher” level of existence. Some attributes simply cannot be defined for the set, which can be defined for the members. Every human has an attribute of having exactly one mother, but for a set of humans this attribute cannot be even defined. For each human there is an attribute of gender, or ethnic origin. But these attributes cannot be defined for a collection of humans.

I am not attributing those attributes to a collection of humans… You seem to have a fascination with the Fallacy of Composition and accusing me of it, when I am merely using quiddiative predication which in no way constitutes a composite fallacy.

It would be if it were stated as an absolute truth. But it is not. Actually we have observed virtual particles come and go. There is no causation involved in the process, as far as it can be ascertained.

Yes, and whilst we are making meaningless statements; babies are not caused they just happen; and diseases are random punishments from God… Of course virtual particules are caused; just like diseases and babies - just because at present we do not know for certain how they are caused does not mean they are not caused. We do know also, that virtual particles come from a quantum field… and anyway if they appear from nothing (which they don’t) does that not violate your silly dichotomy of the law of conservation?

 

[R_Daneel]

Categorising things allows us to comprehend and study the universe. Without categorising thing’s we would be unable to make any meaningful distinction between a chair and a dog.

Of course. This is very true. I was not talking against categorization is general, I was talking about introducing unnecessary and nonsensical categories. Like the US census which keeps asking about the “race” of the inhabitants. Like the idea of subdivinding existence into “necessary” and “contingent” existence. None of these give an iota of information. On the other hand, it does make perfect sence to subdivide “existence” inot physical existence and conceptual existence. There is a real difference there.

Your lack of understanding of Aristotle seems evident; Aristotle developed a way of categorising objects and entities into seperate species and genera; which then allow us to make meaningful statements about them. Like I said earlier; if we do not have a system of knowlege to tell us what the specific difference between a dog and a chair is; then we are in a very poor state.

Sure. That is not what I was talking about. Attributes of physically existing objects exist, whether we realize them or not. Some of physical attributes are not material objects, they are the relationships between material objects.

This is meaningless. You say that you can prove there is no nessecary existance of ordinary objects… No one is claiming nessecary existance of ordinary objects. Then you go and claim one thing as nessecary, space time energy and matter - an unverifiable and unsurported claim that is demonstrably untrue. Matter and energy cannot have existed forever; this is self evident.

Another error on your part. You treat “time” (forever) as an independent variable. It is not. The whole concept of “forever” is meaningless. There is no time “outside” the universe.

Causality does not necessarily apply to physical particles. It applies to all entities that are not self propelling or generative.

Give me an example.

I am not attributing those attributes to a collection of humans… You seem to have a fascination with the Fallacy of Composition and accusing me of it, when I am merely using quiddiative predication which in no way constitutes a composite fallacy.

Oh, come on. I gave you examples of having a collection of some elements where the property can be meaningfully defined for the elements, but it cannot be defined for the collection itself. The usual arguments of “first something” all exhibit the same fallacy. You said in your previous paragraph that matter/energy could not have existed “forever”, thereby displaying your lack of understanding of what time is.

 

[JohnDamian]

On the other hand, it does make perfect sence to subdivide “existence” inot physical existence and conceptual existence. There is a real difference there.

You are equivocating the real distinction with the formal distinction. Existence physically, and existance conceptually is only distinct in a formal sense.

Like the idea of subdivinding existence into “necessary” and “contingent” existence.

Why is this a meaningless distinction? It is particularily useful in determining if there are any “nessecary” things in the universe. You for example claim STEM is “nessecary”; wheras you or I am merely “contingent”.

Sure. That is not what I was talking about. Attributes of physically existing objects exist, whether we realize them or not. Some of physical attributes are not material objects, they are the relationships between material objects.

Yes. These are called distinctions; relations; sequences and the suchlike.

Another error on your part. You treat “time” (forever) as an independent variable. It is not. The whole concept of “forever” is meaningless. There is no time “outside” the universe.

This claim is unfounded.

Give me an example.

Causality can be applied to objects of the mind; not merely physical particles. However; you shall likely dismiss the distinction between physicality and the mind.

thereby displaying your lack of understanding of what time is.

Time is nessecarily finite. Time exists seperate from the mind. This position is called realism.

What do you think time is; and do you have any evidence? (a priori or a posteriori).