How to prove God's existence the way it's supposed to Part 1

[Candide_West]

When i formulated my proof in a logical and correct way you were only willing to agree up to a certain point.

Yep, the point when you started making mistakes. I feel I’ve been very specific about the mistakes you made. Are you telling me that you still don’t understand? Do you need me to go through line by line again?

So let’s go to that point again first and formulate further in a way you understand better.
You agreed that life can’t take place inside a body that hasn’t got a single empty space inside.

Out of that agreement followed your agreement that there is at least one empty space inside a living body.

This part is fine. Yes.

Out of that agreement followed your agreement that it is correct to define two parts in a living body.

No, not really. I explained previously why separating any object in this manner doesn’t really make sense (remember where I demonstrated that every atom in the human body must be in the “empty” part of the body as well).

The empty part is the group of all empty spaces inside a living body and the full part is all the rest inside a living body or everything else that hasn’t got a single empty space inside.
Out of that agreement followed your agreement that life can’t take place inside the full part because life can’t take place inside a body that hasn’t got a single empty space inside.

Close, I agreed that it can’t be a living thing in itself. Remember there is no “inside” the empty part because it has no volume as such.

Now what happens when we focus on the empty part.
What if the next question to solve is: can life take place inside the empty part?
The answer is also simple: No because only emptiness takes place inside emptiness.

Kinda, it’s more like “No because there is only emptiness inside emptiness”

We can demonstrate this with a slight modification to your OP in fact.

Is it possible to find life in a body that hasn’t got any matter (protons, neutrons, electrons, essentially anything with mass) in it? - No.

Because if there’s no matter there it then there isn’t a body.

Conclusion - There is at least some matter in any living body because if there is no matter there is no body.

Names
The full part - the group all the matter in a body
The empty part - everything else.

Can the empty part in itself be a living body? - NO
Because we already know that every living body has at least some matter in it.

Conclusion 2
In a living body with the full and empty part it is impossible to find life in the empty part.

Last question
Then do we by definition have to localise life in a living body inside the full part?
…

There you go. So again your own logic shows that the life can’t be in the empty part either.

I’m sure you are willing to agree to this as well and so a living body has two parts in it and are as such the only two parts in it, the full part and the empty part.

As i’ve said, splitting the body into these “parts” makes little sense.

You can’t find life inside the full part and you can’t find life inside the empty part because logic says so.

You can’t find life in either individually no. This isn’t surprising bearing in mind that you can’t separate anything into the “full” and “empty” parts without it ceasing to be what it is. An atom can be divided into the “full” and “empty” part too. Neither of these parts is in itself an atom.

In short you agreed that these two parts, which together are a complete living body, are not able to have life going on inside them except when you look at the full and the empty part as a whole.

More or less, yes. Another way of saying it is that a “living body” is an emergent property of all the things that go together to make the body arranged in the right way. Just like a “drivable car” is emergent property of thousands of components arranged in the right way. Or a “two room house” is an emergent property of two rooms arranged together into a house.

Then you would say that this is not a problem because it is not because you can’t find life in one part of a living body and can’t find life in the only other part of that living body that you can’t find life in the two parts together.

Er, but you CAN find life in the two parts together. Remember, you started out with a living body. You just can’t find life in either of them individually. Just like you can’t find “tworoomhouseness” in either of the two rooms which make up the house. Or the “atomyness” in either the “full” of “empty” parts of the atom.

Because you go looking to find life in one part of the body, can’t find it, then go looking to find life in the only other part of the body, can’t find it, then go looking to find life inside the two parts together and then you say that that’s when you can find life because that’s when you start looking in the places you had not yet been to go looking for life…

Er, what? Yes, when you look at the living body as a whole you observe life. In the same way if you observe “tworoomhouseness” when you look at the two room house as a whole. and you observe “atomyness” when you look at the whole atom together.

It’s okay if you believes in nonsense like that, i don’t and i have my reasons because the title of this topic is still far from nonsense just like all the rest i wrote.

Well everything here comes from logic you’ve used yourself. I’m not sure why you seem to be denying the results of your own logic while holding the logic to be true. This seems irrational.

 

[Neverbeendead]

It is very correct to define the two parts in a living body.
You claim that it is not correct because you say that giving names to certain areas is separating them from each other so that they are further away from each other then they used to be so that the whole no longer has a property of the whole that leads to my wrong conclusion. When is see a half full glass of water and say: the bottom half is the water part and the upper half is the air part of the inside of the glass i would be giving wrong names and would not be able to give properties to these two parts as well.

And i am not changing the living body in any way just by giving names to two parts inside them.
And these parts are real because when there is at least one empty space inside a living body you can give a name to that part inside the living body that is the group of all empty spaces inside it. The name you give to that part without changing the living body in any way is the empty part.
And the name you give to everything that does not belong to the empty part inside the living body without changing the living body in any way is the full part.

The names have been given and are correct and they relate to areas that have not been changed in any way and while leaving them unchanged the conclusions that have been made about the properties of each of these areas are also still correct.

 

[Neverbeendead]

And here an addition to my previous post. When you admit that life can’t be in the full part and can’t be in the empty part ,two parts that are very known now in this topic and that that is irrelevant information when i try to prove with that information that you can’t define life inside a living body in a logical way which leads to the conclusion that logic goes over itself to make an impossibilty possible and a good one to start with, you get something like this:
An alive person is aware of the life going on inside his body because it is his own life that goes on there.
He can even have a conversation with himself with his inner voice that nobody else can hear.
He has an inner voice and an inner ear for that.
There is no life possible in the full part so inside that unaltered part of an unaltered living body there’s only silence.
There is no life possible in the unaltered empty part of an unaltered living body so inside that part there’s also only silence.
However you say that when the inner ear is listening to the two parts together it starts picking up sounds.

That’s like when you have a house with only two rooms in it.
And there’s always silence in both rooms forever. With that truth you go to your next truth that if you put a microphone in every room and hook them both up to one headset you are able to get sounds from these rooms that are always silent forever. Then you also have to ask yourself if you came to that truth by using logic and nothing more than that.

And what if the dead could talk? They can’t but what if?
Then you get this:
You’re sitting next to a living body and the empty part starts a conversation with you.
-Hi there. I’m the empty part of this living body and i’m dead. You see, you can never find life inside me because i’m only emptiness. Would you like to talk to the life that’s going on inside this body?
-Yes, but how do i do that?
-Well, there’s only one other part in this body and maybe that can help you with that.
-Hi there. I’m the full part of this body and i’m dead. You see, you can never find life inside me because i’m all the way stuffed and in one solid state. Would you like to talk to the life that’s going on inside this body?
-Yes, but how do i do that.
-Well, there’s only one other part in this body kid and maybe that can help you with that.

 

[Candide_West]

It is very correct to define the two parts in a living body.

Sure, you can define it into as many parts as you like, just don’t expect it to provide a meaningful analysis

You claim that it is not correct because you say that giving names to certain areas is separating them from each other so that they are further away from each other then they used to be so that the whole no longer has a property of the whole that leads to my wrong conclusion. When is see a half full glass of water and say: the bottom half is the water part and the upper half is the air part of the inside of the glass i would be giving wrong names and would not be able to give properties to these two parts as well.

I know what you are doing, as I have said several times, you are selectively applying reductionism. and here’s another useful example for you using the case you’ve given above.

You have a glass which is half full, so you consider the “full part” (the bottom part) and the “empty part” (the top part) separately.

Now, you look in the bottom part to see if it is in itself “half full”. Obviously it is not “half full”, because it is completely full. So you conclude that the “empty part” (the top half) must be half full.

This is the same as what you have done with the living body.

And i am not changing the living body in any way just by giving names to two parts inside them.

I know. The incorrect assumption you are making is that “any property of the whole must be a property of one of the parts alone”.

And these parts are real because when there is at least one empty space inside a living body you can give a name to that part inside the living body that is the group of all empty spaces inside it. The name you give to that part without changing the living body in any way is the empty part.

And the name you give to everything that does not belong to the empty part inside the living body without changing the living body in any way is the full part.

Yes, and the empty part (as we have demonstrated already, using your own logic) contains every atom in the body. If you like we can repeat the logic to show that the “head”, “arms”, “legs” and “torso” are all in the empty part as well.

Of course we can also use the same logic to demsonstrate that these are all in the “full part” as well.

AND funnily enough we can also use the same logic to demsonstrate that they are not in EITHER the full or the empty part.

This is a simple way of demonstrating that extreme reductionism DOESN’T WORK (it generates contradictions).

The names have been given and are correct and they relate to areas that have not been changed in any way and while leaving them unchanged the conclusions that have been made about the properties of each of these areas are also still correct.

Again, I keep on suggesting you actually try the logic out for yourself. Try doing the logic with looking for the “half full” part of a glass which is half full of water (using the “empty” and “full” parts of the glass).

The reason you keep confusing yourself is this continued insistence on reductionism.

 

[Neverbeendead]

As i already mentioned, the definitions of the two parts are real but the problem was that they couldn’t define themselves inside the body while this trick solved that.

And what if the dead could talk? They can’t but what if?
Then you get this:
You’re sitting next to a living body and the empty part starts a conversation with you.
-Hi there. I’m the empty part of this living body and i’m dead. You see, you can never find life inside me because i’m only emptiness. Would you like to talk to the life that’s going on inside this body?
-Yes, but how do i do that?
-Well, there’s only one other part in this body and maybe that can help you with that.
-Hi there. I’m the full part of this body and i’m dead. You see, you can never find life inside me because i’m all the way stuffed and in one solid state. Would you like to talk to the life that’s going on inside this body?
-Yes, but how do i do that.
-Well, there’s only one other part in this body kid and maybe that can help you with that.

 

[Candide_West]

As i already mentioned, the definitions of the two parts are real but the problem was that they couldn’t define themselves inside the body while this trick solved that.

And what if the dead could talk? They can’t but what if?
Then you get this:
You’re sitting next to a living body and the empty part starts a conversation with you.
-Hi there. I’m the empty part of this living body and i’m dead. You see, you can never find life inside me because i’m only emptiness. Would you like to talk to the life that’s going on inside this body?
-Yes, but how do i do that?
-Well, there’s only one other part in this body and maybe that can help you with that.
-Hi there. I’m the full part of this body and i’m dead. You see, you can never find life inside me because i’m all the way stuffed and in one solid state. Would you like to talk to the life that’s going on inside this body?
-Yes, but how do i do that.
-Well, there’s only one other part in this body kid and maybe that can help you with that.

What is that intended to demonstrate, that neither part in itself is a living body? But we’ve already established that. The problem here is that you refuse to admit that emergent properties exist.

I keep suggesting you try accepting that this form is possible

A + B = C

A NOT= C
AND
B NOT= C

and you keep refusing, even though you have already stated that it IS possible and applied it yourself (in the case of the two room house).

I’m starting to once again think that this is some kind of strange joke.

 

[Neverbeendead]

As i already mentioned, the definitions of the two parts are real but the problem was that they couldn’t define themselves inside the body while this trick solved that.

And what if the dead could talk? They can’t but what if?
Then you get this:
You’re sitting next to a living body and the empty part starts a conversation with you.
-Hi there. I’m the empty part of this living body and i’m dead. You see, you can never find life inside me because i’m only emptiness. Would you like to talk to the life that’s going on inside this body?
-Yes, but how do i do that?
-Well, there’s only one other part in this body and maybe that can help you with that.
-Hi there. I’m the full part of this body and i’m dead. You see, you can never find life inside me because i’m all the way stuffed and in one solid state. Would you like to talk to the life that’s going on inside this body?
-Yes, but how do i do that.
-Well, there’s only one other part in this body kid and maybe that can help you with that.

That conversation is about two parts that cannot talk but they can using a trick.
So which part turns out to be a liar when revealing information about itself, when giving information about having to find life somewhere else.

 

[Candide_West]

That conversation is about two parts that cannot talk but they can using a trick.
So which part turns out to be a liar when revealing information about itself, when giving information about having to find life somewhere else.

Neither part is lying. Your own logic has demonstrated this quite successfully.

 

[Neverbeendead]

And so when you have an extra conversation with the life that goes on inside a living body it goes like this:
-Hi, i’m the life that goes on in a place inside a living body. Whatever this place is, it’s a place that belongs only to the empty part or only to the full part. It can also be that both full part and empty part are able to say that this place takes up some or all of their own place or area.
Or how i am always taking place only there where two parts are always able to say in truth that you can never find life inside their own place or area. And that’s because i am the life that goes on inside a living body that you cannot define with logic alone. You have no other option but to do that with logic that goes over itself and makes an impossibility possible and it’s a good one to start with when that’s wriiten down in a topic called How to prove god’s existence Part 1.

 

[Candide_West]

And so when you have an extra conversation with the life that goes on inside a living body it goes like this:

So this is now a conversation with a person then (by which i mean the “full” and “empty” parts together arranged into a person), so a real person like you or me.

-Hi, i’m the life that goes on in a place inside a living body. Whatever this place is, it’s a place that belongs only to the empty part or only to the full part. It can also be that both full part and empty part are able to say that this place takes up some or all of their own place or area.
Or how i am always taking place only there where two parts are always able to say in truth that you can never find life inside their own place or area. And that’s because i am the life that goes on inside a living body that you cannot define with logic alone. You have no other option but to do that with logic that goes over itself and makes an impossibility possible and it’s a good one to start with when that’s wriiten down in a topic called How to prove god’s existence Part 1.

None of this seems to make much sense. Again you seem to be trying to apply a odd kind of reductionism - treating the life in a body as if it is something separate in itself, and object to be located. This would be like like treating a two room house as if it has three elements - room A, room B and tworoomness. This doesn’t make much sense for obvious reasons.

We don’t seem to be getting much progress this way. Why don’t you try working through the logic using the A + B = C construction that you used previously. You seemed comfortable using that approach, so please, show me how you think your “proof” works using that kind of notation.

 

[Neverbeendead]

Well now that we have those three known voices, one real alive voice and two that can’t talk because they are dead but in a what if trick, we have this conversation:
The alive voice of the whole body starts talking with the full part.
-Do you know who i am?
-Yes, you are the whole body and i am one part of that and the empty part is the other part of that.
-True, and am i taking place inside you?
-You are not taking place in any place inside my area. I am the full part and every place inside my area is dead because i am completely stuffed and in one solid state. And when every place inside my area is dead you are not in any place of my area because you are alive. And we live in a world where logic says that the dead are never the alive.
-I see, well then i’ll have a word with the other part.
Then the alive voice of the whole body has a conversation with the empty part.
-Do you know who i am?
-Yes, you are the whole body and i am one part of that and the full part is the other part of that.
-True, and am i taking place inside you?
-You are not taking place in any place inside my area. I am the empty part and every place inside my area is dead because i am completely empty or just emptiness. And when every place inside my area is dead you are not in any place of my area because you are alive. And we live in a world where logic says that the dead are never the alive.
-I see, but now i have a problem. I am only the empty part and the full part and now both have learned me with simple logic that i am not in any place of their areas. So where am i taking place then?
-Inside a place where logic goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with.

You may always write down which one of the three voices was telling a lie and why.

 

[Candide_West]

Well now that we have those three known voices, one real alive voice and two that can’t talk because they are dead but in a what if trick, we have this conversation:
The alive voice of the whole body starts talking with the full part.

So it’s talking to a sub part of itself then? In other words the full and empty parts together is trying to strike up a conversation with the full part alone. Is this something you do a lot?

-Do you know who i am?
-Yes, you are the whole body and i am one part of that and the empty part is the other part of that.
-True, and am i taking place inside you?
-You are not taking place in any place inside my area. I am the full part and every place inside my area is dead because i am completely stuffed and in one solid state. And when every place inside my area is dead you are not in any place of my area because you are alive. And we live in a world where logic says that the dead are never the alive.
-I see, well then i’ll have a word with the other part.
Then the alive voice of the whole body has a conversation with the empty part.
-Do you know who i am?
-Yes, you are the whole body and i am one part of that and the full part is the other part of that.
-True, and am i taking place inside you?
-You are not taking place in any place inside my area. I am the empty part and every place inside my area is dead because i am completely empty or just emptiness. And when every place inside my area is dead you are not in any place of my area because you are alive. And we live in a world where logic says that the dead are never the alive.

Ok, so once again, this is the situation where.*

A + B = C*

A NOT= C
AND
B NOT= C

So we know that the “whole body” is an emergent property of putting the other two together. Nice and easy.

-I see, but now i have a problem. I am only the empty part and the full part and now both have learned me with simple logic that i am not in any place of their areas. So where am i taking place then?
-Inside a place where logic goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with.

No, there’s nothing impossible about this. You’ve just forgotten again that the “whole body” is an emergent property of the “full” and “empty” parts put together.*

If it helps you try going back over your entire post replacing “full part” with “Room A” and “empty part” with “room B” and “whole body” with “tworoomhouseness”.*

You’ll get to the same point in the same way. But as I’m sure you’ll remember you already demonstrated that “tworoomhouseness” is an emergent property from the other two being put together to form a house.
*

*You may always write down which one of the three voices was telling a lie and why.

None of them is lying. There is nothing impossible here, or even difficult to understand. Your error is that you keep insisting that “life” is some kind of object located at some “spot” somewhere in the body. It isn’t, life is an emergent property from all the things that make up the living being in combination.

Again try applying your

A + B = C*

Notation, that proved quite useful and successful in helping you understand last time.

 

[Neverbeendead]

When your own empty part and full part start saying this at the same time to you you get:
Empty part and full part-You are not taking place inside any place of our own area because every place inside our own area is dead.
Then you can say: That’s okay guys because i don’t need to take place in a place of your own areas because i’m in a very special place where logic will never prove my existence when logic isn’t allowed to go over itself to make an impossibility possible.

 

[Candide_West]

When your own empty part and full part start saying this at the same time to you you get:
Empty part and full part-You are not taking place inside any place of our own area because every place inside our own area is dead.
Then you can say: That’s okay guys because i don’t need to take place in a place of your own areas because i’m in a very special place where logic will never prove my existence when logic isn’t allowed to go over itself to make an impossibility possible.

Nope, repeating the same error again here I’m afraid. The living person is*an emergent property of the whole living body together. In other words it is not an object to be located somewhere in the body. It is something the whole body is.

In the same way, “tworoomhouseness” is not an object to be located in either of the two rooms of a house. It is something that the whole house is.

 

[latin_rite]

You should be a poltician. The ability to say much, yet so little at the same time. would see you go far.

 

[Candide_West]

You should be a poltician. The ability to say much, yet so little at the same time. would see you go far.

Am I right in guessing you’re talking to me here? If so you’re right, I’ve really only got a single “point” to make here. Which is the one I’ve explained numerous times - that applying reductionism to a living body and pretending emergent properties don’t exist DOES NOT WORK.

No interest in politics I’m afraid though.

 

[Neverbeendead]

What you’ve admitted to with your logic of emergent properties is this:
The empty part of a living body does not have a certain emergent property of the empty part. A certain emergent property called to be alive ( i’m using the term to be alive because whenever somebody says there’s still enough life left inside me to finish the job he’s saying something wrong because life never takes place inside a certain place )
The full part does not have a certain emergent property of the full part.
A certain emergent property called to be alive.
Yet, when these parts are next to each other in such a specific way that both parts together have the form of a body it is possible that these two parts together have an emergent property called to be alive.

You are only talking about the property of something called to be alive and so you try to convince yourself that it is only a property and as such is not related to a place.
But living things are by definition related to places. People on earth don’t say that their life is taking place on the surface of the moon because that’s not where their own awareness is located and so you can eliminate that place from the list. Further elimination leads to the fact that people know that their life never takes place outside their body because that’s also not where their awareness is located and so you can go a lot closer with elimination than a place as far as the moon.
And so life takes place inside the body because that’s were people locate their awareness. A place where two voices have already mentioned that it cannot take place in any place of their own area so that it takes place there where logic goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with.

 

[Candide_West]

What you’ve admitted to with your logic of emergent properties is this:
The empty part of a living body does not have a certain emergent property of the empty part. A certain emergent property called to be alive ( i’m using the term to be alive because whenever somebody says there’s still enough life left inside me to finish the job he’s saying something wrong because life never takes place inside a certain place )
The full part does not have a certain emergent property of the full part.
A certain emergent property called to be alive.
Yet, when these parts are next to each other in such a specific way that both parts together have the form of a body it is possible that these two parts together have an emergent property called to be alive.

More or less, yes. Essentially neither part individually has any of the properties we would sensibly associate living things or with any real objects. Remember that using your logic we can also demonstrate that the arms, legs, torso and head are also not in either “part” separately. For that matter we also know that every cell in the body is not in either part, the same goes even for every atom.*

If you struggle to understand this think about the two room house again. To modify your text from above…

…Yet, when room A and room B are next to each other in such a specific way that both parts together have the form of a house it is possible that these two parts together have an emergent property called “tworoomhouseness”.

Clear?
*

You are only talking about the property of something called to be alive and so you try to convince yourself that it is only a property and as such is not related to a place.
But living things are by definition related to places. People on earth don’t say that their life is taking place on the surface of the moon because that’s not where their own awareness is located and so you can eliminate that place from the list. Further elimination leads to the fact that people know that their life never takes place outside their body because that’s also not where their awareness is located and so you can go a lot closer with elimination than a place as far as the moon.*

Right, so once again you have demonstrated that the human body is a living thing. But neither of the sub parts you defined is in itself is a living thing. Therefore you have shown that the living thing is an emergent property of the whole thing. Well done.

And so life takes place inside the body because that’s were people locate their awareness.*

Not quite, alive is something the body IS, not something to be located somewhere in the body. Again, think about “tworoomhouseness” it isn’t something somewhere in the house, it is something the house IS.

A place where two voices have already mentioned that it cannot take place in any place of their own area so that it takes place there where logic goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with.

Nope, nothing impossible here. Just your error in assuming that “life” is an object, and that emergent properties don’t exist (which is actually more or less the same error). If you drop these errors then the situation is neatly resolved and it makes sense.

 

[Neverbeendead]

What else do we know when we know that the living body has two parts in it?
The empty part is the group of every empty space inside the living body and is never a part that lives because it is only emptiness.
The full part is the group of everything else inside the body or everything else that does not have a single empty space inside it. It is also a part that is never a living part because it is completely stuffed or in one solid state.
If we for a second do not talk about a living body but about about a perfect cube the bottom half of that cube is the full part and the upper half the empty part.
It’s a special cube where the bottom half is completely stuffed with matter in one solid state that hasn’t got a single empty space inside and where the upper half does not have a single piece of matter in it or is completely empty.
A cube like that is too hard to make in reality, especially one that has been put on a table, big enough for a grown man to crawl inside.
But this big enough cube is a representation of a thing that is the combination of a full and an empty part.

It is also a representation of an example where a full part and an empty part together do not lead to your emergent property called to be alive. Because you take another look at this cube on the table only to realise that it is not alive.
That’s because the empty part has no influence whatsoever on the sum of itself and the full part to make the sum have an emergent property called to be alive. Just like the full part has no influence whatsoever on the sum of itself and the empty part so that the sum has your emergent property called to be alive. The empty part in the cube does not have what it takes to say: Hey, full part i’ve got what it takes to make us alive and the same goes for the full part.
Now if this cube had a bottom half that is 4 cubes next to each other where two are empty parts and two are full parts just like with the upper half you will see that even the bottom half does not have the influence on the sum of itself and the upper half to give the sum a property called to be alive. Just like the upper half does not have the influence on the sum of itself and the bottom half to give the sum a property called to be alive. Or how an empty part and a full part does not have the influence on more empty and full parts attached to it to make the sum have an emergent property called to be alive.
The only reason why people like you conclude that empty and full parts have that influence is because people like you already observed the endresult at a very young age. A living body is alive and therefor all the parts inside the body together will only lead to that logic. No matter what somebody else says, all they say that claims different will be by definition wrong.
It’s like the process called to count to infinity. You can never walk to somebody and say: I’ve done that because it’s a process that never ends. A similar process is our 3 Dimensional space in which we can move around. We will always have that to move around in because nobody can write down how a happening will make it so that one day we will no longer have that and what it will be that came in the place of what we had.
And when this 3 dimensional space will be usable forever by definiton because nothing can change that it means that there hasn’t been a point in history where something changed that. Then the age of this 3 dimensional space turns out to be infinite. If it had a voice it would say that it has already counted to infinity and it did but it just did not use logic alone for that. It also used logic that goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with in a topic with the same name as this one except for the number of the part. A topic where it’s about special things going on inside certain places as well.

 

[Candide_West]

What else do we know when we know that the living body has two parts in it?
The empty part is the group of every empty space inside the living body and is never a part that lives because it is only emptiness.
The full part is the group of everything else inside the body or everything else that does not have a single empty space inside it. It is also a part that is never a living part because it is completely stuffed or in one solid state.

Kinda, neither part is in itself a living thing. But then again, neither of the two things you just described actually exists. They’re just a confusing conceptual way of dividing up a human body.*

If we for a second do not talk about a living body but about about a perfect cube the bottom half of that cube is the full part and the upper half the empty part.
It’s a special cube where the bottom half is completely stuffed with matter in one solid state that hasn’t got a single empty space inside and where the upper half does not have a single piece of matter in it or is completely empty.
A cube like that is too hard to make in reality, especially one that has been put on a table, big enough for a grown man to crawl inside.
But this big enough cube is a representation of a thing that is the combination of a full and an empty part.

Right, and it’s an example where the “parts” have been separated out so that they do not forma living body.

This is like separating room A from room B and pointing out that now that they are separated they do not make a two room house (or more accurately like obliterating the rooms so that only dust remains and pointing out they no longer form a house ). Of course this is true, but if you put the two rooms together to form a two room house, then they DO form a two room house.

So that all makes sense nicely.
*

It is also a representation of an example where a full part and an empty part together do not lead to your emergent property called to be alive. Because you take another look at this cube on the table only to realise that it is not alive.

Right, because you’ve separated out the “full” and "empty " parts so that they no longer form a human body. In other words you destroyed the body.

You will also note that in this example there are no atoms in the cube either, but we know there are atoms in the human body. So why aren’t they in the cube? Simply put because in separating out the empty and full parts you destroyed them too.

That’s because the empty part has no influence whatsoever on the sum of itself and the full part to make the sum have an emergent property called to be alive. Just like the full part has no influence whatsoever on the sum of itself and the empty part so that the sum has your emergent property called to be alive. The empty part in the cube does not have what it takes to say: Hey, full part i’ve got what it takes to make us alive and the same goes for the full part.

Right, because neither part in itself is alive, you need both parts together to make a living thing. That’s why its an emergent property.*

Expecting something to retain complex emergent properties when it’s broken down to a level where not even atoms exist any more seems rather silly.

Now if this cube had a bottom half that is 4 cubes next to each other where two are empty parts and two are full parts just like with the upper half you will see that even the bottom half does not have the influence on the sum of itself and the upper half to give the sum a property called to be alive. Just like the upper half does not have the influence on the sum of itself and the bottom half to give the sum a property called to be alive. Or how an empty part and a full part does not have the influence on more empty and full parts attached to it to make the sum have an emergent property called to be alive.

Right, for the exact same reason as above. You’ve destroyed the body down to a level where not even atoms exist. You can hardly expect your cube to be alive.

The only reason why people like you conclude that empty and full parts have that influence is because people like you already observed the endresult at a very young age. A living body is alive and therefor all the parts inside the body together will only lead to that logic. No matter what somebody else says, all they say that claims different will be by definition wrong.

No, you aren’t wrong here “by definition” you are wrong because you keep trying to treat life as if its an object and because you ignore emergent properties. If you want your logic to make sense then you need to stop making those errors.*

It’s like the process called to count to infinity. You can never walk to somebody and say: I’ve done that because it’s a process that never ends. A similar process is our 3 Dimensional space in which we can move around. We will always have that to move around in because nobody can write down how a happening will make it so that one day we will no longer have that and what it will be that came in the place of what we had.
And when this 3 dimensional space will be usable forever by definiton because nothing can change that it means that there hasn’t been a point in history where something changed that. Then the age of this 3 dimensional space turns out to be infinite. If it had a voice it would say that it has already counted to infinity and it did but it just did not use logic alone for that. It also used logic that goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with in a topic with the same name as this one except for the number of the part. A topic where it’s about special things going on inside certain places as well.

Well this would be entirely off topic for this thread, so let’s set this to one aside and deal with the errors above.*