irichc

I said:

"If everything which has colour has light --> everything which has no colour has no light (as far as light is essential to colour)".

It works with the definition of COLOUR, not with the definition of LIGHT. Colour needs light, but light doesn't need colour.

Daniel.

Biff the unclean

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
For your viewing pleasure II is proud to present…

A tap dance

Paul2

Might i direct you to: http://www.howstuffworks.com/light2.htm

and then this page on how you interpret color: http://www.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm

didn't you learn this in high school?

Darth Dane

Didn´t they find out that, from an atoms point of view, everything seems to be standing still?

So now the atom (that which is indivisible) is moving from our point of view, and standing still from it´s own point of view!

So what is it doing exactly?



I´m the unmovable mover

I´m that which is





DD - Godly Atomic Spliff

Feather

I'd like to take this time to mention that the study of the Latin language is an off/on hobby of mine (I'm much too busy with my studies in grad. school and posting on these forums to give it much time). I know the general grammar of the language and am passively familiar with a modest vocabulary.

So, Daniel, "understanding the words" is not the issue. The issue is the pretentious "I have used Latin, ergo I am correct" tone that you seem to have. As if looking up the translations to the words you posted might convey all the relevent meaning of your argument.

Well, there's something to be said for that, I suppose, as your argument seems to consist entirely of definitions and assertions and nothing of substance or proof.

I particularly enjoyed your "light/color" analogy which, as others have noted, is grotesquely misinformed at the least.

Biff the unclean

Feather, this use of Latin is only "the old razzle dazzle." What slight of hand artists call "the art of misdirection."

If you wow them with Latin, bowl them over with syllogisms, maybe no one will realize that the PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALMIGHTY GOD you are giving is that….

…things wiggle

irichc

Syllogism #1

Every effect has movement
Every cause has an effect
Every cause has movement.

A sensu contrario, tertius non datur:

Everything which is uncaused is still.

Syllogism #2

Everything which is still* is uncaused (only can be denied by experience)
Everything which is uncaused has no effect
Everything which is still has no effect.

A sensu contrario, tertius non datur:

Everything which is mobile has an effect.

Syllogism #3

Everything which is mobile is caused (a sensu contrario, tertius non datur; while premise 1 from Syllogism #2 remains true)
Every effect has movement
Every effect is caused.

Daniel.

* In an absolute sense, not in a relative one.

Feather

Argumentum ad lingua meets Argumentum ad repetitio.

The resulting circles and stagnation shake the very foundations of the heavens, and slithy toves begin to gyre and gimble in the wabe....

More to the point, Silent Acorns (and others) have already objected to the premise "still = uncaused." On what basis do you make this assertion?

Or is your argument as Biff suggests: nothing doesn't wiggle, ergo God.

irichc

Show me something which is still (absolutely) and caused at the same time.

Daniel.

Feather

Well I'd have to find something that is still first, wouldn't I?

Not that it matters, since it's up to you to demonstrate that your assertion has any meaning beyond mere tautology.