Dr Rick

That doesn't make any sense.

There is no logical reason that the GPB can't be the IPU any more than there is no logical reason the GPB can't be the JCG.

If a black man is defined as human, he is still black.

If the JCG is defined as the GPB, it is still the JCB

If the IPU is defined as the GPB , it is still the IPU.

Then the JCB in that case, is no longer the JCB, but the GPB. That point has also been made previously

irrelevant

The same would hold true for the GPB, yet you contradict yourself when you assert that the JCG is the GPB.

If a being cannot be the GPB and something else as well, then the JCG cannot be the GPB.

Yes, but we'll just can chalk-up your OP to your own inexperience.

Rick

xian

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the IPU (PBUHHH) in that case, is no longer the IPU (PBUHHH), but the GPB. That point has also been made previously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First of all, do not quote me and insert (PBUHHH), I did not say that, and you are misquoting me. I am asking a moderator to please support me in this. No one wants to be misquoted.

If you use [SIC] when you quote me, that is appropriate on the condition that I am making a grammatical error. Any other additions are not my quotes and I resent you assigning them to me.


Having said that, I will now respond to you:


the GPB has infinite attributes. Unlimited power, for one. This fully excludes and negates the possibility that another infinite being with that attribute can logically exist. Your examples do not work.


then Jack does not have all the attributes of GW Bush. When you propose a person named Jack and define Jack as GW Bush, he is simply GW Bush.


not worthy of a response.

xian

depends on how you define the IPU. If the IPU is defined as George W. Bush, then the IPU is simply GW Bush.

If the IPU is defined as the 13,456th CD Rom of Windows XP, then the IPU is simply the 13,456th CD Rom of Windows XP.

If the IPU is defined as the GPB, then the IPU is simply the GPB.


yup. if the IPU is defined as a black man, then the IPU is a black man.


it would be the GPB.

THe IPU does not have necessary attributes. The GPB does. GW does.

you cannot define the GPB as something other than the GPB, just like you cannot define GW Bush as something other than GW Bush.

tribalbeeyatch

[edit]

Oops. It looks like you've already corrected your post for consistency, xian.

Lobstrosity

Umm, yeah, I can empirically say that Bell's inequality isn't satisfied. See: "Empirically Bell's inequality isn't satisfied." If you want some references I'd be happy to provide them.

Yes, Bell showed that the locality principle is fiction. There are no hidden variables. What this means is that effects on particles that are functions of these "hidden" variables are actually functions of something that doesn't exist. Without hidden variables, the classical notion of a "cause" is impossible. You might not like that, but things aren't always the way we'd like them to be. Pass an electron through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus and it will be set into one of two spin states. The specific final spin state is not "caused" by anything. Since there are no hidden variables, there was no place where cause could have occured. It's the same with radioactive decay. There are no hidden variables; there is no little hidden clock counting down the time until decay. At its core, it seems that this world is merely probabilistic, and this macroscopically appears to give us cause-effect dynamics. Does this require a supernatural explanation? Of course not. Such naturalistic probabilistic dynamics produce the exact physics we observe today, so I'm not really sure why you're having such a problem with the concept. Perhaps the problem arises because you're using intuition in the place of logic. Unfortunately, intuition founded on our macroscopic experiences is completely invalid when applied to the microscopic world.

I honestly don't care whether it's possible to have a cause without an effect. I have no emotional investment in the matter. I want nothing more than the actual truth, whatever it may be. It just so happens that our current knowledge of the universe strongly implies that is indeed the way this universe is and that the entire classical cause-effect ideology is nothing more than an approximation of the truth. If you have a problem with such a finding, perhaps you need to ask yourself why. Why do you cling to this need for a cause-effect scheme when there's no logical requirement for such a thing and when such a thing is not synonymous with "naturalism"? Do religious people rail against these empirical findings because they weaken the need for a prime mover?

Addendum: Now that I pause to reflect on it, it seems this particular discussion is well outside the scope of this thread (yeah, I know, what an epiphany that must have been, right?). If you wish to respond, I kindly ask you to create a thread on this topic in the Science & Skepticism forum (as I now realize I should have done before writing this). I will not respond to anything more about this here.

Mad Kally

We must insert Praise Be Unto Her Holy Horniness after using Her name.

PBUHHH

Jinto

Pardon me, this is off-topic, but: Why?

K

xian:

If the GPB is given the attributes of having a human body, living and dying some 2000 years ago, and the name Jesus, then it is no longer the GPB.

Jobar

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must insert Praise Be Unto Her Holy Horniness after using Her name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Pardon me, this is off-topic, but: Why?

Because to do otherwise is to risk the frightful wrath of the Invisible Pink Inquisition, of course.

Jobar, First Inquisitor, IPI

Mad Kally

Thank you Brother John!