Why we're immortal

[Greatest I am]

From the definition, --- abstract theory with no basis in reality.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL

Again, gibberish. How does evidence that we are immortal have no basis in reality? You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

I am not a patient man, a hole, so be civil or be ignored. Just because you cannot understand something does not make it gibberish.

Last try.

What evidence?

Regards
DL

[Red]

No, not arrogant. It's just I'm a philosopher and you're not. So I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. Simples.

You just proved my point, thanks.

The argument I have made, incidentally, was one made by another philosopher that you, no doubt, would consider guilty of fallacious reasoning if you encountered him here: Descartes.

Now, Descartes isn't an idiot. He's one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Yet you think an argument he made is crap, right? I wonder - I wonder - who's right? Is it crap - as Red things - or good, as Descartes thinks? Hmmmmmm.

Just because an argument was made by Descartes doesn't mean it's right.

Genius is no guarantee against being dead wrong.

Aristotle was wrong on physics. Newton believed in Alchemy. Buzz Aldrin denies (or is skeptical of) climate change.

I think Descartes had an excuse for this type of thinking in his time. But given the past 300 so years of discoveries? No, I don't think so.

You ask why indivisibility implies immorality.

Well, I explained why using reason. All I can do is do that again:

No you didn't, as I and other members have continuously pointed out.

if something is indivisible, then it is simple. That is, it has no parts - it is made of nothing simpler than itself.

Something like that - something simple - can't be destroyed, for there is nothing into which it can be decomposed.

Thus, if our minds are indivisible then they are simple and if they are simple then they are indestructible.

How do you know that if something is indivisible it can't be destroyed? You continually refuse to provide evidence. Your intuition is not evidence, nor is superficial 'reasoning'.

As Teo pointed out, things pop in and out of existence all the time, and we know why they do this. Maybe you should take a course in subject.

[Greatest I am]

+ 1

Regards
DL

[Not The Real JReg]

Descartes had a daughter.

[brimstoneSalad]

@Sunflowers I'm pretty sure you're trolling at this point given the absurdity of this argument and your arrogance on the subject. @teo123 already debunked it with empirical facts, so I don't think there's anywhere else this thread can go. Quantum physics clearly demonstrates you wrong if you consider a fundamental change in form or even ceasing to exist entirely a kind of "destruction" -- which any reasonable person would. You're engaging in the fallacy of ambiguity if you're trying to define "destruction" as deconstruction and using a very particular definition of that which requires something to be ONLY a sum of those parts is deconstructed into and nothing more.

You're anonymous Sunflowers, stop appealing to your "credentials" unless you're willing to step out from behind the veil of anonymity (which FYI still wouldn't win you any credibility as it would in the hard sciences -- even "professional" philosophers in academics and with PhDs from ivy league schools regularly contradict each other and make profoundly stupid arguments).
As useless as it would be, if you really want to keep making this claim that you're a professional philosopher then you can prove yourself to be a one pretty easily: just post a video of yourself linking you to this forum account where we can match your face to extant photos of said professional (such as from a staff index on a university website, or the "about the author" flap on a book).

If you're not going to confirm your identity, stop bullshitting about your imagined credibility that you claim is your trump card in this discussion.

[Sunflowers]

No, not arrogant. It's just I'm a philosopher and you're not. So I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. Simples.

You just proved my point, thanks.

Er no, that doesn't prove your point.

Just because an argument was made by Descartes doesn't mean it's right.

If a very clever man makes an argument, and that clever man is convinced it is a good one, and you are convinced it is total rubbish, then chances are, you're wrong.

I think Descartes had an excuse for this type of thinking in his time. But given the past 300 so years of discoveries? No, I don't think so.

I think you've never read Descartes. Which 'discoveries' do you think would force Descartes to change his mind?

As Teo pointed out, things pop in and out of existence all the time, and we know why they do this. Maybe you should take a course in subject.

No they don't. Indeed, your comment makes no sense. If we knew why they did it, then they would not be 'spontaneously' popping in and out of existence.

From nothing, nothing comes. If you think otherwise, you believe in magic.

[Sunflowers]

Descartes had a daughter.

Relevance?

[Not The Real JReg]

Descartes had a daughter.

Relevance?

Do you think he would have supported anti-natalism?

[Sunflowers]

@Sunflowers I'm pretty sure you're trolling at this point given the absurdity of this argument and your arrogance on the subject. @teo123 already debunked it with empirical facts, so I don't think there's anywhere else this thread can go. Quantum physics clearly demonstrates you wrong if you consider a fundamental change in form or even ceasing to exist entirely a kind of "destruction" -- which any reasonable person would. You're engaging in the fallacy of ambiguity if you're trying to define "destruction" as deconstruction and using a very particular definition of that which requires something to be ONLY a sum of those parts is deconstructed into and nothing more.

You're anonymous Sunflowers, stop appealing to your "credentials" unless you're willing to step out from behind the veil of anonymity (which FYI still wouldn't win you any credibility as it would in the hard sciences -- even "professional" philosophers in academics and with PhDs from ivy league schools regularly contradict each other and make profoundly stupid arguments).
As useless as it would be, if you really want to keep making this claim that you're a professional philosopher then you can prove yourself to be a one pretty easily: just post a video of yourself linking you to this forum account where we can match your face to extant photos of said professional (such as from a staff index on a university website, or the "about the author" flap on a book).

If you're not going to confirm your identity, stop bullshitting about your imagined credibility that you claim is your trump card in this discussion.

Oh, well if you're sure of something that's evidence it is the case, right?

The argument isn't 'absurd'. Like I say, it is well known and was made by Descartes.

You don't 'debunk' an argument. You 'refute' it. And the argument makes no empirical claims.

Let's go back to school shall we. The natural sciences study the natural world. Souls, if we have them, are not in the natural world. Duh! So, er, the natural sciences do not study them. That isn't evidence that they do not exist. Descartes' argument (of which he had several) appeals to self-evident truths of reason. Now, by all means reject reason as a source of insight into things - I am sure you will - but just know that once you do that you've lost the argument as now you'll be unable to accept anything as evidence for anything.

Ah 'quantum mechanics' - you know that in the business we all consider the first mention of that term to indicate the moment at which someone is talking complete bollocks.

Also, stop using this word 'fallacy'. You're misusing it.

I have committed no fallacy. The argument is deductively valid. The only question is the soundness of its premises.

As for revealing who I am - er, no, not going to do that. But note that unlike you and others, I actually know my stuff.

[Sunflowers]

Descartes had a daughter.

Relevance?

Do you think he would have supported anti-natalism?

I don't know. You know the child was a result of an affair with his maid? So it sounds like a mistake.

But anyway, try sticking to the subject. Arguments stand on their own two feet.