The phenomenon and the explanation

[Eloy Craft]

The word is precise, your use of it isn't.

why's that?

 

[Eloy Craft]

It's funny though, I would equate the ability to change with being alive, and the inability to change with being dead. Therefore, God must be dead. Or God is alive only insomuch, and as long as, we are alive. Which makes sense, because God didn't exist before we did, nor will He exist after us. "Us" in this case being all the stuff that changes.

is that an infallible doctrin?

 

[Astrid]

is that an infallible doctrin?

Infallible doctrine is for religions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

why's that?

I don't know - perhaps your ontology is vague or ill-defined?

Outside is a precise word, and if the universe is all there is, then it has no outside.

 

[Astrid]

I don't know - perhaps your ontology is vague or ill-defined?

Outside is a precise word, and if the universe is all there is, then it has no outside.

Like eze peeze

 

[SelfSim]

is that an infallible doctrin?

No its demonstrably obvious. Its a view which recognises that the believer (in God) is a conscious life form which also recognises itself as the source of word meanings - in this case, of 'change', 'no change' and 'God'.

 

[partinobodycular]

is that an infallible doctrin?

Is it a doctrine? No, it's an observation.

Things that can't change tend to be dead, and things that can change tend to be alive. Just for clarity's sake, there's a difference between having the capacity to be changed, and having the ability to change. Granted the distinction between alive, and dead, is rather difficult to pin down, but the ability to change is definitely near the top of the list of prerequisites.

Is it infallible? Hmmm, I'm leaning towards yes, simply because I cannot think of any example to the contrary, nor can I imagine one, and this includes the metaphysical concept of a first cause.

 

[SelfSim]

Things that can't change tend to be dead,

.. where 'dead' there, means whatever the human observer of the thing wants it to mean.
Without any living, conscious, human observer, there is no meaning of the word 'dead', nor is there any capacity to observe change.

Just for clarity's sake, there's a difference between having the capacity to be changed, and having the ability to change.

.. with that ability to change and the capacity to be changed, both being assessed/measured by some living, conscious human observer who must also logically exist, somewhere in that same picture.

Is it infallible? Hmmm, I'm leaning towards yes, simply because I cannot think of any example to the contrary, nor can I imagine one, and this includes the metaphysical concept of a first cause.

I suppose it might be possible that examples may exist .. but at present, there is no test for demonstrating them.
'First cause' still requires a human perceiver to be included in the 'First Cause' view and in order convey what 'first cause' there, is supposed to mean. (Which is always ignored by First Causers, who seem to think those words aren't carrying their own chosen meanings .. IOW is a just a con).

 

[Eloy Craft]

I don't know - perhaps your ontology is vague or ill-defined?

Outside is a precise word, and if the universe is all there is, then it has no outside.

What is an imprecise word?

 

[SelfSim]

What is an imprecise word?

One where the speaker of it, is ignorant about its meaning.

 

[Eloy Craft]

You seem to be thinking the existence of these things are contingent on human observation. If something is true observers are unnecessary.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Change is death. What changed died to what it was and became what it changed into. When we take our last breath we have finished writing our name on the tablet of the earth. The name records change (death) to changeless(life)

 

[SelfSim]

You seem to be thinking the existence of these things are contingent on human observation. If something is true observers are unnecessary.

How do you know that, then?

 

[SelfSim]

Change is death. What changed died to what it was and became what it changed into. When we take our last breath we have finished writing our name on the tablet of the earth. The name records change (death) to changeless(life)

So you acknowledge that it takes a living being, (ie: 'changeless(life)'), to have that name mean something, (ie: in this case that meaning is 'death', or 'died'). After all, the dead person can't concur with that meaning now can they? The dead person also can't perceive that change either, therefore change cannot be death .. rather its actually the living person or, 'changeless(life)', that's perceiving the change, which is completely the opposite of your claim there.

See, all of your unsubstantiated claims require your own changeless(life) to make 'em.
Are even aware of that?

 

[partinobodycular]

What changed died to what it was and became what it changed into.

And that's what we call life. Always evolving. Always changing. To stop is to die.

 

[Astrid]

Is it a doctrine? No, it's an observation.

Things that can't change tend to be dead, and things that can change tend to be alive. Just for clarity's sake, there's a difference between having the capacity to be changed, and having the ability to change. Granted the distinction between alive, and dead, is rather difficult to pin down, but the ability to change is definitely near the top of the list of prerequisites.

Is it infallible? Hmmm, I'm leaning towards yes, simply because I cannot think of any example to the contrary, nor can I imagine one, and this includes the metaphysical concept of a first cause.

"Things that change tend to be alive"

So that's like the universe and everything in it.

 

[partinobodycular]

"Things that change tend to be alive"

So that's like the universe and everything in it.

As I stated earlier, the distinction between alive and dead is rather difficult to pin down, but if one wanted to identify the most fundamental attribute of life, it would have to be that it changes. In which case the universe certainly fits the bill. If you wanted to be more specific, then you might argue that to be alive, not only must something change, but it must evolve. Then again, the universe fits the bill. Certainly we can define being alive such as to involve more than merely the ability to change, but it's difficult to imagine any definition of being alive that doesn't include at least that. So if God is unable to change, He would seem to lack even the most fundamental characteristic of being alive.

To "be" is one thing, to "be alive" is quite another.

 

[Astrid]

As I stated earlier, the distinction between alive and dead is rather difficult to pin down, but if one wanted to identify the most fundamental attribute of life, it would have to be that it changes. In which case the universe certainly fits the bill. If you wanted to be more specific, then you might argue that to be alive, not only must something change, but it must evolve. Then again, the universe fits the bill. Certainly we can define being alive such as to involve more than merely the ability to change, but it's difficult to imagine any definition of being alive that doesn't include at least that. So if God is unable to change, He would seem to lack even the most fundamental characteristic of being alive.

To "be" is one thing, to "be alive" is quite another.

Everyone knows that a comprehensive definition
for life is elusive.
We also know that you spread a word to thin
and it means nothing.
By the "changing" standard every electron
is alive, oceans and atmosphere and the land and the
whole planet and the sun, galaxy and universe likewise
"Alive".

Might as well say they are all "glort" or
"Roogie" or any made up word.
It describes or explains exactly zero.

 

[partinobodycular]

Everyone knows that a comprehensive definition
for life is elusive.
We also know that you spread a word to thin
and it means nothing.
By the "changing" standard every electron
is alive, oceans and atmosphere and the land and the
whole planet and the sun, galaxy and universe likewise
"Alive".

Might as well say they are all "glort" or
"Roogie" or any made up word.
It describes or explains exactly zero.

You're absolutely right.

But the objective of this line of reasoning isn't to set a definitive standard for being alive, if that's even possible. Rather, the objective is to set a minimum standard for being alive.

So we begin with the absolute minimum...existing. Is existing all that's required to be called alive?

You don't need to change. You don't need to grow. You don't need to reproduce. You don't need to evolve. You don't need to think. You don't need to DO anything.

Is simply existing a sufficient measure by which to define being alive?

If it isn't, then God, if defined as being unchangeable, isn't alive.

 

[Astrid]

You're absolutely right.

But the objective of this line of reasoning isn't to set a definitive standard for being alive, if that's even possible. Rather, the objective is to set a minimum standard for being alive.

So we begin with the absolute minimum...existing. Is existing all that's required to be called alive?

You don't need to change. You don't need to grow. You don't need to reproduce. You don't need to evolve. You don't need to think. You don't need to DO anything.

Is simply existing a sufficient measure by which to define being alive?

If it isn't, then God, if defined as being unchangeable, isn't alive.

Meets all know criteria for non - existent, too.