A Natural Religion

Total BS.

Find even one reputable scientist who believes that water need not have hydrogen and/or oxygen. He would be definitely wrong. And similarly, any proton that has 1000 quarks would not be a proton. You are making completely ridiculous assertions concerning a subject that you obviously know nothing about. There are no accepted theories at all in science asserting what you claim. You are lying.

As I said, for your own sake, you really should avoid the subject of physics.

A water molecule by definition is H2O, i.e. 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms. The fact is the particles within those atoms changes all the time.

Note for simplicity I stated “say 1000 elements.” It just for example, I could have stated ‘x elements.’ By ‘elements’ I meant the smallest components within the proton, i.e quarks, gluons and other particles, etc.

You should get an education on philosophy. I admit I am not an expert in Physics but I am not wrong in principle that each phase of the physical world is made up of smaller parts which are not permanent, i.e. never change.

It is your lack of education in philosophy that is leading you into making absurd assertions concerning physics.

Just as water is defined as H2O within science, ALL “particles” are defined as to their exact size, shape, and make up. If their make up changes, they are no longer what they were. And if the particles within water change, it becomes a special kind of water, given a different name, such as deuterium.

[list]The Law of Identity: A is A[/list:u]

  • The most classical assertion within all philosophy of logic, without which there can be no mind at all. Science cannot deny it and remain science.

What is “changing” within particles is exchanging, as in Theseus’ Ship. The over all make up doesn’t change at all other than minuscule variation in size dependent upon their environment.

If you shit at t1, then you are a different person in terms of composition at t2, does that mean you are a different James S Saint in general?

What you have failed to understand there are different perspectives to the same thing.
While there is same “you” in one sense [sense X], in reality there is a different you at t1, t2, t3, etc. [sense Y].
The fact is sense Y [specific and detailed] is is more realistic than sense X [general].
Note Heraclitus,
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus

In general we always refer to the Nile as if it is the same river all the time, but in reality it is never the same river.

The fact is the state of an atom [in term of particles, etc.] (sense Y) within a permanent H2O combination of molecular structure [sense X] is never permanent.

The Law of Identity: A is A is only applicable to things within the same sense and same time. Again you failed on this.

Water at the level of the molecular sense is not the same at the sub-particle sense, therefore the Law of Identity: A is A and Law of non-contradiction do not apply.

I already told you that this philosophical perspective would make science impossible. There would be no point to doing experiments because the results would only be valid for that one particular time and place. There would be no point to developing theories because they would only be applicable once.

In general, it would be impossible to use experience for any purpose. One could not define words or be able to think. One would not be able to determine what is food and what is poison. One would not be able to make any decision.

All would be chaos. Life would be impossible.

So you are naive to the Ship of Theseus as well.

BS.

What the Ship of Theseus reveals is that our words and names are not the things in themselves, but identifying labels that we choose to apply as our need dictates.

The Nile river is always the Nile river because the river is defined as the flow of water at that location between those general points. There is nothing about the definition requiring particular water molecules. There only need be “some water flowing” for it to be a river.

Similar with Heraclitus’ man and the Ship of Theseus. The same applies to any particular H2O molecule, to any bucket of water, as well as to every particle and object ever named. It is the pattern that is named, not necessarily all “elements” within.

ALL names are category and pattern labels identifying whatever their definition has specified. The specification for James S Saint does not indicate or require that each molecule be the same from moment to moment, but rather that there be a reasonable continuum of any changing or exchanging and that after the change, there is no significant difference to our concerns. So we can validly say that it is the same James S Saint, H2O, River, Man, or Ship because our definitions for our words, labels, and names allow for insignificant changes and exchanges.

As I said, it is your lack of philosophical education that is leading you into making ridiculous assertions (then followed by even more).

You wish to replace all existing religions with your own, yet obviously haven’t a clue as to the real situation or need.

Your views above are shallow and narrow which are based on ignorance of higher philosophical deliberations.

Note I mentioned ‘senses’ or ‘perspectives’ and you are totally blur on this critical matter. Can’t see that 500 pound gorilla?

What you have argued and presented based on the ‘Ship of Theseus’ thought experiment is based on the common sense [vulgar] and conventional perspective which is very basic.

There are many perspectives to reality but you are only capable of dealing with the vulgar [common sense] and conventional perspectives. Why? There is a psychological reason for that.

In the above you are merely playing the ‘language game’ [Wittgenstein] and not dealing with reality [emergence not the thing-in-itself.]

The only constant is change.
If you view at any thing in terms of the highest precision of reality, that thing-X is a different thing at every nano-second. e.g.

For the same thing at the conventional perspective, say a cup of water of H20 molecules.
At minute t1, that cup of water has 1,000,000 H20 molecules [say]
Let say, we add another 200,000 h20 molecules every minute.
At minute t2, that cup of water has 1,200,000 H20 molecules
At minute t3, that cup of water has 1,400,000 H20 molecules
At minute t4, that cup of water has 1,600,000 H20 molecules
At minute t5, that cup of water has 1,800,000 H20 molecules

Now what you see is the ‘same’ cup of water in the common sense and conventional sense, but in terms of the number of h2o molecules and mathematics how can you insist 1,000,000 H20 molecules is the same as 1,200,000 H20 molecules, is the same as 1,400,000 H20 molecules, the same as 1,600,000 H20 molecules?

At the higher level of precision, even at micro-changes at nano-second of any thing within a thing, it it a different thing, A [was at t1] is not A [was was at t1] anymore, rather it is now A++ [as at t2]

The above higher precision perspective is applicable to ‘Ship of Theseus’ and similar examples, the ‘Ship of Thesus’ is the same ship in the common vulgar and conventional sense BUT from a more higher and realistic perception, it is a different ship in terms of materials, molecular structures, mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, time [t1, t2,] etc.
If a virus can talk, it will tell you it is a different ship in terms of the virus and various perspective.
Are you fearful of reality that you want to be an ostrich to avoid the higher perspectives of reality?

Don’t jump to conclusion too fast as in the above you are describing yourself.

You really should do something about your habit of talking to yourself so negatively.

… and your attitude.

That is a ridiculous assertion that was given in hyperbole so as to emphasize a point and persuade more change (into socialism). It was never entirely true.

So you really are just too simple minded, “vulgar”, to see how your language works. Why am I not surprised. You probably should investigate the word “sophomoric” as well as “arrogant”, and “narcissistic”.

When it comes to philosophy we have to present arguments to support one’s view. There is no arrogance when I present what is truth as supported by various arguments.

On the other hand you are merely snarking and sniping at others as a fangless cobra without any substantive arguments at all.
Is 1,000,000 H20 molecules the same as 1,200,000 H20 molecules?

Your form of “argument” is, “This is the way it is and if you can’t see it, you are naive, too shallow, and narrow minded … and need to think out of the box … and read 100 books or more.:icon-rolleyes:

As explained in detail earlier … an irrelevant question.

Is there any way we can steer these arguments back to the possibility of having a natural religion?

Endless argumentation is a primary cause of religion. :wink:

“No, it isn’t”
“Yes, it is.”
No, it ISN’T"
YES, it IS!"
.

.
.

Then tell me how Heraclitus’ river or Theseus’ ship are topics that further a discussion about natural religion.

If there is no permanence then there is no basis for natural religion (or much of anything else). Language requires that words have meaning for more than a few seconds. A river is a river as long a quantity of water flows - perhaps tens of thousands of years. Theseus’ ship is his ship as long as the structure is maintained - perhaps hundreds of years.

The word “Ah-dam” means “the damming up of the loose spirit”. Endless argumentation is a type of “loose spirit”, unrestrained, undisciplined, anti-progressive.

All joy is founded in the sensation of progress toward an inner held hope. When there is nothing but chaotic, endless conflict, there is very little, if any, perception of progress or of hope and thus minimum joy.

Ahdam was created, not by conflict, but by agreement - saving from the conflict, Yeshua. When he said that he was there in the beginning, he wasn’t lying.

But to establish the agreeing that saves from the chaos (aka “Shiva”), life must realize the need for agreement. And that is most instinctively accomplished through the experience and perception of the threat of disagreement, conflict, chaos, shiva, the Devil. The perception of threat leads to the pursuit of hope. The very deeply established pursuit of hope, is what forms religion (the maintaining/binding of the gathering/legion/union).

“To stop all of this endless bickering, let’s all agree upon …”

It’s a natural response in defense of a natural occurrence in human interaction.

Related enough? :sunglasses:

Perhaps seeking an end to the “endless” disputes would be like asking for an end of all change, when some change may be beneficial to one or all. A naturalistic religion would probably include all changes noted in scientific prognostications about future events. It could not die with dogma, which is the ailment of current world religions. It would accept change as human growth and development within the ecosystems that continue to sustain us. In short it would be concerned with eugenics and ecosystems.

When is ‘change’ growth and development, and when is it counterproductive or gratuitous?

Ok look. James wins, cause, when you zoom onto a River at the molecular level, it is no longer Identified as a river. It is just a bunch of spheres.
So at the Zoom level of a river being a river, The river maintains a consistent identity within it’s word paramaters.
Zooming in the River Nile, to where you only see spheres, it is no longer the River nile.
James wins, Prismatic loses.

Doesn’t science daily deal with such distinctions?

No. Science only say that something happens a certain way. It doesn’t say if it is good or bad. Which is why you can kill millions of people with the science of a nuclear fission or you can heat and light their homes and keep them alive.
Science does not say if a country should change from a monarchy, to a republic, to a dictatorship.