Quote:

---

As a Christian, I believe in the full body resurrection of believers.

---

I assume that "believers" implies individuals who believe in Jesus, correct?

What happens to everyone who is not a believer?

What is your definition of "full body resurrection"?

Quote:

---

dermdoc stated: Good folks get perfect bodies

---

What do most Christians believe is resurrected?

If a person has a deformity (e.g., no left arm), do they get a new left arm after death?

MidTnAg said:

---

Quote:

---

dermdoc stated: Good folks get perfect bodies

---

What do most Christians believe is resurrected?

If a person has a deformity (e.g., no left arm), do they get a new left arm after death?

---

It is in a glorified form and there will be no more sickness or corruption. I wouldn't think there would be deformities. Granted Jesus still has his piercings, but he can also walk through walls.

I think the no sickness and corruption takes care of deformities, but somethings will just have to wait. Like will we look like we did at 16 or at death.

MidTnAg said:

---

Quote:

---

As a Christian, I believe in the full body resurrection of believers.

---

I assume that "believers" implies individuals who believe in Jesus, correct?

What happens to everyone who is not a believer?

What is your definition of "full body resurrection"?

---

Those who are not believers are judged on their own works which, without Jesus, are not good enough. I firmly believe that those folks will be given a chance to believe because I believe in a just and good God.

The whole thing is that this life is so much better with faith in Christ.

MidTnAg said:

---

Quote:

---

OP: Your comment about magic...
Do you believe that anything can be known as true beyond what the scientific method can show us?
i.e. is the scientific method the only way to find true information?

---

Definitely not. The scientific method (SM) is obviously an extremely important in investigations. But there are many truths outside of the SM. If I am standing under a shade tree, I don't need the SM to tell me that the tree is taller than I am.

---

I agree.

Next question- Are humans purely material? i.e. is all that makes a human that which is made of matter?

CaptMermethyl said:

---

MidTnAg said:

---

Quote:

---

OP: Your comment about magic...
Do you believe that anything can be known as true beyond what the scientific method can show us?
i.e. is the scientific method the only way to find true information?

---

Definitely not. The scientific method (SM) is obviously an extremely important in investigations. But there are many truths outside of the SM. If I am standing under a shade tree, I don't need the SM to tell me that the tree is taller than I am.

---

I agree.

Next question- Are humans purely material? i.e. is all that makes a human that which is made of matter?

---

Interesting question. Actually no one knows for certain. But there is NO evidence of any kind that there is anything in our bodies that is not purely material.

I guess those who believe that a soul resides somewhere inside us, have to believe there is something inside us that is not purely material.

That was why I asked the question (that no one answered) -- what lives after we die; or what part of our body doesn't die when all other parts do?

AstroAg17 said:

---

Doubtful. I've enjoyed life more without it. The universe and our existence is much more interesting if we're a bag of self assembled chemicals and not a cosmic child's army men.

Granted, I haven't had much hardship since I've stopped believing. I'm sure I will soon enough, and it would be nice to believe that my loved ones are still around in some form. But I don't want to believe something just because I wish it were true.

---

This is possibly why many people believe.

MidTnAg said:

---

CaptMermethyl said:

---

I agree.

Next question- Are humans purely material? i.e. is all that makes a human that which is made of matter?

---

Interesting question. Actually no one knows for certain. But there is NO evidence of any kind that there is anything in our bodies that is not purely material.

I guess those who believe that a soul resides somewhere inside us, have to believe there is something inside us that is not purely material.

That was why I asked the question (that no one answered) -- what lives after we die; or what part of our body doesn't die when all other parts do?

---

I disagree that 'no one knows for certain.' But, I think I know where a fruitful conversation would start.

If you say you believe nothing exists but the material, then we would discuss things like physical laws, the law of contradiction, ideas, perfectly right triangles, etc.

If you still believed nothing immaterial exists, then we would be at an impasse.

If, however, you did believe those things exist, then we would move to if there is anything immaterial about humans. We would talk about the mind, the will, the intellect, the person, human reason. We would talk about human rights versus the rights of rocks and sand.

If you believed nothing immaterial existed as part of humans, then we would be at an impasse.

If, however, you were convinced that there is something about the human that is immaterial, we would talk about how time is within the material universe, but an immaterial object is not. Then we could possibly establish grounds for talking about an afterlife- the part of the human that is immaterial, that exists outside of space/time.

Then, if that was fruitful, we could then talk about things like bodily resurrection that Christians believe, etc.

==================================

So, if you want, we could start with this:

Does a perfectly right triangle exist? Is it purely material? How do I communicate it to you? Am I transferring matter between your brain and mine? Am I, through my vocal vibrations or written communication, changing the configuration of your brain? Would a perfect right triangle exist even if no sentient beings were around to know it? Does a perfect right triangle exist purely in the material universe? If so, where does it exist? Can you use the scientific method to observe a perfectly right triangle made of matter?

CaptMermethyl said:

---

MidTnAg said:

---

CaptMermethyl said:

---

I agree.

Next question- Are humans purely material? i.e. is all that makes a human that which is made of matter?

---

Interesting question. Actually no one knows for certain. But there is NO evidence of any kind that there is anything in our bodies that is not purely material.

I guess those who believe that a soul resides somewhere inside us, have to believe there is something inside us that is not purely material.

That was why I asked the question (that no one answered) -- what lives after we die; or what part of our body doesn't die when all other parts do?

---

I disagree that 'no one knows for certain.' But, I think I know where a fruitful conversation would start.

If you say you believe nothing exists but the material, then we would discuss things like physical laws, the law of contradiction, ideas, perfectly right triangles, etc.

If you still believed nothing immaterial exists, then we would be at an impasse.

If, however, you did believe those things exist, then we would move to if there is anything immaterial about humans. We would talk about the mind, the will, the intellect, the person, human reason. We would talk about human rights versus the rights of rocks and sand.

If you believed nothing immaterial existed as part of humans, then we would be at an impasse.

If, however, you were convinced that there is something about the human that is immaterial, we would talk about how time is within the material universe, but an immaterial object is not. Then we could possibly establish grounds for talking about an afterlife- the part of the human that is immaterial, that exists outside of space/time.

Then, if that was fruitful, we could then talk about things like bodily resurrection that Christians believe, etc.

==================================

So, if you want, we could start with this:

Does a perfectly right triangle exist? Is it purely material? How do I communicate it to you? Am I transferring matter between your brain and mine? Am I, through my vocal vibrations or written communication, changing the configuration of your brain? Would a perfect right triangle exist even if no sentient beings were around to know it? Does a perfect right triangle exist purely in the material universe? If so, where does it exist? Can you use the scientific method to observe a perfectly right triangle made of matter?

---

Capt: Thanks for the discussion. It is very interesting, but unfortunately, it is way too philosophical for my feeble brain.

I do want to ask about your disagreement with my statement that no one knows for certain if humans are purely material or not. Who is the person(s) who can answer this question?

= = =
I still want to know what people consider the answers are to my questions:

1. What lives after we die?

2. What does it do and where does it go?

dermdoc said:

---

Per dirt diver above

The dead will be raised imperishably

---

Yes, But I'm asking you what happens to people who die today. Their bodies are still in the ground and haven't been raised yet, so who's body are they in?

MidTnAg said:

---

CaptMermethyl said:

---

I disagree that 'no one knows for certain.' But, I think I know where a fruitful conversation would start.

If you say you believe nothing exists but the material, then we would discuss things like physical laws, the law of contradiction, ideas, perfectly right triangles, etc.

If you still believed nothing immaterial exists, then we would be at an impasse.

If, however, you did believe those things exist, then we would move to if there is anything immaterial about humans. We would talk about the mind, the will, the intellect, the person, human reason. We would talk about human rights versus the rights of rocks and sand.

If you believed nothing immaterial existed as part of humans, then we would be at an impasse.

If, however, you were convinced that there is something about the human that is immaterial, we would talk about how time is within the material universe, but an immaterial object is not. Then we could possibly establish grounds for talking about an afterlife- the part of the human that is immaterial, that exists outside of space/time.

Then, if that was fruitful, we could then talk about things like bodily resurrection that Christians believe, etc.

==================================

So, if you want, we could start with this:

Does a perfectly right triangle exist? Is it purely material? How do I communicate it to you? Am I transferring matter between your brain and mine? Am I, through my vocal vibrations or written communication, changing the configuration of your brain? Would a perfect right triangle exist even if no sentient beings were around to know it? Does a perfect right triangle exist purely in the material universe? If so, where does it exist? Can you use the scientific method to observe a perfectly right triangle made of matter?

---

Capt: Thanks for the discussion. It is very interesting, but unfortunately, it is way too philosophical for my feeble brain.

I do want to ask about your disagreement with my statement that no one knows for certain if humans are purely material or not. Who is the person(s) who can answer this question?

= = =
I still want to know what people consider the answers are to my questions:

1. What lives after we die?

2. What does it do and where does it go?

---

The questions above are critical to answer what follows. Judging from your previous responses and the questions themselves, there are assumptions by both repliers and you that need to be aligned first.

Example:

IF you do NOT believe that anything non-material exists, then one must establish that in order to answer your question.

In fact, if you establish that non-material things exist, which they do, then it is much easier to answer your questions.

1- What lives after we die?
- nothing lives in the sense of 'life' in the material universe. Life is respiration, reproduction, etc... it is a state of material being. A non-material essence, such as your spirit, isn't 'alive' in technical terms, but it is aware with will, intellect, reason, etc.

2- What does it do and where does it go?
- there is no 'where' in the non-material existence. 'Where' describes a location in the physical universe within space and time. Does a concept have a 'there'? No, it is outside of the material. Does a law of physics have a 'there'? nope. It exists outside of the material.

Now, if you go back to the questions above, you can see that once we establish:

1- the non-material exists (i.e. law of nature, concepts, etc)
2- that humans have non-material aspects (i.e. souls, spirits, minds, intellects, wills, etc)
3- THEN, we could talk about the life beyond the material- that of the spirit- and how it is unbound by time, place, matter, etc.

a distant 4:
THENNNN, we could perhaps discuss the Christian idea of bodily resurrection (which we base on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth who, through convincing historical written, archaeological, and personal testimonies, actually rose from the dead- bodily, and stayed 40 days and was seen by hundreds of people, many of whom gave up everything (including life) to spread the news of this amazing event.)

AstroAg17 said:

---

How are you defining "exists" there?

---

Having objective reality or being.

The standard definition.

I haven't look at the problem of universals in a while. But nominalism always strikes me as easier to support.

Quote:

---

Does a perfectly right triangle exist? Is it purely material? How do I communicate it to you? Am I transferring matter between your brain and mine? Am I, through my vocal vibrations or written communication, changing the configuration of your brain? Would a perfect right triangle exist even if no sentient beings were around to know it? Does a perfect right triangle exist purely in the material universe? If so, where does it exist? Can you use the scientific method to observe a perfectly right triangle made of matter?

---

It seems easier to defend the notion that a perfect triangle is merely an idea, not a concrete thing that exist but outside our universe(where?) and yet is somehow accessible within our universe. The classic and most difficult case is with numbers. This vid gives a quick breakdown. It seems you simply have to pick between some bad options.

CaptMermethyl said:

---

MidTnAg said:

---

CaptMermethyl said:

---

I disagree that 'no one knows for certain.' But, I think I know where a fruitful conversation would start.

If you say you believe nothing exists but the material, then we would discuss things like physical laws, the law of contradiction, ideas, perfectly right triangles, etc.

If you still believed nothing immaterial exists, then we would be at an impasse.

If, however, you did believe those things exist, then we would move to if there is anything immaterial about humans. We would talk about the mind, the will, the intellect, the person, human reason. We would talk about human rights versus the rights of rocks and sand.

If you believed nothing immaterial existed as part of humans, then we would be at an impasse.

If, however, you were convinced that there is something about the human that is immaterial, we would talk about how time is within the material universe, but an immaterial object is not. Then we could possibly establish grounds for talking about an afterlife- the part of the human that is immaterial, that exists outside of space/time.

Then, if that was fruitful, we could then talk about things like bodily resurrection that Christians believe, etc.

==================================

So, if you want, we could start with this:

Does a perfectly right triangle exist? Is it purely material? How do I communicate it to you? Am I transferring matter between your brain and mine? Am I, through my vocal vibrations or written communication, changing the configuration of your brain? Would a perfect right triangle exist even if no sentient beings were around to know it? Does a perfect right triangle exist purely in the material universe? If so, where does it exist? Can you use the scientific method to observe a perfectly right triangle made of matter?

---

Capt: Thanks for the discussion. It is very interesting, but unfortunately, it is way too philosophical for my feeble brain.

I do want to ask about your disagreement with my statement that no one knows for certain if humans are purely material or not. Who is the person(s) who can answer this question?

= = =
I still want to know what people consider the answers are to my questions:

1. What lives after we die?

2. What does it do and where does it go?

---

The questions above are critical to answer what follows. Judging from your previous responses and the questions themselves, there are assumptions by both repliers and you that need to be aligned first.

Example:

IF you do NOT believe that anything non-material exists, then one must establish that in order to answer your question.

In fact, if you establish that non-material things exist, which they do, then it is much easier to answer your questions.

1- What lives after we die?
- nothing lives in the sense of 'life' in the material universe. Life is respiration, reproduction, etc... it is a state of material being. A non-material essence, such as your spirit, isn't 'alive' in technical terms, but it is aware with will, intellect, reason, etc.

2- What does it do and where does it go?
- there is no 'where' in the non-material existence. 'Where' describes a location in the physical universe within space and time. Does a concept have a 'there'? No, it is outside of the material. Does a law of physics have a 'there'? nope. It exists outside of the material.

Now, if you go back to the questions above, you can see that once we establish:

1- the non-material exists (i.e. law of nature, concepts, etc)
2- that humans have non-material aspects (i.e. souls, spirits, minds, intellects, wills, etc.)
3- THEN, we could talk about the life beyond the material- that of the spirit- and how it is unbound by time, place, matter, etc.

---

I don't consider the non-material aspects you mention as part of the human body. I think of them as sort of characteristics. Humans have many characteristics but, in my opinion, they all die when our body dies.

You apparently believe that some of our non-material aspects actually survive our death?

Which ones?
What happens to them?
Why do they survive and the others don't?

Aggrad08 said:

---

I haven't look at the problem of universals in a while. But nominalism always strikes me as easier to support.

Quote:

---

Does a perfectly right triangle exist? Is it purely material? How do I communicate it to you? Am I transferring matter between your brain and mine? Am I, through my vocal vibrations or written communication, changing the configuration of your brain? Would a perfect right triangle exist even if no sentient beings were around to know it? Does a perfect right triangle exist purely in the material universe? If so, where does it exist? Can you use the scientific method to observe a perfectly right triangle made of matter?

---

It seems easier to defend the notion that a perfect triangle is merely an idea, not a concrete thing that exist but outside our universe(where?) and yet is somehow accessible within our universe. The classic and most difficult case is with numbers. This vid gives a quick breakdown. It seems you simply have to pick between some bad options.

---

Nominalism breaks down, though. (look at the concept of infinity, zero, or anything that is fictional like Gandalf... they are not representations of things that exist.)

Also, the video you linked falsely limits the possible positions to 3.

Regardless... let me ask this- does the number 2, or any other idea/concept have an objective reality? The reasonable answer is 'yes'. It is objective, in that the concept of 2 doesn't depend upon my definition of even the existence of any human. It would still have that objective reality.

Also, to take a stance that nominalism is true, is to hold to a universal that the very concept seems to try to oppose .

The most rational position is that there are things that exist, including 'positions' or 'laws' that exist objectively and beyond the material world.

Look more closely at the communication aspects I list above.

Proving the afterlife. As a Christian who believes in the afterlife, I do not believe it can be "proved." So why would I believe it? We don't really think much but atheisists and Christians alike don't live our lives based on proof. We do not have people test each meal for poison, we don't all live in end of the world compounds in fear of intruders, we do not physically restrain our spouses up at night to keep them from killing us in our sleep, and we get in our vehicles every morning confident that we will not wreck.

We live our lives by evidence and we enter relationships based upon the evidence of the trustworthiness of others. I believe in the afterlife because I believe that the writings of the New Testament accuratly detail what Jesus said and did. When looking at what Jesus said and did I find Him very trustworthy, actually more trustworthy than I find myself or others. I believe that because of who He claimed to be, the way He lived his life that I can trust Him when it comes to the after life. Plus He said He would rise from the dead and I think the best explanation of the historical evidence is that He did.

Yes, there were tons of people who claimed to be the Messaih in the first century, however this one Jesus, is not like the others. He's not forgotten to history, details of His life are written centuries before He arrives on the scene and best explanation of why He is revered and the others are not is because they all died and stayed dead. Jesus did not.

AstroAg17 said:

---

How can we possibly know objective reality?

---

An interesting question, but it derails this thread. It is a more fundamental question than the OP seems to need. He/she seems to already accept we can know things.

One of the easiest ways to approach this is to take the side of 'we cannot know objective reality.'

This quickly slides into absurdity or an unpleasantness most people would not accept.

First, the very position is dependent upon knowing an objective reality (the law that states we cannot know objective reality).

Secondly, if we claim it is impossible to know objective reality- why educate ourselves? Why do anything?

I like to use the example of getting punched in the face to address both this question as well as the 'how do we know we exist' question.

It is all good and valuable to debate these things, but if someone comes up and punches you in the face, then you realize:
1- objective existence beyond you is real (a hard fist to the nose)
2- we exist, because something else that exists (see 1) just caused you pain which you could not control

MidTnAg said:

---

CaptMermethyl said:

---

The questions above are critical to answer what follows. Judging from your previous responses and the questions themselves, there are assumptions by both repliers and you that need to be aligned first.

Example:

IF you do NOT believe that anything non-material exists, then one must establish that in order to answer your question.

In fact, if you establish that non-material things exist, which they do, then it is much easier to answer your questions.

1- What lives after we die?
- nothing lives in the sense of 'life' in the material universe. Life is respiration, reproduction, etc... it is a state of material being. A non-material essence, such as your spirit, isn't 'alive' in technical terms, but it is aware with will, intellect, reason, etc.

2- What does it do and where does it go?
- there is no 'where' in the non-material existence. 'Where' describes a location in the physical universe within space and time. Does a concept have a 'there'? No, it is outside of the material. Does a law of physics have a 'there'? nope. It exists outside of the material.

Now, if you go back to the questions above, you can see that once we establish:

1- the non-material exists (i.e. law of nature, concepts, etc)
2- that humans have non-material aspects (i.e. souls, spirits, minds, intellects, wills, etc.)
3- THEN, we could talk about the life beyond the material- that of the spirit- and how it is unbound by time, place, matter, etc.

---

I don't consider the non-material aspects you mention as part of the human body. I think of them as sort of characteristics. Humans have many characteristics but, in my opinion, they all die when our body dies.

You apparently believe that some of our non-material aspects actually survive our death?

Which ones?
What happens to them?
Why do they survive and the others don't?

---

I would ask you this: you believe they are characteristics, or perhaps emergent phenomenon. Is it possible to use the scientific method to quantify these things?

soul, spirit, will, intellect, mind.

Let's focus on free-will.

If free-will is inside the physical universe, then it is simply an illusion- because it is a product of eons of physical and chemical reactions which make us seem to choose one action over another. Imagine a chemical reaction in a test tube. No decision-making goes on inside the test tube to produce the outcome. It simply just does it based on physical laws.

Following from this, if you believe human free-will is merely an illusion, and is actually chemical/physical reactions, then you *should* take a few stances that might make you uncomfortable:

1- there should be no punishment, because people aren't actually choosing to do bad things
2- your very understanding and choosing to believe that the scientific method is a proper way to find knowledge is actually just an illusion- you're not choosing anything
3 - you cannot trust your senses, as all interpretation is merely a pre-determined reaction
4 - you, with your identity, your personhood, is just an illusion. You are no more special than dust or rocks.
5 - human rights do not exist. Crimes like rape and slavery are neither good nor evil.

Furthermore, again, to use words like "live", "die", "survive", for things that are immaterial (not made of matter, nor affected by time, nor occupying a space) is nonsensical.

So, back to your questions above:

Which ones? those that are immaterial (not bound by space and time- I would say the spirit is a good summary answer here.)

What happens to them? any number of things.

Why do they survive and the others don't? this question makes no sense (see above). But, to make an attempt- they 'survive' because the immaterial are not bound by space and time, and therefore cannot 'die'.

As a note- as CS Lewis said-

"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors."

Humans, by the sense they are made up of the immaterial, are immortals. (not bound by space/time in those facets of their essence.)

Sorry for the two blank comments in this thread... I keep 'quoting' myself when I mean to 'edit' my post.

I'm not sure how to delete a post .

AstroAg17 said:

---

I'd like to derail then. I'll try to remember to bring it back up after y'all's discussion ends.

---

Moved : https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2889510

CaptMermethyl said:

---

Nominalism breaks down, though. (look at the concept of infinity, zero, or anything that is fictional like Gandalf... they are not representations of things that exist.)

---

None of the options fail to have a weakness, otherwise philosophers wouldn't have such mixed opinions on the matter. But I consider the objection that gandalf isn't a representation of anything real much weaker than the idea that you have to defend. That is that there is such a thing as a wizard. It's real. It exists...somewhere. What is the nature of it's existence? Where does it exist? How was it created? If there is a real place divorced from time and space where a wizard exists because someone thought of it, how do they causally interact?

Further, universals themselves are subject to human caprice, language, invention ect. We subjectively decide our own groupings based on our own perceptions. If so, how can these groupings exist objectively?

Quote:

---

Regardless... let me ask this- does the number 2, or any other idea/concept have an objective reality? The reasonable answer is 'yes'.

---

How can an idea exist independent of all minds? Ideas require minds or they would never exist. Now an idea isn't at the mercy of any particular mind. But without minds that idea wouldn't exist.

Quote:

---

It is objective, in that the concept of 2 doesn't depend upon my definition of even the existence of any human. It would still have that objective reality.

---

This doesn't strike me as reasonable at all. Concepts only exist due to minds.

Quote:

---

The most rational position is that there are things that exist, including 'positions' or 'laws' that exist objectively and beyond the material world.

---

I don't see this as rational at all. In fact I see it as indefensible that the number two, or hobbits exist in actuality in some made up place beyond our universe.

At least for the time being, we don't have anything definitive. There are always the unverifiable reports of children having "memories" from a past life, or people learning things that they supposedly would have no way of knowing after a near-death experience.

I'm Catholic, so I like to believe in an afterlife, I have hope that I'll get to spend an eternity with my wife communing with the big guy (gal?) upstairs, but I'm also a scientist who realizes that at the end of the day, you're primarily four different elements in various conformations (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen). Humans have an innate inability to understand death, and we try to rationalize it as best we can, typically with some thought of a happy ending afterwards. However, as far as we're concerned for the time being, those are all just hopes based on a fear of nothingness.

Quote:

---

If, however, you did believe those things exist, then we would move to if there is anything immaterial about humans. We would talk about the mind, the will, the intellect, the person, human reason. We would talk about human rights versus the rights of rocks and sand.

---

Quote:

---

Which ones? those that are immaterial (not bound by space and time- I would say the spirit is a good summary answer here.)

What happens to them? any number of things.

Why do they survive and the others don't? this question makes no sense (see above). But, to make an attempt- they 'survive' because the immaterial are not bound by space and time, and therefore cannot 'die'.

---

You have got to be kidding me. So, you believe that after I die, my thoughts, emotions, beliefs, intellect, spirit, etc. will survive and continue to exist out there somewhere in a non-existent space?

Since these immaterial things live forever, have they always existed? Were they here before I was? When were they hatched?

Is math real?

Aggrad08 said:

---

CaptMermethyl said:

---

Nominalism breaks down, though. (look at the concept of infinity, zero, or anything that is fictional like Gandalf... they are not representations of things that exist.)

---

None of the options fail to have a weakness, otherwise philosophers wouldn't have such mixed opinions on the matter. But I consider the objection that gandalf isn't a representation of anything real much weaker than the idea that you have to defend. That is that there is such a thing as a wizard. It's real. It exists...somewhere. What is the nature of it's existence? Where does it exist? How was it created? If there is a real place divorced from time and space where a wizard exists because someone thought of it, how do they causally interact?

Further, universals themselves are subject to human caprice, language, invention ect. We subjectively decide our own groupings based on our own perceptions. If so, how can these groupings exist objectively?

Quote:

---

Regardless... let me ask this- does the number 2, or any other idea/concept have an objective reality? The reasonable answer is 'yes'.

---

How can an idea exist independent of all minds? Ideas require minds or they would never exist. Now an idea isn't at the mercy of any particular mind. But without minds that idea wouldn't exist.

Quote:

---

It is objective, in that the concept of 2 doesn't depend upon my definition of even the existence of any human. It would still have that objective reality.

---

This doesn't strike me as reasonable at all. Concepts only exist due to minds.

Quote:

---

The most rational position is that there are things that exist, including 'positions' or 'laws' that exist objectively and beyond the material world.

---

I don't see this as rational at all. In fact I see it as indefensible that the number two, or hobbits exist in actuality in some made up place beyond our universe.

---

MidTnAg- I have repeatedly asserted that things outside of SPACE and time do not have a 'place'. This is fundamental. Without space, there is no concept of space. I humbly ask you read the entire thread once more, b/c something was missed along the way. Then we can proceed again.

Plato vs Aristotle redivivus.

Quote:

---

Further, universals themselves are subject to human caprice, language, invention ect. We subjectively decide our own groupings based on our own perceptions. If so, how can these groupings exist objectively?

---

Are you saying '2' doesn't have a definition? Is it up for personal preference, like preferring ketchup over mustard?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Regardless... let me ask this- does the number 2, or any other idea/concept have an objective reality? The reasonable answer is 'yes'.

---

How can an idea exist independent of all minds? Ideas require minds or they would never exist. Now an idea isn't at the mercy of any particular mind. But without minds that idea wouldn't exist.

---

This is a nice summary of the Catholic position . But, for the OP, we aren't to the point of discussing being itself, with its mind.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It is objective, in that the concept of 2 doesn't depend upon my definition of even the existence of any human. It would still have that objective reality.

---

This doesn't strike me as reasonable at all. Concepts only exist due to minds.

---

Again, a good nod to the Catholic position, but I would ask- are you claiming the laws of physics didn't exist before humans?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Plato vs Aristotle redivivus.

---

... and evolved.

You may call it what you wish. A realm of existence beyond space and time. I'm abundantly aware you are claiming it's divorced from our universe. But you are also claiming it's real. Heaven is often regarded as a place, so is he'll. They may or may not have space and time as we percieve it. The point is you are forced to posit a realm of existence where wizards and the number two exist. That they have some nature in this realm.

Semantics about the word place help you not one bit.