• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is it?

I still think that there is a contradiction in the idea of imm-Harry Potter. It sounds just like a square circle.

The spell you described sounds like saying O-circloida spell.

"O-circloida is the spell that causes the square to become a circle, though remaining his square identity ".

You can also say

The B-circloida is the spell that causes the square to manifest as a circle. So what? I don't understand what it means for a square to manifest as a circle.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
I still think that there is a contradiction in the idea of imm-Harry Potter. It sounds just like a square circle.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't, any more than there's a contradiction in the idea of an invisible one or a massless one (which are both canonical). It's simply magic.
 
If so, you have to agree that can be such a thing as square circles as long as they are "magical ones".
 
JetLeg said:
If so, you have to agree that can be such a thing as square circles as long as they are "magical ones".
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't. I can simply use the L1-metric and create geometric figures that are both squares and circles.

Which is to say, I can use mathematics to make the two words potentially synonymous. If you consider the use of technology to obtain a desired end "magic," then I'm cool with that.

But beyond that, I can also enumerate the properties that define (conventionally defined) squares and circles and prove a contradiction.

What is the property of Harry Potter that prevents him from being immaterial? Bear in mind that ghosts exist in the Harry Potter world, that ghosts are immaterial, and that ghosts retain personal identity. The ghost of Nearly Headless Nick is still Sir Nicholas despite being immaterial....
 
I am not sure that Rowling has it right with ghosts.
If something is visual, but immaterial, that is strange. If you say "magic" - well, I can say that weapons of mass destructions dissapeared from Iraq "magically". But what would that explain?


But more to the point - you can say that 'an immaterial being' is a contradiction.

But I don't think so.

That is a bit sophisticated - but I am a dualist, I don't think that matter is all, I do think that our emotions are immaterial, even though they might be completely caused by the brain. If emotions are just an "epiphenomena" of the brain, that cannot have a causal efficacy in the material world, nevertheless they can exist, and be immaterial.

So, an imm-being is not a contradiction.

So the idea that such a being exists, if he gives meaning to my life is not exactly in the same category as material phenomena, or immaterial people.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
If something is visual, but immaterial, that is strange.
Click to expand...

Not that strange. Holograms are visual, but immaterial. So are reflections in mirrors (which is one reason that they are used world-wide in various magical traditions).


If you say "magic" - well, I can say that weapons of mass destructions dissapeared from Iraq "magically". But what would that explain?
Click to expand...

Quite a bit -- if you accept the existence of "magic," then it's a legitimate explanation. Or if you have some more sophisticated view of magic (for example, magic in Terry Pratchett's Discworld follows various rules of nature), then it might not be a legitimate explanation for some magic-logical reason.

Alternatively, you could simply reject "magic" out of hand as an explanation for world-events. But in this case, there's no difference between rejecting one magical being (Harry Potter) and another (God).

What property can you demonstrate for God that I can't equally demonstrate for imm-Harry Potter?
 
Internal logic. For example, in Lord of the Rings the story is quite consistent.
 
I don't call god an imm-human. That IS a contradiction. Humans have bodies of human shape. god is an imm-being/
 
Actually, when I come to think of it, an imm-being is a contradiction. Beings are bodies as well as emotions. Humans are beings, cats are beings. Both have emotions and bodies. So, an imm-being is a contradiction because a bodyless-being is a contradictoin.

So, I change it to an imm-disembodied-stream-of-consciousness.
 
JetLeg said:
Actually, when I come to think of it, an imm-being is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Nearly Headless Nick is an imm-being. Reading about him makes me feel warm and fuzzy -- therefore he (and other imm-beings) exist, by your own argument.
 
Please define what it means for you that something is a "being".

What are the qualities of something that is a "being" versus something that is not a "being".

I think that if you define it, and then define what are the qualities of what is "immaterial", you will see that they contradict.
 
Last edited:
According to Webster, a being is just something that exists.

But you never answered any of my questions. Didn't God appear as a human being in the form of Jesus Christ? Didn't Jesus have mass? How is that different from an immaterial magical faerie exist who can appear as a tiny person with wings?

What would allow you to use the logic that God must exist simply because God makes you feel warm and fuzzy? And by the same logic, why mustn't the faerie also exist because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy?

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
According to Webster, a being is just something that exists.

But you never answered any of my questions. Didn't God appear as a human being in the form of Jesus Christ? Didn't Jesus have mass? How is that different from an immaterial magical faerie exist who can appear as a tiny person with wings?

What would allow you to use the logic that God must exist simply because God makes you feel warm and fuzzy? And by the same logic, why mustn't the faerie also exist because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy?

-Bri
Click to expand...


As to Jesus, I don't believe in him. I am for a loving god, but a one that did not incarnate into a human being.

Though I would not rely too much on dictionary definitions. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Some dictionaries define atheists in such a way that you would not agree with.

But, I think that faerie must include "with wings". Wings are material -> contradiction.

Warm and fuzzy is your way of putting it. I would put it in far more loftier words.
 
As to "warm and fuzzy" - you can describe it as an immaterial-teddy-bear, or as an immaterial hug.

But I think the choice of words is important. Whether you describe something in a more or less beautiful way makes a difference. I would describe it as something that is important to one's life, that makes a difference, that is sublime, is about transcendent and infinite love.

Your choice of words makes it sound trivial.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
As to Jesus, I don't believe in him. I am for a loving god, but a one that did not incarnate into a human being.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that your God is less powerful than the Christian God since it cannot appear as a person? That would certainly refute your earlier statement that your god must exist because most of humanity believes in it. I guarantee that most of humanity does not believe in the god you're describing.

Though I would not rely too much on dictionary definitions. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Some dictionaries define atheists in such a way that you would not agree with.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you asked for a definition, so I gave you one. If you don't like it, then you give us one that you prefer. However, I see no reason that God wouldn't fit any definition you could come up with, assuming that a magical faerie would. Or, if you were to choose a definition that God wouldn't fit, I'm pretty sure the faerie I described also wouldn't fit.

But, I think that faerie must include "with wings". Wings are material -> contradiction.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you misread. I said that the faerie can appear as a tiny person with wings if it chooses, just as God can appear as a person. Or it can choose to be immaterial, just like God. Unless you are claiming that your god is powerless to appear as a person, in which case my faerie is more powerful than your god is.

Warm and fuzzy is your way of putting it. I would put it in far more loftier words.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like it "brings meaning to your life?" Your exact quote was "The idea is that if a view about god brings meaning to your life, it must be true." So if a view about the faerie brings meaning to my life, it must be true. Right?

-Bri
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the whole issue with god appearing as a person. If god is an imm-being, what does it mean that he appears as a person?

It seems like talking about a circle "manifesting" or "incarnating" as a square.

So the whole issue with Jesus doesn't impress me too much. And neither does your faeri which can choose to be material, or immaterial if it wants to. What about the problem of identity? In what sense can you say than an imm-faeri is the same as an m-one?


I feel that there is some misunderstanding for some reason, not sure why.

Again, faeries not the same as god, because they are physical. Don't understand the whole manefestation bussiness. Show me how it works. What does it mean on a practical level for an imm-being to manifest as m-being. What is the speed of transformation of god\faeri to a living being?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom