[Suntzu]

Soma!

Marx was right!

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, the future me would only exist as a concept if you killed the physical me. But it would still exist as a concept.

There would be no potential-you because all potentiality was removed in the elimination of the physical conditions which are essential to the concept's nature in that instance, i.e. you being presently alive.

How could you say that you have a potential existence when you have no potential existence? That would be a contradiction; thus, if you eliminate the possibility of any future potential regarding yourself, than there is no potential-you. To say otherwise is illogical.

Actually, I not only supoorted them, but @ingliz even provided evidence to support this position as well.

Yes, and you both were soundly refuted.

No. My future self exists as a concept and the real me exists as a physical object in the present.

Your future self being a potential person depends on certain physical conditions now, namely you being alive to become that future self. If those physical conditions are eliminated, any hope of you becoming a future self would likewise be eliminated, thus, in such a case, as was pointed out above, if you cease to exist now, so does any potential you (which is a concept).

Either you potentially exist or you do not, and that depends on certain physical criteria now, which is also the point of argument in the OP. Potential Persons are concepts that are dependent and connected to certain physical criteria. If those physical criteria are eliminated to which the concept is connected, a potential person is logically destroyed for the reasons shown above. If you destory a potential person, you destroy an actual person (logically speaking).

[Pants-of-dog]

There would be no potential-you because all potentiality was removed in the elimination of the physical conditions which are essential to the concept's nature in that instance, i.e. you being presently alive.

How could you say that you have a potential existence when you have no potential existence? That would be a contradiction; thus, if you eliminate the possibility of any future potential regarding yourself, than there is no potential-you. To say otherwise is illogical.

Again, the potential person would exist as a concept. Concepts can exist even if the physical objects to which they correspond no longer exist.

Also, there is no such thing as a potential me, as I have identity, while potential people do not have identity.

Yes, and you both were soundly refuted.

No, you simply ignored the evidence.

Your future self being a potential person depends on certain physical conditions now, namely you being alive to become that future self. If those physical conditions are eliminated, any hope of you becoming a future self would likewise be eliminated, thus, in such a case, as was pointed out above, if you cease to exist now, so does any potential you (which is a concept).

Either you potentially exist or you do not, and that depends on certain physical criteria now, which is also the point of argument in the OP. Potential Persons are concepts that are dependent and connected to certain physical criteria. If those physical criteria are eliminated to which the concept is connected, a potential person is logically destroyed for the reasons shown above. If you destroy a potential person, you destroy an actual person (logically speaking).

As I already said more than once, I do not exist as a potential person because I am not a concept. I am real.

You seem to be changing your definition of potential person once more to now include a dependence on actual people.

Potential people need only other people to exist. And people exist, so that is taken care of.

And once again, since potential people have no identity, they cannot be tied to a specific actual person.

[Nonsense]

No, it's not murder', but it is 'wasteful',as is masturbation or homosexual behaviour,I'm not moralising on such behaviours,just pointing out that evolution produced TWO genders that require each other to reproduce & anything hindering that may only be regarded as 'purposeful' if it is intended to produce a neutral outcome.

I see no other 'logic' in pointing out the obvious,other than to say that two 'normal' couples engaging in coitus,do so more frequently than is necesary for reproduction alone,therefore coitus is more than intentionally reproductive in nature.

It reinforces the bond between couples,plus a host of other non-physical positives.

If contraception bothers some people,they should perhaps consider abstaining as & when needs must arise.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Again, the potential person would exist as a concept. Concepts can exist even if the physical objects to which they correspond no longer exist.

Also, there is no such thing as a potential me, as I have identity, while potential people do not have identity.

No, the concept that would exist, would no longer be a real potential, so it is different thing altogether, it may be conceptual merely in being non-physical, but its not the concept we are discussing that has a definite reference.

The potential-person concept is identity-specific in reference to potential outcomes and its physical correspondence.

Please Understand This:

If there is no potential-future-you, then there is no potential-future-you. Show me how this can be otherwise, for as it stands, the claim to the contrary is a contradiction. if there is no present-YOU(the physical being), there can be no FUTURE-YOU (the concept). Period.

No, you simply ignored the evidence.

No, i refuted it. You are welcome to provide it again so I can refute it again. I enjoy refuting your arguments.

As I already said more than once, I do not exist as a potential person because I am not a concept. I am real.

Correct. You are physical and not conceptual in yourself, but there exists the logical FACT of your potential future self, that concept's existence is dependent on your physical existence at present. if you cease to exist in the present, then the physical conditions that are necessary for your potential future self, will no longer exist, and therefore your future existence will no longer be a possibility (hence, there would be NO potential-future-you anymore). This is a logical FACT.

You seem to be changing your definition of potential person once more to now include a dependence on actual people.

Only in reference to this example of potential-future-yous. This example is analogous, not identical, to the one that I use on contraception. I am using it to aid understanding on your part, as that seems to be a personal problem for you.

And once again, since potential people have no identity, they cannot be tied to a specific actual person.

No, they do have an identity, the identity of that which they would otherwise become is implicit in the very concept. This was argued by me earlier, and stands unrefuted.

The identity of the concept of the potential-future-you, is the character of the potential-future-you had it become an actual you at some point.

[Truth To Power]

That is not how entity is being used in the context of that argument (and you know it), the use of entity here (an existent) is referring to a conceptual existence, but an existence nonetheless.

Actually, I am not at all clear that that is not how "entity" is being used, or at least, if it is only being used that way. ISTM if you are talking about murders of actual vs potential persons, the physical rather than conceptual sense of "entity" is required. Or is your whole argument just an equivocation fallacy? I was hoping not, but it is by far the most common fallacy in modern philosophy.

It does because we are only speaking of corresponding potentials and actuals, not arbitrary potentials and actuals that have an existence in general.

But the concept of murder only applies to actual persons, entities in the physical sense, not "corresponding" conceptual ones.

Remember, for every actual existence there was a corresponding potential existence, everything that has an actual existence had a corresponding potentiality. All actual-butterflies were once potential-butterflies (caterpillars).

The caterpillar was a physical entity; but that is not what you seem to mean by "actual" in the case of persons.

Thus, the premise would be valid IF all non-grapes were also non-apples (this is not a true relationship, obviously, but is just a hypothetical example).

I think it would be easier to understand an argument from logical analogy that had the claimed truth values.

Now, If this were the case, that for every non-grape there was a corresponding non-apple, then to make a grape into a non-grape would be to make the corresponding apple into a non-apple. That is true, because of the connection between subject and predicate under discussion.

No, because the negation does not conserve truth value, as I said before. Even if there is a non-apple that corresponds to every non-grape, there does not necessarily have to be a corresponding apple for every grape.
Thus, to translate into a better example from real life:

P2: All Non-Caterpillars are Non-Butterflies

(remember, this is a corresponding relationship, not a general relationship, this would be ambiguous just from the syllogism only if you failed to read the explanatory and definitional section of the OP, which you clearly didn't or didn't understand properly)

Again, the relationship of this analogy to your argument might be easier to understand if the premise weren't obviously false.

The corollary to P2: All Potential Butterfly (caterpillar) Destroying is All (corresponding) Actual Butterfly Destroying.

Thus, we can see why the corollary is also a border-line redundancy and why it does, in fact, follow quite nicely from P2.

Maybe you can...

To me it seems obvious that destroying any actual caterpillar does not destroy any actual butterfly.

You are simply mistaken in your criticism on this vein.

That is not an argument.

So no, if you actually read the premise explanations you would see that the premise in question was discussing corresponding relationships between the subject and predicate. The corollary cannot be understood apart from this point.

OK: I still don't understand it.

Your misunderstanding was avoidable. Your assertions are therefore invalid.

You'll have to do better than that.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, the concept that would exist, would no longer be a real potential, so it is different thing altogether, it may be conceptual merely in being non-physical, but its not the concept we are discussing that has a definite reference.

The potential-person concept is identity-specific in reference to potential outcomes and its physical correspondence.

Please Understand This:

If there is no potential-future-you, then there is no potential-future-you. Show me how this can be otherwise, for as it stands, the claim to the contrary is a contradiction. if there is no present-YOU(the physical being), there can be no FUTURE-YOU (the concept). Period.

Are you arguing that if I die, my wife cannot (in the future) imagine the life we could have had? Because she can.

No, i refuted it. You are welcome to provide it again so I can refute it again. I enjoy refuting your arguments.

Please repeat your refutation, thanks.

Correct. You are physical and not conceptual in yourself, but there exists the logical FACT of your potential future self, that concept's existence is dependent on your physical existence at present. if you cease to exist in the present, then the physical conditions that are necessary for your potential future self, will no longer exist, and therefore your future existence will no longer be a possibility (hence, there would be NO potential-future-you anymore). This is a logical FACT.

I find this whole tangent irrelevant. I, as a specific person with an identity, am qualitatively different from a potential person as described in the OP because I have an identity while potnetial people do not.

Only in reference to this example of potential-future-yous. This example is analogous, not identical, to the one that I use on contraception. I am using it to aid understanding on your part, as that seems to be a personal problem for you.

Actually, you are attempting to benefit from the confusion by pretending that potential people also have identities as I do.

No, they do have an identity, the identity of that which they would otherwise become is implicit in the very concept. This was argued by me earlier, and stands unrefuted.

The identity of the concept of the potential-future-you, is the character of the potential-future-you had it become an actual you at some point.

This disregards biology as you are assuming that a specific person will arise from a specific sexual union, which is incorrect. From any one sexual union, there are millions of possible specfic people, and they are all tied to the same physical objects.

[Truth To Power]

I think you should open your mind to my ideas. They are righteous.

No, they are actually self-righteous, uninformed, irrational and ill-considered.

[Truth To Power]

No, I have no information on how old she was. However, if she were 35, then at the Crucifixion of Jesus, she would be around 70 years of age, which does not seem likely to me. But you still have not given a reference link to anything that proves she was 12 years old when the Holy Spirit came upon her. That may be true, but I am not prepared to repeat that just on your say so.

I am not an "expert" on the Bible, but I have read it (KJV), and I am pretty sure there is no mention of Mary's age at any point.

[Rancid]

No, they are actually self-righteous, uninformed, irrational and ill-considered.

No, you know nothing.

I will pray that God punishes you.

[Suntzu]

No, you know nothing.

I will pray that God punishes you.

How very Christian of you!

[Rancid]

How very Christian of you!

The Christian God is a God of love and forgiveness, but best of all, he is one of retribution.

[Suntzu]

I have a feeling we will both end up in the same place one way or the other.

[Hindsite]

I am not an "expert" on the Bible, but I have read it (KJV), and I am pretty sure there is no mention of Mary's age at any point.

Yes, you are correct. Mary's age is never mentioned in any version of the Holy Bible.
In reference to Isaiah 7:14 the translation is either "virgin" or "young woman" and no age is mentioned.

[ingliz]

Mary's age is never mentioned in any version of the Holy Bible.

When Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.

Her age:

It is very clear that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and marriage was imminent. The usual age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls.

[Hindsite]

When Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.

Her age:

It is very clear that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and marriage was imminent. The usual age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls.

You can't depend on that being accurate because there are a lot of things in the Holy Bible that are not usual, like turning water into wine, walking on water, virgins giving birth to children, etc.

[Suntzu]

You can't depend on that being accurate because there are a lot of things in the Holy Bible that are not usual, like turning water into wine, walking on water, virgins giving birth to children, etc.

I don't think one can depend on anything in the Bible being accurate starting with a flood the covered Mt. Everest.

[Truth To Power]

The usual age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls.

AFAIK that's the earliest. "Usual" would require some sort of statistical support.

[Suntzu]

Yep, they were big on statistics in the 1st century.

[Truth To Power]

Yep, they were big on statistics in the 1st century.

So the claim is an arbitrary one unsupported by any actual facts?