For Reality Check

[ApologiaPhoenix]

for those of us who are not philosophers, how about telling us what Parmenide's dilemma is? And the various modes of being that are opposed to it?

Parmenides saw that there can only be being and non-being.

But non-being cannot be the cause of being and being cannot be the cause of non-being since non-being is not.

All that is then is being.

How does a green leaf become red? Does the redness actually exist in the leaf? How can green be the cause of non-green?

Parmenides answered by saying that change is an illusion (Think Zeno's paradox) since beings cannot differ by non-being since non-being is nothing and beings cannot differ by being because being is what they have in common.

[Manwë Súlimo]

If I be being a being that bes, can I be not a being that no bes by being not being? Being serious.

[Reality Check]

Parmenides saw that there can only be being and non-being.

But non-being cannot be the cause of being and being cannot be the cause of non-being since non-being is not.

All that is then is being.

How does a green leaf become red? Does the redness actually exist in the leaf? How can green be the cause of non-green?

Parmenides answered by saying that change is an illusion (Think Zeno's paradox) since beings cannot differ by non-being since non-being is nothing and beings cannot differ by being because being is what they have in common.

This is just tautology.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Your mom's a tautology.

[Sparko]

This is just tautology.

um... no, it's not.

Are you saying you believe it is true that non-being cannot be the cause of being?

[Jedidiah]

Nothing needs to "sustain" existence. The universe Is what it Is, existence sustains itself.

That still ignores all the points made about the source of creation.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

This is just tautology.

Do you even know what a tautology is?

[Manwë Súlimo]

A tautology is what a tautology is.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

If I be being a being that bes, can I be not a being that no bes by being not being? Being serious.

The horny doofus maketh no sense.

[Reality Check]

Ok, re-phrase what it is exactly that you're asking me?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Ok, re-phrase what it is exactly that you're asking me?

How do you explain change? Such as a green leaf becoming red? Does the redness exist in the green leaf or not? Where does the red come from? Where does the green go?

Something either changes by being or non-being.

It cannot change by non-being because that is nothing.

It cannot change by being because that is what it is and being cannot become non-being.

Therefore, change is an illusion.

[Reality Check]

How do I explain a green leaf becoming red? Chemical reactions inside the leaf.

ETA: The green is gone after a leaf turns to red, and then brown, and then falls off the tree. The green doesn't come back. It goes away. This is explained by chemical reactions.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

So where does greenness go? Does greenness become redness? How is that possible without green ceasing to be green and red remaining red?

[Manwë Súlimo]

Bob Ross does it by putting a pretty little red wherever.....wherever you please. This is your painting. If you want to paint a happy little red leaf, you paint a happy little red leaf. Now, wasn't that simple?

[Sparko]

So where does greenness go? Does greenness become redness? How is that possible without green ceasing to be green and red remaining red?

I think you first need him to agree to "being" or "not being" as the only two states. It seems that is what he thinks, but he hasn't been clear. Unless I am misunderstanding your argument too.