We've already established that nothing can be destroyed, only rearrange itself into a different form (liquid water turning to steam as an example) How is that not enough proof that there "is no more"?
Your logic fails to link the case together. Please specify.
Linked it together just fine for me. Maybe you aren't as sharp as you think.
We've already established that nothing can be destroyed, only rearrange itself into a different form (liquid water turning to steam as an example) How is that not enough proof that there "is no more"?
Your logic fails to link the case together. Please specify.
Linked it together just fine for me. Maybe you aren't as sharp as you think.
The reason 'nothing can be destroyed' cannot be linked to 'no more'. Have you never thought, both and more could exist at the same time? You even leave out the slightest possibility there is a god. And it could've created the material, and not of the material itself that existed for an eternity. You leave out the slightest possibility that outside this universe, our understanding of the physics do not apply- and materials can indeed be created outside our universe. And if things have always been for an eternity, I don't see where the energy can come from that can sustain a Universe 'eternally'. If they have been for an eternity, we shouldn't exist at all.
None.
( NOTE: This is not based upon anything I believe and does not mean that I question my beliefs. I'm an Atheist and I wrote this because many people question God's existence. Even many people who believe in God often catch themselves questioning the existence of God. )
Many philosophers of the past were Christian, and most of the known ones have caught themselves questioning God's existence.
Although if this came from a believer, then you'd better probably call him more of an agnostic then a believer.
Is this a lyric for a song?
I would just like the point out this detail. I do not think many philosophers of the past were Christian. I think it is they were religious but not in the Christian sense. Some of them may have believed in the Greek gods. I would argue that most philosophers were not Christian.
Tell me this. Why does the sun come up each day?
Solar nebula theory, conversation of angular momentum, and gravitation effects.
I am a Mathematician
[quote Tribe.zany_001B]
Tell me this. Why does the sun come up each day?[/quote]
I must say. When i read this i wondered how you were participating in this topic. But i've probably missed something essential and am going to be perceived negatively because of it XS.
I personally choose to believe (well, mostly) that we cant understand this fully yet for the same reason if you told the most educated scholarly person at the time when humans had just developed language about the intricacies of cell division he would go wth and probably assume your a crazy person.
We dont understand the basis on which this would happen fully, therefore we cant understand it yet.
Personally, i think we should start with understanding the present before the past, and then the future.
None.
I personally choose to believe (well, mostly) that we cant understand this fully yet for the same reason if you told the most educated scholarly person at the time when humans had just developed language about the intricacies of cell division he would go wth and probably assume your a crazy person.
we cant understand fully for the same reason you told the most educated person the time humans developed language intricacies of cell division would go wth assume your crazy person.
None.
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
( NOTE: This is not based upon anything I believe and does not mean that I question my beliefs. I'm an Atheist and I wrote this because many people question God's existence. Even many people who believe in God often catch themselves questioning the existence of God. )
Many philosophers of the past were Christian, and most of the known ones have caught themselves questioning God's existence.
Although if this came from a believer, then you'd better probably call him more of an agnostic then a believer.
Is this a lyric for a song?
I would just like the point out this detail. I do not think many philosophers of the past were Christian. I think it is they were religious but not in the Christian sense. Some of them may have believed in the Greek gods. I would argue that most philosophers were not Christian.
He said MANY, not most.
Tell me this. Why does the sun come up each day?
Solar nebula theory, conversation of angular momentum, and gravitation effects.
Good. Now, what keeps gravity working? What keeps the laws of physics working? Unless you're religious, you can't know, they just are. You can say 'Different masses have different specific gravities blahdeblahblah' but you can't know WHY they do. And that is a reason to think that there's more out there.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
Zany... Gravity exists because it doesn't exist in the timeline. The same applies for all existance. In order to be born, one must first be unborn.
None.
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
Zany... Gravity exists because it doesn't exist in the timeline. The same applies for all existance. In order to be born, one must first be unborn.
What?
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
Zany... Gravity exists because it doesn't exist in the timeline. The same applies for all existance. In order to be born, one must first be unborn.
What?
There was once an extremely intelligent man who went by the name of Newton. He observed that in nature, every action has an equal reaction that functions oppositely. This observation can be applied to philosophy as well, and using the timeline module, you can witness each entity of 'known' time in relation to 'known' time where such entity did not exist.
Then you apply an old theory derived from the ancient science of alchemy (that is now obsolete) which functions exactly like Newton's third law except instead of talking about forces, or philosophy, it deals directly with matter. You cannot gain something without putting in something of equal value. Only nature knows the value of things, which is why humans are usually unable to observe this property on their own.
When you combine this all together, you come to a greater understanding of what existence is. On the largest (known) scale: the universe.
The universe exists. This is a truth, but not an absolute truth.
Because the universe exists, it must have existed in a non-existent state for a period of the time line that is equal in value to the period of it's existing in existence.
None.
( NOTE: This is not based upon anything I believe and does not mean that I question my beliefs. I'm an Atheist and I wrote this because many people question God's existence. Even many people who believe in God often catch themselves questioning the existence of God. )
Many philosophers of the past were Christian, and most of the known ones have caught themselves questioning God's existence.
Although if this came from a believer, then you'd better probably call him more of an agnostic then a believer.
Is this a lyric for a song?
I would just like the point out this detail. I do not think many philosophers of the past were Christian. I think it is they were religious but not in the Christian sense. Some of them may have believed in the Greek gods. I would argue that most philosophers were not Christian.
He said MANY, not most.
Tell me this. Why does the sun come up each day?
Solar nebula theory, conversation of angular momentum, and gravitation effects.
Good. Now, what keeps gravity working? What keeps the laws of physics working? Unless you're religious, you can't know, they just are. You can say 'Different masses have different specific gravities blahdeblahblah' but you can't know WHY they do. And that is a reason to think that there's more out there.
Same argument: I will argue that there are not many Christian philosophers compared to the other religious philosophers.
I think the four fundamental forces of nature is eternal not some deity.
I am a Mathematician
Zany... Gravity exists because it doesn't exist in the timeline. The same applies for all existance. In order to be born, one must first be unborn.
What?
There was once an extremely intelligent man who went by the name of Newton. He observed that in nature, every action has an equal reaction that functions oppositely. This observation can be applied to philosophy as well, and using the timeline module, you can witness each entity of 'known' time in relation to 'known' time where such entity did not exist.
Then you apply an old theory derived from the ancient science of alchemy (that is now obsolete) which functions exactly like Newton's third law except instead of talking about forces, or philosophy, it deals directly with matter. You cannot gain something without putting in something of equal value. Only nature knows the value of things, which is why humans are usually unable to observe this property on their own.
When you combine this all together, you come to a greater understanding of what existence is. On the largest (known) scale: the universe.
The universe exists. This is a truth, but not an absolute truth.
Because the universe exists, it must have existed in a non-existent state for a period of the time line that is equal in value to the period of it's existing in existence.
I could replace nature with god and have it almost be a religious statement.
1. Assuming alchemy is obsolete, why isnt the theory?
2. Assuming the theory isnt obsolete, it's still only a theory, and i have yet to see any proof of it (alchemy failed...)
3. Assuming nature exists and is able to be the switcher of these two things, would it not have to have un-existed? And what triggers the actual switch from un-existence to existence of nature/the universe?
I feel yet again like im missing something...
None.
Zany... Gravity exists because it doesn't exist in the timeline. The same applies for all existance. In order to be born, one must first be unborn.
What?
There was once an extremely intelligent man who went by the name of Newton. He observed that in nature, every action has an equal reaction that functions oppositely. This observation can be applied to philosophy as well, and using the timeline module, you can witness each entity of 'known' time in relation to 'known' time where such entity did not exist.
Then you apply an old theory derived from the ancient science of alchemy (that is now obsolete) which functions exactly like Newton's third law except instead of talking about forces, or philosophy, it deals directly with matter. You cannot gain something without putting in something of equal value. Only nature knows the value of things, which is why humans are usually unable to observe this property on their own.
When you combine this all together, you come to a greater understanding of what existence is. On the largest (known) scale: the universe.
The universe exists. This is a truth, but not an absolute truth.
Because the universe exists, it must have existed in a non-existent state for a period of the time line that is equal in value to the period of it's existing in existence.
I could replace nature with god and have it almost be a religious statement.
1. Assuming alchemy is obsolete, why isnt the theory?
2. Assuming the theory isnt obsolete, it's still only a theory, and i have yet to see any proof of it (alchemy failed...)
3. Assuming nature exists and is able to be the switcher of these two things, would it not have to have un-existed? And what triggers the actual switch from un-existence to existence of nature/the universe?
I feel yet again like im missing something...
1. British Shillings are obsolete, but they are still a type of currency. Just because something is no longer practiced or seen as useful, doesn't mean it is completely irrelevant.
2. It is only a theory because absolute truth does not exist.
3. Nature is not 'the switcher'. Nature is the term I use for the natural flow of the 'known' universe. It does un-exist in the timeline.
And there is no switch, both co-exist.
None.
>be faceless void >mfw I have no face
Zany... Gravity exists because it doesn't exist in the timeline. The same applies for all existance. In order to be born, one must first be unborn.
What?
There was once an extremely intelligent man who went by the name of Newton. He observed that in nature, every action has an equal reaction that functions oppositely. This observation can be applied to philosophy as well, and using the timeline module, you can witness each entity of 'known' time in relation to 'known' time where such entity did not exist.
Then you apply an old theory derived from the ancient science of alchemy (that is now obsolete) which functions exactly like Newton's third law except instead of talking about forces, or philosophy, it deals directly with matter. You cannot gain something without putting in something of equal value. Only nature knows the value of things, which is why humans are usually unable to observe this property on their own.
When you combine this all together, you come to a greater understanding of what existence is. On the largest (known) scale: the universe.
The universe exists. This is a truth, but not an absolute truth.
Because the universe exists, it must have existed in a non-existent state for a period of the time line that is equal in value to the period of it's existing in existence.
First off, Newton called these laws the laws of motion. Not the laws of motion and philosophy. So no, you can't really apply the 3rd law of motion to philosophy, or matter.
Next, this law and other laws are laws of this universe. They aren't the laws of the unexistant universe. If the universe didn't exist, it can't apply laws from when it DID exist to when it didn't.
So the universe certainly does not HAVE to not-exist at one time to make up for it's existance NOW.
Also, is it an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth? If it isn't, then the 'truth' that there is no absolute truth may be false, meaning that there IS absolute truth.
Red classic.
"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."
Way over everyone's head... we'll touch back on philosophy another day.
None.
Same argument: I will argue that there are not many Christian philosophers compared to the other religious philosophers.
Many is not most. Many means a lot. Most means the majority. Learn ENG pl0x.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_philosophersThey are all influential philosophers, and even today we learn about them because of their importance.
None.
Most of your arguments are based on the fact the the universe once DID NOT EXIST and the Big Bang Theory. For all we know, the universe HAS existed for all eternity, and always WILL exist for all eternity.
As for the poem, great words. I perceive this as one of the messages you wrote in the poem: Man's reason contradicts "divine" fact.
And then keep in mind mere humans wrote every religions work.
Win by luck, lose by skill.
And then keep in mind mere humans wrote every religions work.
In philosophy, the same argument applies to man's reason. If mere men are so mere and insignificant, even their reasoning would perhaps be 'mere' and 'untrustworthy'. In essence, reason based on empricism is as limited- no matter how much we wouldn't want to believe.
None.
Same argument: I will argue that there are not many Christian philosophers compared to the other religious philosophers.
Many is not most. Many means a lot. Most means the majority. Learn ENG pl0x.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_philosophersThey are all influential philosophers, and even today we learn about them because of their importance.
Many of these philosophers are actually closer to modern times. I also will argue that many of them are not influential. There are only 5 philosophers I find influential.
René Descartes and his evil daemon philosophy (can be seen in the matrix
)
Immanuel Kant and his concept of categorical imperative
Gottfried Leibniz did not write very much philosophy but has some hold on metaphysics
John Locke and his concept of the tabula rasa
Blaise Pascal and his wager (which can be easily argued somewhat faulty)
Care to explain how 5 out of that whole list is many?
(as of right now I am wondering how many people are actually educated in philosophy)
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 1 2009, 8:03 am by MasterJohnny.
I am a Mathematician
Most of your arguments are based on the fact the the universe once DID NOT EXIST and the Big Bang Theory. For all we know, the universe HAS existed for all eternity, and always WILL exist for all eternity.
No, the universe has not existed for an eternity according to the big bang theory. It once existed as a singularity that imploded to create a universe. A singularity cannot be a universe, because if you apply that arguments- wouldn't a million blackholes in our universe implode to make their own universes? Plus outside this universe, it is not observable, and thus science cannot be- because it bases itself on empiricism. All you could know, laws of physics may not apply at all.
And MasterJohnny, you argue your own feelings and what you know. I will not argue a completely biased conjecture.
None.
BeDazed
