First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
why does anything exist?
1459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/19/08
but i found out like i dont know when that the word dont have to be in order to be able to read it all the word has to have is the first and last letter of the word and u will understand cool huh but yeah
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/19/08

CPJP wrote:

but i found out like i dont know when that the word dont have to be in order to be able to read it all the word has to have is the first and last letter of the word and u will understand cool huh but yeah


and... your point is? (sorry, don't get it )
1459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/19/08

tweety_cool wrote:


CPJP wrote:

but i found out like i dont know when that the word dont have to be in order to be able to read it all the word has to have is the first and last letter of the word and u will understand cool huh but yeah


and... your point is? (sorry, don't get it )

well i was talking to the guy that made this thingy lol did i not quote it oops well it means that the word does not have to be spelled right for u to understand it all u have to do is have the first and last letter of the word in the right place

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 7/19/08

paperback wrote:

because of 42


lol hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy ftw
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/19/08

tweety_cool wrote:

hmmm.... To put it simple..... we can't define what is existence and what is not. existence, as you say, and i agree, is just a way to define things. Starting with something you can see, you can feel, and then,.... later on you can detect (by radiation and stuff) and etc. But something that can't be detected might also "existed". So... my point is... everything might be there to begin with. And we don't know what is there in the beginning till the end. It is just a constant thing, with no boundary such as exist and not exist. It's just a human term, where everything that we can detect is labeled as exist, and everything else as (temporary) doesn't exist.... So... it's just a label....

dahhhhhh... I guess I spouting too much bullshit without clear argument.... hahahaha...... I really want to know your point of view... you seem to have interesting point....


i thought that was pretty good. as for my point of view, im not sure but i think since everything is made of matter/energy and the positive matter/energy and negative matter/energy cancel each other out (23-23=0)... hmm im not sure how to communicate it but roughly i think that existence and nonexistence are the same thing.
lolz im a lil confused
1459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/19/08

simo2332 wrote:


CPJP wrote:


simo2332 wrote:

but
existence could not have been created for a reason because something would of had to of existed to create it and give it a reason. existence has nothing dependent on it and so is unnecessary. existence has no objective purpose or value.

and because god exists, as you say, he is also mingled in with the above.

well i dont have an answer but i have a question
how come when we talk to someone we understand what they are saying and this is also for typing how do we understand the conversation


when we hear a word we first hear it as a sound, our brain then recognizes it as a word with a meaning.
pretty much the same with writing but with letters instead of sounds (letters being little pictures/symbols).

but i found out like i dont know when that the word dont have to be in order to be able to read it all the word has to have is the first and last letter of the word and u will understand cool huh but yeah may be out of the subject but If we use our dirty hands to get clean with soap, does that do the job

757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/19/08
umm.... please use (,) or (.)...... I have hard times (since I am not used using english, no offense btw)

It's cool btw... hahahha..... you mean our thinking process itself is not clear enough to define something to be there?
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/19/08

simo2332 wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

hmmm.... To put it simple..... we can't define what is existence and what is not. existence, as you say, and i agree, is just a way to define things. Starting with something you can see, you can feel, and then,.... later on you can detect (by radiation and stuff) and etc. But something that can't be detected might also "existed". So... my point is... everything might be there to begin with. And we don't know what is there in the beginning till the end. It is just a constant thing, with no boundary such as exist and not exist. It's just a human term, where everything that we can detect is labeled as exist, and everything else as (temporary) doesn't exist.... So... it's just a label....

dahhhhhh... I guess I spouting too much bullshit without clear argument.... hahahaha...... I really want to know your point of view... you seem to have interesting point....


i thought that was pretty good. as for my point of view, im not sure but i think since everything is made of matter/energy and the positive matter/energy and negative matter/energy cancel each other out (23-23=0)... hmm im not sure how to communicate it but roughly i think that existence and nonexistence are the same thing.
lolz im a lil confused


yes... and i agree. As it is only label.... what we called existence and non existence might be one...

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 7/19/08
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just answer the question with "there are things we know and things we do not know. Things we know, exist to us. Things we do not know, exists not to us."

However, the notion of "to know" should be pondered, but that's an entirely different and more complicated discussion.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/20/08

excalion wrote:

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just answer the question with "there are things we know and things we do not know. Things we know, exist to us. Things we do not know, exists not to us."


HMMMM.... agree, as it exist only to "us"
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/20/08

tweety_cool wrote:


simo2332 wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

hmmm.... To put it simple..... we can't define what is existence and what is not. existence, as you say, and i agree, is just a way to define things. Starting with something you can see, you can feel, and then,.... later on you can detect (by radiation and stuff) and etc. But something that can't be detected might also "existed". So... my point is... everything might be there to begin with. And we don't know what is there in the beginning till the end. It is just a constant thing, with no boundary such as exist and not exist. It's just a human term, where everything that we can detect is labeled as exist, and everything else as (temporary) doesn't exist.... So... it's just a label....

dahhhhhh... I guess I spouting too much bullshit without clear argument.... hahahaha...... I really want to know your point of view... you seem to have interesting point....


i thought that was pretty good. as for my point of view, im not sure but i think since everything is made of matter/energy and the positive matter/energy and negative matter/energy cancel each other out (23-23=0)... hmm im not sure how to communicate it but roughly i think that existence and nonexistence are the same thing.
lolz im a lil confused


yes... and i agree. As it is only label.... what we called existence and non existence might be one...



ye exactly, it sounds strange at first but i think it explains part of it.
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/20/08 , edited 7/20/08

excalion wrote:

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just answer the question with "there are things we know and things we do not know. Things we know, exist to us. Things we do not know, exists not to us."

However, the notion of "to know" should be pondered, but that's an entirely different and more complicated discussion.


the quotation does not really answer the question tho.
the knowledge is unknowable thing really complicates this question lolz i tried to think about it in the context of this question and i got a head ache.

edit:
i will explain
some one on a other thread pointed out to me that the statement, "knowledge is unknowable" assumes there exists a objective universe where knowledge exists. this then leads the paradox to blossom into even more of a paradox.
this links into the question "why is there existence rarther then nonexistence" because we do not know if anything exists anyway, plus, such words as existence are arbituary since they are undefined. not even descartes "cogito ergo sum" can hold against the paradox of knowledge.

you probably already figured all this i guess, but eh
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/20/08 , edited 7/20/08

simo2332 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


simo2332 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

Are we asking whether there is a reason behind existence or a reason for existence?


a reason for existence, i did confuse the op a bit but i meant why is there some thing rarther then nothing.


Well, for one we cannot comprehend 'nothing.' The best we can do is visualize it as the absence of everything else. But even describing 'nothing' as a noun is incorrect because there is no subject to speak of.

You're leaning toward some tenets of existentialism, as far as I can tell.


lolz that was kwl, i had to reread it couple of times
my head now hurts tho. do you know any more on the subject?

and ye i like existentialism.


On the subject of nothing? Well, the problem with describing nothing is that you're conceptualizing it. So using it in a sentence makes it into a thing, and so it is used as a noun. The problem is nouns are connected to existentially existing things, and technically 'nothing' can't be a thing. Even writing about the subject forces me to break its rules.

When we speak of nothing, we usually envision it as the absence of objects. We have never experienced a state of nothingness, so essentially the best replication of it in the mind is to subtract all the things we have experienced. But still we can't experience nothing, because there is nothing to experience. The meaning of the word plays with conventional uses of language, so talking about it makes it every worse (but there is no 'it' to speak of, see?).

^Cognito ergo sum is a faulty conclusion. How many times do I have to repeat this...? And 'knowledge is unknowable' is wrong as well due to a clash in meaning. In clear terms, knowledge is knowable but it can't be verified as true or correct. This is purely an epistemological question and has already been tackled by Descartes, Hume, etc.
1386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Right behind you!
Offline
Posted 7/20/08
Because you touch yourself at night. :|
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/20/08

leviathan343 wrote:


simo2332 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


simo2332 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

Are we asking whether there is a reason behind existence or a reason for existence?


a reason for existence, i did confuse the op a bit but i meant why is there some thing rarther then nothing.


Well, for one we cannot comprehend 'nothing.' The best we can do is visualize it as the absence of everything else. But even describing 'nothing' as a noun is incorrect because there is no subject to speak of.

You're leaning toward some tenets of existentialism, as far as I can tell.


lolz that was kwl, i had to reread it couple of times
my head now hurts tho. do you know any more on the subject?

and ye i like existentialism.


On the subject of nothing? Well, the problem with describing nothing is that you're conceptualizing it. So using it in a sentence makes it into a thing, and so it is used as a noun. The problem is nouns are connected to existentially existing things, and technically 'nothing' can't be a thing. Even writing about the subject forces me to break its rules.

When we speak of nothing, we usually envision it as the absence of objects. We have never experienced a state of nothingness, so essentially the best replication of it in the mind is to subtract all the things we have experienced. But still we can't experience nothing, because there is nothing to experience. The meaning of the word plays with conventional uses of language, so talking about it makes it every worse (but there is no 'it' to speak of, see?).

^Cognito ergo sum is a faulty conclusion. How many times do I have to repeat this...? And 'knowledge is unknowable' is wrong as well due to a clash in meaning. In clear terms, knowledge is knowable but it can't be verified as true or correct. This is purely an epistemological question and has already been tackled by Descartes, Hume, etc.



i see what you mean about nothing, could we not create a anti noun? :s lolz

i dont think i have ever brought up "cognito ergo sum" before and i know its a faulty conclusion. knowledge is unknowable is a paradox, i also said it was faulty because it assumes there exists a objective reality in which knowledge exists.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.