First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
why does anything exist?
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:


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.


Cognito ergo sum is flawed because it draws too much of a conclusion from its initial premise. I was quoting the use of it in a post above mine simply because I'm tired of people using it without them knowing what it means.

Knowledge can never be verified to be 100% accurate ('true' or 'false') because all information is obtained through a subjective medium. Of course, wondering if knowledge is true or false assumes there is a standard by which to compare it with (an objective reality). One can draw information from their perceptions, but their perceptions must be questioned themselves. Even cause and effect cannot be proven empirically to be a constant 'law'.
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:


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.


Cognito ergo sum is flawed because it draws too much of a conclusion from its initial premise. I was quoting the use of it in a post above mine simply because I'm tired of people using it without them knowing what it means.

Knowledge can never be verified to be 100% accurate ('true' or 'false') because all information is obtained through a subjective medium. Of course, wondering if knowledge is true or false assumes there is a standard by which to compare it with (an objective reality). One can draw information from their perceptions, but their perceptions must be questioned themselves. Even cause and effect cannot be proven empirically to be a constant 'law'.



i know what cognito ergo sum means, i was saying it cant be proven and ye ^ thats what i was saying it the post before.
what do you think about the anti-noun idea? lolz
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/20/08
hmm... even if we have anti-noun... there is nothing in this world we have known that can fit into it... we can't even communicate it.... hahahaha...... (i guess)
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/20/08

tweety_cool wrote:

hmm... even if we have anti-noun... there is nothing in this world we have known that can fit into it... we can't even communicate it.... hahahaha...... (i guess)


but what about the space between subatomic particles? there is void, void is lack of existence.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/20/08
then it exist, called void (get what i mean?), this anti noun of yours is stronger by definition than that void
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/21/08

tweety_cool wrote:

then it exist, called void (get what i mean?), this anti noun of yours is stronger by definition than that void


but void is lack of existence, void is nothingness, yet void still exists as a noun, or maybe a better word is anti noun lolz

definition of anti-noun; devoid of thing

963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/21/08

zendude wrote:

The concepts of true nature does not lie in set rules, but a probability map that does set common patterns that could be followed. This is the truth, for as nature in it self started in a random event that is too far unmeasurable by any means of science. Everything and anything only exist for the reasons of being, in layman's terms, lucky (or by God, who is tipping the scales for us).

Have you ever conceptualize or even fathom the universal possibility of us to even exist?

Here is the short story:
-There was a big bang
-Particles started to form together to make the most basic element, Hydrogen
-Stars and cosmic bodies start to form
-Given enough time and energy, atoms are becoming more heavier and heavier, like Helium and Carbon
-Planets started to form
-Crazy chaotic planetary things happens
-The conditions for life makes it possible for things like evolution
-The dinosaurs died, and mammals reign supreme
-With evolution, the brains of the higher primates gets more organized
-Evolution killed some more species
-And, presto, here are us

Those chances are more than googolplex of even happening. The most consistent reason why we exist is that we are very very lucky.


string theory and M theory say there could be a infinite universes, im not sure i agree with them but it is interesting. i agree we seem to be very lucky but im again not that sure lolz.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/21/08

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.


But God is uncreated unlike us, otherwise like you mentioned there would be the problem of infinate regress. Why we can say so is because a true theist believes God cannot be fully compared to His creations, including humans, the earth, and the universe.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/21/08

crunchypibb 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.


But God is uncreated unlike us, otherwise like you mentioned there would be the problem of infinate regress. Why we can say so is because a true theist believes God cannot be fully compared to His creations, including humans, the earth, and the universe.


The universe has the same probability of self-causation as any other existential thing in the universe.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/21/08

simo2332 wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


simo2332 wrote:


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.


Cognito ergo sum is flawed because it draws too much of a conclusion from its initial premise. I was quoting the use of it in a post above mine simply because I'm tired of people using it without them knowing what it means.

Knowledge can never be verified to be 100% accurate ('true' or 'false') because all information is obtained through a subjective medium. Of course, wondering if knowledge is true or false assumes there is a standard by which to compare it with (an objective reality). One can draw information from their perceptions, but their perceptions must be questioned themselves. Even cause and effect cannot be proven empirically to be a constant 'law'.



i know what cognito ergo sum means, i was saying it cant be proven and ye ^ thats what i was saying it the post before.
what do you think about the anti-noun idea? lolz


Anti-nouns...you may be onto something here. Can anti-nouns even refer to anything? They have to be words without reference, right?
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/21/08

leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb 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.


But God is uncreated unlike us, otherwise like you mentioned there would be the problem of infinate regress. Why we can say so is because a true theist believes God cannot be fully compared to His creations, including humans, the earth, and the universe.


The universe has the same probability of self-causation as any other existential thing in the universe.


I believe you are talking about cyclic causation and even so how do you think it would start? God, the first causer and uncaused. Self causation is not possible.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/21/08 , edited 7/21/08

crunchypibb wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb 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.


But God is uncreated unlike us, otherwise like you mentioned there would be the problem of infinate regress. Why we can say so is because a true theist believes God cannot be fully compared to His creations, including humans, the earth, and the universe.


The universe has the same probability of self-causation as any other existential thing in the universe.


I believe you are talking about cyclic causation and even so how do you think it would start? God, the first causer and uncaused. Self causation is not possible.


That's my point. And yet, how did God exist without a source to bring him into being?
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/21/08

leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb 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.


But God is uncreated unlike us, otherwise like you mentioned there would be the problem of infinate regress. Why we can say so is because a true theist believes God cannot be fully compared to His creations, including humans, the earth, and the universe.


The universe has the same probability of self-causation as any other existential thing in the universe.


I believe you are talking about cyclic causation and even so how do you think it would start? God, the first causer and uncaused. Self causation is not possible.


That's my point. And yet, how did God exist without a source to bring him into being?


Good question, I was hoping you could answer that. And if God didn't exist there would be no purpose, much like Existentialist thought process. We would be born into the world with no purpose and we would need to create a purpose of our own. Problem is decreeing no purpose in the beginning means that life is random, the complete opposite. As fun as that sounds that wouldn't explain how the universe runs, if any huge margin of error were to exist, say for example there were no trees, we would be screwed.
As Albert Einstein says, "God does not play dice with the universe". Purpose in the universe means there has to be someone who creates the purpose for us, God. Otherwise if we and the universe were unguided we'd be in a lot of trouble. So the missing puzzle piece has to be God. How He came into being is a mystery man will never solve, the only logical thing we can say is that He was not created but has always been.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/21/08 , edited 7/21/08

crunchypibb wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb 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.


But God is uncreated unlike us, otherwise like you mentioned there would be the problem of infinate regress. Why we can say so is because a true theist believes God cannot be fully compared to His creations, including humans, the earth, and the universe.


The universe has the same probability of self-causation as any other existential thing in the universe.


I believe you are talking about cyclic causation and even so how do you think it would start? God, the first causer and uncaused. Self causation is not possible.


That's my point. And yet, how did God exist without a source to bring him into being?


Good question, I was hoping you could answer that. And if God didn't exist there would be no purpose, much like Existentialist thought process. We would be born into the world with no purpose and we would need to create a purpose of our own. Problem is decreeing no purpose in the beginning means that life is random, the complete opposite. As fun as that sounds that wouldn't explain how the universe runs, if any huge margin of error were to exist, say for example there were no trees, we would be screwed.
As Albert Einstein says, "God does not play dice with the universe". Purpose in the universe means there has to be someone who creates the purpose for us, God. Otherwise if we and the universe were unguided we'd be in a lot of trouble. So the missing puzzle piece has to be God. How He came into being is a mystery man will never solve, the only logical thing we can say is that He was not created but has always been.


sorry, I disagree. The missing piece of the puzzle doesn't have (I am not saying it is not, as i know nothing ^^) to be God, we don't have (again.. i know nothing, so I am open to every possibility)to have a purpose, the explanation of "pure luck" is valid/acceptable enough(NOT "truth"). What you said "we must have a purpose" is just your ego to be "meaningful", you are being subjective here. And I don't mind having so much trouble being a purposeless creature for the sake of my objectivity, as I can still view this/my life as a very beautiful thing this way.
'
And.... never use "first causal" argument for "proving" the existence of God, as it is completely contradict itself, find any other argument^^


BTW.... bback to the nice "anti-noun".... I thought it is defined as the absence of "noun".... which is very2 strong.... (as it exist when you say it). Well.... let me think about it.... bwakakakaka..... you distract me from my boring integration homework.... thank you
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/21/08

tweety_cool wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


crunchypibb 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.


But God is uncreated unlike us, otherwise like you mentioned there would be the problem of infinate regress. Why we can say so is because a true theist believes God cannot be fully compared to His creations, including humans, the earth, and the universe.


The universe has the same probability of self-causation as any other existential thing in the universe.


I believe you are talking about cyclic causation and even so how do you think it would start? God, the first causer and uncaused. Self causation is not possible.


That's my point. And yet, how did God exist without a source to bring him into being?


Good question, I was hoping you could answer that. And if God didn't exist there would be no purpose, much like Existentialist thought process. We would be born into the world with no purpose and we would need to create a purpose of our own. Problem is decreeing no purpose in the beginning means that life is random, the complete opposite. As fun as that sounds that wouldn't explain how the universe runs, if any huge margin of error were to exist, say for example there were no trees, we would be screwed.
As Albert Einstein says, "God does not play dice with the universe". Purpose in the universe means there has to be someone who creates the purpose for us, God. Otherwise if we and the universe were unguided we'd be in a lot of trouble. So the missing puzzle piece has to be God. How He came into being is a mystery man will never solve, the only logical thing we can say is that He was not created but has always been.


sorry, I disagree. The missing piece of the puzzle doesn't have (I am not saying it is not, as i know nothing ^^) to be God, we don't have (again.. i know nothing, so I am open to every possibility)to have a purpose, the explanation of "pure luck" is valid/acceptable enough(NOT "truth"). What you said "we must have a purpose" is just your ego to be "meaningful", you are being subjective here. And I don't mind having so much trouble being a purposeless creature for the sake of my objectivity, as I can still view this/my life as a very beautiful thing this way.
'
And.... never use "first causal" argument for "proving" the existence of God, as it is completely contradict itself, find any other argument^^


BTW.... bback to the nice "anti-noun".... I thought it is defined as the absence of "noun".... which is very2 strong.... (as it exist when you say it). Well.... let me think about it.... bwakakakaka..... you distract me from my boring integration homework.... thank you


Well I did mentioned existentialist believe that we are born without a purpose, even deciding to be purposeless can be seen as setting a purpose for ourselves. Humans, especially in the beginning of their lifespan, in themselves are curious creatures and one of our goals in life is to satisfy our curiousity. That is one thing you can't doubt. A lot of what people say are considered subjective things, even objective truths can be seen that way. Pure luck is randomness no matter how sugar coated and luck in itself has low probabilities. So then you are proposing everyday when we wake up we're playing the lottery with life and have no control over it. That sucks, and I hope you believe in free will for humans and that we can change our destinies. So pure luck then is not a valid response and far from being related to truth anyways. Besides, if God is not the missing puzzle piece then who or what is?

Just how is the first causal arguement contradictory? If God wasn't there were things always happening in a cycle? That would then imply that the physical universe never had a beginning and will never have an end. If so how would that be explained? And if that can't be explained we are left with one option, God.

I have no idea what you are talking about in the 3rd paragraph about nouns and anti-nouns, honestly. O_o
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.