Proof that god does not exist. - Page 88 - Fandom Forums

 Fandom Register Arcade FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

 Fandom Forums Proof that god does not exist.
 User Name Remember Me? Password

 Debates Section Enjoy a good discussion? This is the place for you! Only knowledgeable discussions allowed!

 Thread Tools Display Modes
08-21-2010, 08:39 PM   #1306
Miburo

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,669 Times in 5,438 Posts
Re: Proof that god does not exist.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mal For the most part, I agree with RNB. I think everyone is equivocating "Science," speaking of it with different definitions in mind. Logic is "a science" in the sense that it is "reflects a precise application of facts or principles," but not in the sense that science is "knowledge gained by systematic study." I do not think there is anything to really "study" in logic. You can study methods of reasoning, and you can study common logical mistakes; but logic is or it is not. If all As are Bs and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs, there is no other possibility; what is true cannot become false by us making some "breakthrough" in logic.
Obviously not all definitions need to apply for it to be accurate. If one definition applies, then it's a science. No one can say it's not a science. RNB said it's not a science. He's wrong. It is. That's all I was saying there.

I actually had a response regarding the whole logic thing, replying to all your other stuff. But then I was like "Eh, don't really want to debate about this shit." And then slammed down the backspace key for a bit. Sorry. = /

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB I am all for looking at how the universe got to its current state, and I realize that what these scientists are doing is finding that. I just think that a majority of scientists are actually trying to find the first cause of the universe. The problem arises about whether the universe is infinite or not. Infinity cannot exist since it is not definite. In order to exist, is must exist as something. However, the universe cannot have a first cause since nothing exists outside of existence. The cause for the universe existing can only be that existence exists, and that is the end of it. The big bounce theory holds that the universe was caused by another universe. This leads to an infinite regress, which cannot be true since the universe cannot be infinite. What I meant is that there can be no cause of existence because of the fact that nothing cannot cause something. The universe is what exists and everything outside of it does not exist.
Ugh. Whatever. Still real science. Modern science isn't creating it's own religion.

 The Following User Says Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post: Scientia (08-22-2010)

 08-21-2010, 08:48 PM #1307 Mal Scotch     Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,087 Thanks: 12,652 Thanked 10,775 Times in 3,826 Posts Re: Proof that god does not exist. That's cool, I'm not really feeling it either after that initial rant.
 The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post: Miburo (08-21-2010), Vanity (08-22-2010)
 08-22-2010, 02:35 PM #1308 Vanity Succumb     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 976 Thanks: 3,417 Thanked 5,983 Times in 2,238 Posts Re: Proof that god does not exist. But doesn't everyone love semantic arguments!? __________________ My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me. Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak. What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? I never know what you are thinking. Think.
 The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vanity For This Useful Post: Miburo (08-22-2010), stubborn_d0nkey (08-22-2010)
08-22-2010, 03:55 PM   #1309
RNB
El Topo

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Age: 21
Posts: 1,169
Thanks: 3,293
Thanked 1,887 Times in 822 Posts
Re: Proof that god does not exist.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Miburo Ugh. Whatever. Still real science. Modern science isn't creating it's own religion.
The empirical science it claims to be rests on metaphysics, which it denies. It cannot be real science. It would be like a solipsist trying to conduct scientific experiments. Yeah, he can conduct experiments and come to conclusions, but the metaphysics his "science" rests on is not the same as Science. Therefore it is not science.

You cannot claim to know phenomena of the real world until you validate that there is a real world and what the phenomena of that real world rest on. Sciences are connected. Biology would not exist if it were not for physics and chemistry. If we take away one of those, then it is no longer biology.

Quote:
 But doesn't everyone love semantic arguments!?
If you aren't just trying to win all of the time then there is no reason to hate them. Both sides might end up understanding their language better.
__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Last edited by RNB; 08-22-2010 at 03:56 PM.

 The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to RNB For This Useful Post: Human Rasengan (08-23-2010), Mal (08-23-2010), Miburo (08-22-2010), Scientia (08-22-2010)
08-22-2010, 06:41 PM   #1310
Miburo

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,669 Times in 5,438 Posts
Re: Proof that god does not exist.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB The empirical science it claims to be rests on metaphysics, which it denies. It cannot be real science. It would be like a solipsist trying to conduct scientific experiments. Yeah, he can conduct experiments and come to conclusions, but the metaphysics his "science" rests on is not the same as Science. Therefore it is not science.
Not sure what you're talking about, man. Modern science? Who is the spokesman of all of modern science who is making these claims you speak of?
Quote:
 You cannot claim to know phenomena of the real world until you validate that there is a real world and what the phenomena of that real world rest on. Sciences are connected. Biology would not exist if it were not for physics and chemistry. If we take away one of those, then it is no longer biology.
Again, not sure what you're even discussing here.

Quote:
 If you aren't just trying to win all of the time then there is no reason to hate them. Both sides might end up understanding their language better.
Nothing wrong with 'trying to win.' Everyone should try to win when debating, always. The only thing that makes shit suck is when people don't know when they have lost/are wrong. You can learn shit and win, or learn shit and lose, after all.

 The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post: RNB (08-22-2010), Scientia (08-22-2010)
08-22-2010, 08:11 PM   #1311
RNB
El Topo

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Age: 21
Posts: 1,169
Thanks: 3,293
Thanked 1,887 Times in 822 Posts
Re: Proof that god does not exist.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Miburo Not sure what you're talking about, man. Modern science? Who is the spokesman of all of modern science who is making these claims you speak of?
We can be real specific and act like what I said was criticizing all of modern science in its entirety or we can look to the fact that I have provided the part of modern science which I abhor, which is mostly modern physics. It isn't found just there, though. You find flaws in today's psychology, in some of their biology, and etc.

The big bounce theory is part of a grand attempt to explain everything. Yes, it explains the state of the universe today, but it looks further back into another universe, which will also have to be looked at, only to find another universe and so on. The universe can have no beginning since it cannot be infinite, which I demonstrated in one of my other posts not to long ago.

Then, there is the Theory of Everything, which is basically trying to do what it states. I know that this can't really be used as something to propel an argument, but you do realize that many scientists like Carl Sagan, pretty much believe there is a possibility that God exists? Yes, the older scientists not only thought it was possible, but also thought it was true, however, they pursued the scientific part of their lives with rational certainty, in stark contrast to today's skepticism.

Quote:
 Again, not sure what you're even discussing here.
Scientists take for granted that the method they use is right. In order for them to know, knowledge must actually be possible. In order for them to know efficiently, they must know why knowledge exists and how we obtain knowledge from what exists.

At an even deeper level, science is slave to logic. One cannot simultaneously use the scientific method and reject logic because the scientific method depends on logic.

Science depends on the existence of other "sciences." That means that if scientists reject those "sciences," then what they study is no longer science regardless of whether they are assembling facts from some sort of conclusion from some sort of phenomena they observe.

Quote:
 Nothing wrong with 'trying to win.' Everyone should try to win when debating, always. The only thing that makes shit suck is when people don't know when they have lost/are wrong. You can learn shit and win, or learn shit and lose, after all.
I quote myself, which is not in disagreement: "If you aren't just trying to win all of the time then there is no reason to hate them. Both sides might end up understanding their language better."
__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Last edited by RNB; 08-22-2010 at 08:16 PM.

 The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to RNB For This Useful Post: ACt (08-23-2010), Human Rasengan (08-23-2010), Mal (08-23-2010), Miburo (08-22-2010), Scientia (08-22-2010)
08-22-2010, 09:09 PM   #1312
Scientia
Mathematics

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FL
Posts: 311
Thanks: 1,016
Thanked 197 Times in 123 Posts
Re: Proof that god does not exist.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB "Why is the grass green?" Empirical sciences would look at the chemical make-up, light reflection and absorption, or why the plant might need to be green from an evolutionary perspective. Metaphysics avoids all of this by going to the heart of the issue, which is why anything is itself, what does it mean for it to be itself, and etc.
So you're essentially asking me if the Science I had in mind rejects philosophy? The philosophy in which it founded its basis upon? I'm not sure how it's rejecting metaphysics per see. Because it's coming up with beginning of the universe theories? Well, if it produces some kind of logical reasoning/proofs behind it then I don't see how it would be rejecting logic, or rather metaphysics.

Because metaphysics claims that it's not possible to be infinite? Because it's not possible for something to come out of nothing? There's actually been some talk on that lately, and it may in fact be possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo 21 minutes in.

Regardless, how exactly would metaphysics know that it isn't possible? Infinity can't exist because in order for something to exist it must be something? That doesn't make any sense. Infinity is not a something, it's a concept that something can exist forever. Meaning if there's something that can exist forever, it's infinite. Saying that existence can't have a cause because before it existed there was no existence only works if you assume that something can't come from nothing. Or that something just wasn't always there, and happen to form the universe we're in today (or the cycle itself). After all, given an infinite amount of time it's bound to happen eventually, changing everything.

The Big Bounce theory only supports that the CYCLE of the universe is repetitive, or something close to that. Not the universe itself being infinite. Of course, assuming that the universe is = to the stuff inside of empty space, and not what may be beyond what we have observed. Also, that doesn't mean we know exactly when or how these cycles began. It's still just a theory on how OUR universe started, rather than the beginning of the cycle

Isn't that what metaphysics is trying to solve? How it all began? How would trying to solve the beginning reject that at all? I'm so lost.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB If you want to be really specific and say that anything that is a form of knowledge is a science, then we can go on and say that knowing the individual computer that you type with is a type of science, along with knowing more about the individual glass you are drinking out of is a science.
XD. Um, Ceramics? Technology? You're right, Science is the quest of knowledge for everything. The study of glass would be a branch of Ceramics. The study of computers would be, well, I don't recall the name right now, but Technology (IE computers) is the application of Science, therefore, knowing about computers is definitely a branch of Science. The point is, logic is also a branch of Science. It gets its own category because it's just that HUGE and essential. You're implying that I be specific with a rather general term. If I were to be specific like with your individual computer analogy, then it would be more like studying inductive reasoning alone. And saying that alone should be a Science.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB What I am saying is that in order for something to be a science, it must be able to be understood. Logic is the base of all knowledge, which means that there is nothing primary to logic. Outside of logic, you cannot understand it. You cannot truly understand understanding.
Okay, I get what you're saying here. You're saying we can't study logic with logic. Since logic is understanding. But that doesn't not make it a Science. At all. That simply makes it more theoretical than empirical. Because there's always the possibility that logic is wrong as we can't study understanding-A with understanding-A. We can still understand that we understand, and use that understanding to find knowledge. We can understand logic. If we couldn't then we wouldn't understand most of anything. Therefore, it's a Science.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB Studying fallacies would be studying discourse, but not so much logic itself. Fallacies are essentially bad arguments. When you study fallacies, your main idea is to go over all the arguments and pick out the bad ones.
Indeed. It's rather like applying logic instead of studying it. But studying how to apply logic would be studying in this case. We don't need to study logic with logic in order for it to be a study. After all, studying = learning. And logic is NOT the only way to learn. Therefore, you can in fact study logic in a broad sense. In the sense that you never knew what logic exactly was or how to apply it, and then a few days later you learned. That's technically studying logic. We can't study the root of logic, we can't use logic for logic, but all that does is make it a tad bit more theoretical. Not a non-science. That's why they categorize it into a formal Science rather than a Natural one. I think. >_<

Haha. Oh, man.
__________________

"Because, if you could love someone, and keep loving them, without being loved back . . . then that love had to be real. It hurt too much to be anything else."

 The Following User Says Thank You to Scientia For This Useful Post: Miburo (08-22-2010)
08-22-2010, 10:19 PM   #1313
Miburo

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,669 Times in 5,438 Posts
Re: Proof that god does not exist.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB We can be real specific and act like what I said was criticizing all of modern science in its entirety or we can look to the fact that I have provided the part of modern science which I abhor, which is mostly modern physics. It isn't found just there, though. You find flaws in today's psychology, in some of their biology, and etc.
Okay. Modern physics then? Still don't see the problem with modern physics. Or am I still being too specific? Or, rather, you are being way too vague. Because now it sounds like you just disagree with a couple of theories, based on the rest of your post. Not modern physics either.

While this all started off with you using the terms like "modern science" and "most scientists." Surely you can see how I'm not fully getting what you're talking about.

Quote:
 The big bounce theory is part of a grand attempt to explain everything. Yes, it explains the state of the universe today, but it looks further back into another universe, which will also have to be looked at, only to find another universe and so on. The universe can have no beginning since it cannot be infinite, which I demonstrated in one of my other posts not to long ago.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully understand the big bounce theory. I'm pretty sure it's not something that is widely accepted as true in the scientific community. Nor is it all that important to modern physics. It's just one of the many proposed theories as to how the universe works. Not really a big deal.

Still don't see why something cannot be infinite either. I read your previous post. Infinity is not definite. In order to exist it has got to exist as something. I saw that. I don't follow though. I don't see how 'always existed' isn't 'something.' Maybe I'm just retarded or something. I dunno.

Quote:
 Then, there is the Theory of Everything, which is basically trying to do what it states. I know that this can't really be used as something to propel an argument, but you do realize that many scientists like Carl Sagan, pretty much believe there is a possibility that God exists? Yes, the older scientists not only thought it was possible, but also thought it was true, however, they pursued the scientific part of their lives with rational certainty, in stark contrast to today's skepticism.
There is that vagueness again. I really don't think the scientists of today don't pursue the scientific part of their lives with rationality or whatever. Again, I don't think a few scientists theorizing about mostly irrelevant shit makes that a valid thing to say. At all.

Okay. Not responding to the rest of the stuff, since my responses will probably be just more of the same, and it just keeps us going deeper and deeper into this rabbit hole of a rant you're going on anyway. Unless you want me to, then I will. Doesn't matter to me.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think any of this 'beginning of the universe' theorizing is very useful or productive either. There isn't enough information to be tackling that shit, at least from what I can tell. I think we'd be better off working to progress in the field of physics and shit, and a better understanding of the universe will come from that. We just don't know enough yet.

Oh, and seriously, what are you reading? If it's some shit online I wouldn't mind looking it over. That way I'd better be able to understand where you're coming from with some of this shit.

As for debates, I guess I'll agree. I don't just try to win. If the guy is a douche I'll try to make fun of him and shit too.

 The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post: ninjalostboy95 (08-22-2010), Scientia (08-22-2010)
 08-23-2010, 08:06 AM #1314 Human Rasengan S-Ranked Shinobi     Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: inside your mom Posts: 3,316 Thanks: 2,894 Thanked 1,145 Times in 781 Posts Re: Proof that god does not exist. this was great to read.. you guys are pretty smart __________________ for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!! The power of despair is great in you. Madara's mask theme song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3882sGkrNA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE
 08-23-2010, 12:09 PM #1315 ACt Heart Wizard     Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Halls of Irreverence Posts: 3,186 Thanks: 5,275 Thanked 18,419 Times in 4,777 Posts Re: Proof that god does not exist. Very interesting reads, but I have a few issues with RNBs points: The ideas behind the Theory of Everything (ToE) and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) isn't to describe everything but a logical attempt to bring the four major forces (electromagnetism, strong force, weak force and gravity) together into one framework so all can be explained using connective theories and math allowing for proper explanation and description of the forces that shape our world. Doing this will allow for better predictions of experiments, improving understanding of both particle and large body physics and lead to better science and knowledge. I do not see it as religion forming but rather attempting to push forward the field. It is theoretical but any mathematical success would soon become testable. To go after theoretical physics as a "non-science" is like refuting Einstein when he theorized about relativity. A lot of his work was speculative and some of it still has no evidence to support it definitively. But a lot has and it has stood up to be one of the most important scientific theories we have. To denounce the theoretical now denies the fact that one day these theories may become testable. There very well could be something outside of the universe existence - we just lack the methods to understand or observe it. How long was the atom an indivisible, solid particle? Science changes but even in the theoretical, it requires some sort of rational basis. Currently, a lot of advanced science lacks the tools to provide evidence (quantum physics is a pain to even understand in a textbook sometimes), but the theories are not without use or basis, and sometimes they provide the breakthrough that leads to the evidence. I think this is still good science.
 The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ACt For This Useful Post: Human Rasengan (08-25-2010), Mal (08-23-2010), Miburo (08-23-2010), Scientia (08-24-2010)
 08-23-2010, 01:15 PM #1316 ChojiMullet ANBU     Join Date: Oct 2006 Age: 28 Posts: 1,812 Thanks: 10 Thanked 16 Times in 15 Posts Re: Proof that god does not exist. There is faith and a set of primary tenits to most science we recognize today the 2 key ones being: 1. That there is order in the universe and that what we find true today will not change tomorrow or that. And that some force or the mechanism as a whole is keeping it this why. 2. We can find a finite answer to our questions in time and with proper methodology. If these to tenits or beliefs are not held to be true then scientific laws cannot exist like most of us believe they do. The other point I want to make us that proof in a mechinism does not disprove a maker because they are not looking into the same thing. However I also concede that my belief in a maker is just that a belief but not fact. I just want it to be clear that even science has has aspects of faith. With the exception of chaos theory and a few others who defer from typical scietific dogma. __________________ Choji=awesome I wish I could eat like him and say it was for better performance of my skills. Member of Badass Shinobi FC If interested in joining the Badass Shinobi FC please PM not post! Sirbenoit Narutorasengan16 Dante Smeeeeee Uchihamadara ITzANIllUZion Neji4ever Kamineko Kun ChojiMullet The Specialist anarionsorry Distortion
08-23-2010, 03:02 PM   #1317
RNB
El Topo

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Age: 21
Posts: 1,169
Thanks: 3,293
Thanked 1,887 Times in 822 Posts
Re: Proof that god does not exist.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fayrra So you're essentially asking me if the Science I had in mind rejects philosophy? The philosophy in which it founded its basis upon? I'm not sure how it's rejecting metaphysics per see. Because it's coming up with beginning of the universe theories? Well, if it produces some kind of logical reasoning/proofs behind it then I don't see how it would be rejecting logic, or rather metaphysics.
Conclusions rest on premises. The premises can be incorrect, while the argument is technically still logical. The premises, or metaphysics, of today's science tend to be incorrect, but they are building off of it and not actually mentioning it explicitly. Therefore, the arguments themselves are logical, but the science is not.

Quote:
 Because metaphysics claims that it's not possible to be infinite? Because it's not possible for something to come out of nothing? There's actually been some talk on that lately, and it may in fact be possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo 21 minutes in.
Existence cannot come out of non-existence. Non-existence cannot do anything, so it would be impossible for it to cause anything to come into existence. I watched that video, and he was saying that space has a mass, which is different than the idea that nothing has mass. I don't know enough about physics to validate the science. What I can do is make arguments from metaphysics, which science must be slave to.

Quote:
 Regardless, how exactly would metaphysics know that it isn't possible? Infinity can't exist because in order for something to exist it must be something? That doesn't make any sense. Infinity is not a something, it's a concept that something can exist forever. Meaning if there's something that can exist forever, it's infinite. Saying that existence can't have a cause because before it existed there was no existence only works if you assume that something can't come from nothing. Or that something just wasn't always there, and happen to form the universe we're in today (or the cycle itself). After all, given an infinite amount of time it's bound to happen eventually, changing everything.
My wording, which I thought might make it simpler, actually made it more confusing.

What I meant is that infinity is only a potentiality and not an actuality. Infinity means that it can be any number. It does not mean that it is every number. Infinity is not a something. It can be a something. What can be something doesn't necessarily exist. A tree can become a piece of paper, but it isn't actually piece of paper. Potentialities cannot exist because that means that everything exists as everything.

The universe never began, and it will never end. I agree with you on that point. The difference is, the universe is outside of time. Time depends on a relationship. What, outside of the universe, can we use to measure it by time? There is nothing outside of the universe, therefore it is outside of time. It is eternal.

Quote:
 The Big Bounce theory only supports that the CYCLE of the universe is repetitive, or something close to that. Not the universe itself being infinite. Of course, assuming that the universe is = to the stuff inside of empty space, and not what may be beyond what we have observed. Also, that doesn't mean we know exactly when or how these cycles began. It's still just a theory on how OUR universe started, rather than the beginning of the cycle
I would like to point out that by universe I mean "everything that exists."

Quote:
 Isn't that what metaphysics is trying to solve? How it all began? How would trying to solve the beginning reject that at all? I'm so lost.
Some metaphysicians believe the universe had a beginning, but some don't. I don't see how one could base their thought off of Aristotle's metaphysics and come to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning.

Quote:
 1. That there is order in the universe and that what we find true today will not change tomorrow or that. And that some force or the mechanism as a whole is keeping it this why.
There takes no faith to believe that there is order in the universe. If the universe were not orderly, then it would not exist.

@Mibs: I didn't quote your posts because what I would have responded to I had already posted in response to Fayrra. The video Fayrra posted is a pretty good example of the modern science I am talking about.
__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Last edited by RNB; 08-23-2010 at 03:20 PM.

 The Following User Says Thank You to RNB For This Useful Post: Scientia (08-24-2010)
 The Following User Says Thank You to naruto_nutty For This Useful Post: Scientia (08-28-2010)
08-28-2010, 07:01 PM   #1320
Scientia
Mathematics

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FL
Posts: 311
Thanks: 1,016
Thanked 197 Times in 123 Posts
Re: Proof that god does not exist.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB The premises, or metaphysics, of today's science tend to be incorrect, but they are building off of it and not actually mentioning it explicitly. Therefore, the arguments themselves are logical, but the science is not.
If they're building up off of incorrect premises then it's not logical at all, I'd say. Instead of saying the argument is logical, I'd say it's logically formatted or formal. But you did say technically so it's nothing big. Just semantics. I can completely understand what you're saying now. The premise is metaphysics, if they deny such things then that's flawed reasoning/Science, all that good bad stuff.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB Existence cannot come out of non-existence. Non-existence cannot do anything, so it would be impossible for it to cause anything to come into existence. I watched that video, and he was saying that space has a mass, which is different than the idea that nothing has mass. I don't know enough about physics to validate the science. What I can do is make arguments from metaphysics, which science must be slave to.
Well, yeah, you're right. In that instance he was basically describing something as nothing, but his point was that what we think is nothing is most likely actually something. Meaning when people say it is implausible for something to come out of apparently nothing, that's not really the case. So, we can agree on that. True nothingness, as in no kind of existence of any kind of energy or any kind of particle is an amazing concept to think about, and I'd say logic dictates that such a thing is a little off the charts.

To be honest, though, I have not yet read through the gist of Aristotle's metaphysics. I certainly need to some time.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB My wording, which I thought might make it simpler, actually made it more confusing. What I meant is that infinity is only a potentiality and not an actuality. Infinity means that it can be any number. It does not mean that it is every number. Infinity is not a something. It can be a something. What can be something doesn't necessarily exist. A tree can become a piece of paper, but it isn't actually piece of paper. Potentialities cannot exist because that means that everything exists as everything.
Oh, okay. Got ya.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB The universe never began, and it will never end. I agree with you on that point. The difference is, the universe is outside of time. Time depends on a relationship. What, outside of the universe, can we use to measure it by time? There is nothing outside of the universe, therefore it is outside of time. It is eternal.
Yeah, I'd agree.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB I would like to point out that by universe I mean "everything that exists." Some metaphysicians believe the universe had a beginning, but some don't. I don't see how one could base their thought off of Aristotle's metaphysics and come to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning.
Oh, ok. Looks like a(nother) misunderstanding on my part. We mostly agree with each other here.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RNB @Mibs: I didn't quote your posts because what I would have responded to I had already posted in response to Fayrra. The video Fayrra posted is a pretty good example of the modern science I am talking about.
Now we lost each other again. How's it reject metaphysics? The video is not saying that something comes out of pure nothing, just that what we think is pure nothing is actually something. Which is still just a theory in the end anyway.

Sorry it took so long to respond. School started again for me.
__________________

"Because, if you could love someone, and keep loving them, without being loved back . . . then that love had to be real. It hurt too much to be anything else."

Last edited by Scientia; 08-28-2010 at 11:30 PM.

 Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:13 PM.

 -- Stranger -- New Naruto Lounge -- Retro Fandom - Archive - Top