Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 12:50 AM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, PsychMJC, Tanypteryx (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
onifre
Member (Idle past 1115 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 181 of 230 (545654)
02-04-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ICANT
02-04-2010 12:28 PM


Re: Existence
Hi ICANT,

Existence is either infinite.

OR

Existence began to exist.

Why do you insist on repeatedly asking questions that have no evidence in any direction? That, for all intent and purposes, are meaningless?

If all you want is someone's gut feeling on the issue then you should leave it out of science threads.

Why do you think Turok/Hawking invented the instanton?

They didn't invent it, the evidence pointed to it.

The problem with the instanton where did it begin to exist? A vacume would be required which is a volume of space. Big problem space is a part of the universe and does not exist outside of the universe.

Along comes string theory with two branes producing the universe. Problem where did they exist? Back to the vacume so same problem as the instanton.

Existence is required for the universe to begin to exist by any scientific hypothesis proposed.

Why do pretend to understand any of this? Does it make you feel like you're gaining an understanding of it by just throwing a couple of scientific terms around? You're trying to raise an issue with some of the theories of the greatests minds in physics, as though you could actually do that!

Why do you think the people who are experts in these fields on this site won't reply to you? You could actually learn some of this stuff, but you are too arrogant in what you think you know to see that you don't know shit.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 02-04-2010 12:28 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3194 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 182 of 230 (545674)
02-04-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Apothecus
02-04-2010 12:24 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Is this, or is this not what you have been relentlessly lambasting everyone else in "existence" for doing?

I don't see what you mean by this.

Exactly, my existentially challenged friend. You have effectively wrapped yourself up into such a furball of your own manufacture that you don't know if you're coming or going. How else would you suggest beings (...what is the state of "being"?) interact with their world (...what is..."world") in a meaningful (...what is the meaning of... "meaningful"?) fashion? Would you have mankind live life (...what is...life?)in a philosophical haze of "Am I real, or is everything just...ethereal?" What exists? What is existence?

So you don't know what to say and you decided you want to hijack the thread to a new topic, namely "What is real?". Where did i bring up this topic? If you don't know what to say, don't make stuff up.

What exists? What is existence?

This is a tremendously important question. It is a philosophical question only as much as it cannot be abswered by science. There are many more important questions that science cannot answer, but yes, they are counter-productive to your personal assumptions. I understand.

MatterWave, had you left this big question (and I agree with you, it's a deep one) as just that, this may have been nothing more than a polite conversation. But I think you tried to make it some kind of crusade in which, instead of admitting you were just "thinking out loud," you took it to absolutely ridiculous lengths. Sorta like a snowball, rolling down a hill. Except in this case, the metaphorical hill and snowball don't actually exist.

Have a good one.

I am glad you understand that you are making an assumption(that you find logical). Others disagree about the validity of your assumption and you have provided absolutely no evidence for that assumption, except that it suits your taste of how you want the world to be.

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Apothecus, posted 02-04-2010 12:24 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3194 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 183 of 230 (545676)
02-04-2010 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Taq
02-04-2010 10:49 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
Those physicists are not called "scientists" because of their philosophical musings. They are called scientists because they proposed testable hypotheses that were verified by scientific experiments.

Scientists first muse and make a hypothesis over unsolved questions, then they test the hypothesis. Is this news to you? Your statement that scientists aren't philosophical(thinking about the big questions) is completely false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 10:49 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2010 7:43 PM MatterWave has responded
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 02-09-2010 12:44 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3194 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 184 of 230 (545677)
02-04-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2010 11:09 AM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Basically, you argument boils down to: "We can't really KNOW anything."
Yawn. Solipsism is totally ghey.

How generous. You provided for me words i never said, then you provided a conclusion for me, based on the things i didn't say. Great way to argue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 11:09 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2010 11:14 AM MatterWave has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 185 of 230 (545680)
02-04-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:37 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
Scientists first muse and make a hypothesis over unsolved questions, then they test the hypothesis. Is this news to you? Your statement that scientists aren't philosophical(thinking about the big questions) is completely false.

Not to speak for Taq, but I think his point was that scientists go beyond mere philosophical musings and actually test these 'musings', ideas, hypotheses or whatever you wish to label them and actually observe, test, experiment, verify and validate (through peer review) these ideas to match reality.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:37 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:49 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3194 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 186 of 230 (545682)
02-04-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by onifre
02-04-2010 1:22 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Who created the creator? If the creator exists then by the same logic requires a creator as well. You can try to spin it all you want but you can't avoid the logical error you are making.

Assuming you can understand everything is a logical fallacy. You are not a God-like, or are you? Do you understand that you are making the assumption that your mind can comprehend all aspects of existence, including existence itself?

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 1:22 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2010 8:33 PM MatterWave has responded
 Message 191 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 9:35 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3194 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 187 of 230 (545683)
02-04-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by DevilsAdvocate
02-04-2010 7:43 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
Not to speak for Taq, but I think his point was that scientists go beyond mere philosophical musings and actually test these 'musings', ideas, hypotheses or whatever you wish to label them and actually observe, test, experiment, verify and validate (through peer review) these ideas to match reality.

Yes, they test different aspects of reality. They see an unexplained event, they muse over it, they make a hypothesis and they test it. They are not retards who directly shoot for impossible targets like existence. Instead, they pick different aspects of existence and are slowly building a model that may one day prove successful in matching reality to a great degree of accuracy. Do you understand this point?

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2010 7:43 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2010 8:27 PM MatterWave has responded
 Message 192 by petrophysics1, posted 02-04-2010 11:40 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 188 of 230 (545693)
02-04-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:49 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
Yes, they test different aspects of reality. They see an unexplained event, they muse over it, they make a hypothesis and they test it.

Agreed this is what I just said.

They are not retards who directly shoot for impossible targets like existence. Instead, they pick different aspects of existence and are slowly building a model that may one day prove successful in matching reality to a great degree of accuracy. Do you understand this point?

No, not at all. You are being ridiculously obtuse.

So are you saying that philosophers and scientists are retards? Because many of them do discuss both existence both as a whole as well as specific instances of existence. Or are you just being an obnoxious, childish troll who has nothing better to do than call people retards. BTW, many people would take offense to how you are using this pejorative term.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:49 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:29 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 189 of 230 (545695)
02-04-2010 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Assuming you can understand everything is a logical fallacy. You are not a God-like, or are you? Do you understand that you are making the assumption that your mind can comprehend all aspects of existence, including existence itself?

So basically are you saying that because we can't understand all of reality we should automatically assume there is a supernatural being called 'God' that runs the universe?

Is this really your premise? If so then you are falling into a common logical fallacy called 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (argument from ignorance).


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:45 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded
 Message 215 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 575 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 190 of 230 (545700)
02-04-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:10 AM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Hey MW. Good job managing the onslaught. I'd not have the luxury of time to maintain it as you have.

So, to be clear: you, in multiple posts in this thread, repeatedly, relentlessly, endlessly say this or something very similar to this:

Then why the leap of faith about what existence in reality is, when you don't know what these both really are?

or this:

You have provided no evidence that our realm is not supernatural.

Which begs the questions, "Does MatterWave argue this fervently because he wishes to take the long road 'round in making a freakin' point? Or does he argue this way because he actually believes we all just may be living in a supernatural realm?" I was beginning to reach the conclusion that the answer is closer to the latter until I read this:

MatterWave writes:

Reality is a plane of existence. I see no better way to express my observations of the outside world.

WTF? So since you didn't address this in my last reply, I'll ask again: are you or are you not employing assumptions when addressing reality and existence, those same assumptions that apparently give you DTs any time you're confronted with any poor soul who's "making the leap of faith?"

If so, you, sir, are a walking contradiction.

Have a good one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:10 AM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:21 PM Apothecus has not yet responded
 Message 216 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:15 PM Apothecus has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1115 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 191 of 230 (545704)
02-04-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Assuming you can understand everything is a logical fallacy.

Dude, you introduced the argument, I'm just showing you how it is a logical error.

I am not claiming to understand everything, but I am claiming I recognize how your argument is flawed.

Do you understand that you are making the assumption that your mind can comprehend all aspects of existence, including existence itself?

What gives you any confidence that the word you use called "god" has any bearing on existence?

I don't assume anything about existence, other than I am currently experiencing it. How it got here is limited to what the evidence is. There is no evidence for god, nor is there evidence of how existence got here. No need to assume anything on either.

My only point is that your argument leads to infinite regression. Obviously not to you because you have a belief in a specific enitity that has certain powers and characteristics, but I don't share your beliefs. Your religious bias doesn't let you see the logical error you are making.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:45 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 230 (545716)
02-04-2010 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:49 PM


Re: AN EXPERIMENT ON THE OP
Hi MatterWave,

I've been following this thread, and have just read all of your posts again. Strange as it might sound, I understand what you are saying. This is probably because I have a different viewpoint than most people here.

What most here don't see is they have a "belief system" when they claim they don't. Nothing wrong with a belief or assumptions, just as long as you realize that is what you are doing.

Your posts show me you have actually thought about the OP rather than just following your ingrained belief system.

So on that note, Id like to show you something.

EXPERIMENT #1

What I would like you to do is exactly locate where you are thinking from. You are thinking, and that has a location. I want you to find "where you are".

Some people have a problem doing this, so a good hint is to find all the places you are not thinking from. Are you thinking from your left foot? Are you thinking from your right leg? Are you thinking from your right pinky finger.

I want you to locate exactly where your thinking is originating down to the mm.

If you do this you will notice something. It has to do with not only the OP, but some things you said about existence.

I've done this, but the only way to check if what I noticed is correct is to see if others notice the same thing. So far that has been the case, but I have a very small sample group.

Anyone here is welcome to do this. PM or email me with your result but you must go to that last mm. I will share what I realized but only if you agree not to post it here as that would screw up the experiment. People can't know ahead of time what is supposed to occur.

This experiment directly relates to the OP, if you can't see that, it's because you didn't do the experiment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:49 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 193 of 230 (545723)
02-05-2010 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Taq
02-04-2010 4:26 PM


Re: Existence
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

The lightning bolt can not exist without the thundercloud.

The lightning bolt is a bunch of negatve electrons and positive positrons getting together and doing their thing.

Are you saying positive positrons and negative electrons which are natural can not exist without the thundercloud?

Taq writes:

Why couldn't it be natural? Are branes supernatural?

Branes can not be a part of the universe if the universe was created by the collision of two of them.

They had to exist before the universe began to exist.

Therefore they are outside of the universe we live in which is a place we have no knowledge about.

They would be supernatural according to what you said. In Message 89

Taq writes:

Where is the supernatural? Just beyond the horizon of our knowledge.

But personaly I don't believe anything is supernatural.

I guess I am done here since I don't think anything supernatural really exists.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 4:26 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by onifre, posted 02-05-2010 4:18 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 196 by lyx2no, posted 02-05-2010 4:43 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 213 by Taq, posted 02-09-2010 12:41 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 230 (545791)
02-05-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:40 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Basically, you argument boils down to: "We can't really KNOW anything."
Yawn. Solipsism is totally ghey.

How generous. You provided for me words i never said, then you provided a conclusion for me, based on the things i didn't say. Great way to argue.

Here, I'll provide you with some words that you did say:

quote:
These objects are what is observed and easily explained by us. But how do you explain the ability to explain? What does it mean to know and to understand, really(which is what you are employing in making your statement above)? You don't really know how it works, so why the leap of faith?

You don't know what to exist really means, so why the leap of faith?

So my point remains - existence can be either natural or supernatural, depending if a god is required for anything to exist. Going beyond this is personal beliefs that require making stuff up. So why the leap of faith?

The point is "existence", that something exists, that it is there and can be observed. Existence is beyond comprehension and you or anyone else don't know if a God is required.

These propositions of yours are irrelevant to the point that you don't know if anything can be in existence without the act of a god. I am not making assumptions what god is or is not.

Existence is incomprehensible, it's way beyond our ability to understand.

No. Existence is beyond me.

That you can't comprehend your own existence and it's a bit self-centered to claim you understand God's existence.


Seems to basically boild down to Solipsism to me!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:40 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1115 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 195 of 230 (545827)
02-05-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
02-05-2010 12:23 AM


Re: Existence
Branes can not be a part of the universe if the universe was created by the collision of two of them.

Provide evidence to support this assertion........

They had to exist before the universe began to exist.

Provide evidence to support this assertion........

Therefore they are outside of the universe we live in which is a place we have no knowledge about.

Provide evidence to support this assertion........

You give us nonsense once again, ICANT.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 12:23 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 5:31 PM onifre has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019