It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sceince cannot explain how Existence "Exists"...or can it?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

and you have yet to provide one single shred of evidence to back your claims up.

All youve done is repeat what you think, without evidence, and then state that what you think is a fact... again without evidence.

Repeating your claims is not evidence.

Claiming your claims are facts, is not evidence.

We will have to hear evidence from your side of the argument, before we can take you seriously.


Taking me seriously is your decision... Calling me potentially prejudiced doesn't help your agrument, but the name calling does aid your positioning to readers that may be undecided. It's a discussion, why are you making it personal?

What kind of evidence do you want? This subject has nothing but theories. I attempted to apply a law of physics to the argument, but I guess that was overlooked. I'm using intuition, not funded projects. Are you uncomfortable with rational reasoning?

Provide real irrefutable evidence for the opposition, and I will begin to take your stance seriously also. It's all a big guess, and that's why I trend towards intution and rational ideas. When combined, you can lead to the most reasonable conclusion: Theism of some way, shape, or form.

Ryan




posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Personal? I can assure you I havent taken it personal. And I havent namecalled.

Either way, the problem with trying to argue from your side without using mathematics, or other scientific information, is that you simply cannot make an argument on this topic with intuition, nor rationality. These are based on personal experience, and no-one can personaly experience infinity... and they sure cant experience negative matter, and live to tell about it.

This is why I cannot see your side of the argument.

I provided a mathematical explanation to the issue. Math is the only way to fully understand how infinity, and extracting matter from a vaccume can occur.

I think its time we let others continue this argument. You and I are getting nowhere.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but the mathematical equation offers nothing to answer the question of origins. To try and explain matter and dark matter, or whatever one may call it, as positives and negatives doesn't fix the problem. Those are things. You are pulling things out of sheer nothingness: That which is NOT. The positive and negative numbers clearly demonstrate that we are dealing with something.

Plain and simple, in philosophic history, atheistic viewpoints have never been able to answer the question of origins.

Ryan



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie

Plain and simple, in philosophic history, atheistic viewpoints have never been able to answer the question of origins.

Ryan


Perhaps thats a good reason not to take philosophy seriously. That there says that its a biased point of view without intellectual input from those that dont toe the party line. From my atheistic point of view im more than happy with my interpretation of existence/origins, no matter what philosophic history tells me!!



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale
Perhaps thats a good reason not to take philosophy seriously. That there says that its a biased point of view without intellectual input from those that dont toe the party line. From my atheistic point of view im more than happy with my interpretation of existence/origins, no matter what philosophic history tells me!!


That sounds to me like a fallacy of Ad Hominem, Circumstantial. Because of the person's point of view that is displaying the information, you disclude it from discussion. Not only do you not have a point to begin with, but you're also commiting a fallacy in the argument.

Philosophy has no preferences. It's a system of rationality.

Literally translated, it means, "Love of Wisdom." The essential definition is, "an effort of our natural understanding to examine what things are on the most fundemental level, without prejudgement about what the truth is."

You have made a prejudgement. I presented the ideas without my personal beliefs or any shred of theology. You can probably see where my loyalties lie, because it's the most rational conclusion to come to. You sir, are providing secular bias, as usual in pop culture.

If a system of arguments shows overwhelming evidence in 'beliefs' you don't have, why should it be brushed off? That just doesn't make any sense, especially for a group that claims to be so fair and equal in their judgement.

Ryan

[edit on 4/30/2006 by FghtinIrshNvrDie]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   


You have made a prejudgement. I presented the ideas without my personal beliefs or any shred of theology. You can probably see where my loyalties lie, because it's the most rational conclusion to come to. You sir, are providing secular bias, as usual in pop culture.


Your loyalties lie with a religion, that in itself is a huge bias.

Dont attempt to say you're unbiased. It's obvious you're not. Then again, nobody on the face of the planet is completley unbiased. I tend to stop listening as soon as someone says the words "God", "Prophecy", "Bible", or any other religious notation.

Youre the same, just on the other side.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
See, you use the word 'bias' as a reason to disclude a strong argument. You're pinning 'bias' on me as a person. I have loyalties, I'll admit it. But here's the kicker. My arguments have no bias backing. I'll admit, I'm playing the side of creation. You know why? We already have dozens of staunch, one-sided atheistic viewpoints. No need for me to try and cover that argument.

In summary, my bias was put aside before the argument. In fact, my argument is without bias.

Ryan



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   

FghtinIrshNvrDie
Provide real irrefutable evidence for the opposition, and I will begin to take your stance seriously also. It's all a big guess, and that's why I trend towards intution and rational ideas. When combined, you can lead to the most reasonable conclusion: Theism of some way, shape, or form.


I also trend towards using intuition and rational ideas, that is how ive have come to the conclusions that i have. You ask for real irrefutable evidence yet provide none yourself, you even state you are relying on intuition. The most reasonable conclusion imo cannot be that some divine being/entity created existence, but i stress that is only my opinion. I dont claim to have the evidence to back up my argument, i'll leave that to those who are more qualified.


FghtinIrshNvrDie
Because of the person's point of view that is displaying the information, you disclude it from discussion. Not only do you not have a point to begin with, but you're also commiting a fallacy in the argument.


Arent you discluding my arguments from the discussion because of my point of view, you stated that in philosophic history atheism has no place, isnt that also biased?


FghtinIrshNvrDie
You have made a prejudgement. I presented the ideas without my personal beliefs or any shred of theology. You can probably see where my loyalties lie, because it's the most rational conclusion to come to. You sir, are providing secular bias, as usual in pop culture.


I havent prejudged anyone, i just dont agree with your arguments,sorry. If philosophy is a system of beliefs arent they then your personal beliefs if you are espousing that argument as evidence. Once again i can hardly understand how Theism can be anymore a rational conclusion than the mathematical/scientific stance taken by others. Not that i can understand those arguments completely myself as i dont have the neccesary qualification. Just sounds more rational to me using my intuition.
Me, pop culture, if you only knew how far from the truth that statement is lol!!


FghtinIrshNvrDie
If a system of arguments shows overwhelming evidence in 'beliefs' you don't have, why should it be brushed off? That just doesn't make any sense, especially for a group that claims to be so fair and equal in their judgement.


I agree, but apparently "philosophic history" does exactly that!!
Btw i dont claim to be either fair or equal, i fight dirty, you have to where i come from.

Cheers
M4S



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
nevermind... we just started a circle and are goin right back around on the merry-go-round... I'm not going to bother refuting the post, as it is so thickly riddled with arumental fallacies.

Ryan



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Long, windy post coming up. Sorry...!

Isn't part of the problem that you CAN make a mathematical model which provides for "nothing prior" to the start? In as much as there is no such thing as a startpoint, and that the question is meaningless. That doesn't make it infinitely distant ago though. In the same way as we can create a mathematical model of a sphere where the question "what is east of east" makes no sense. If you regard time as analogous to a spatial dimension this is not that hard to do. One can mathematically model a self-sustaining universe, with no external dimensions in which it resides, no time "before" and therefore no quetion of antegenesis.

As far as it goes, mathematics appears to operate out of the same premises as philosophy. Mathematics is a symbolised formulation of purely logical processes. In theory the two disciplines ought to be saying the same thing. They clearly aren't though.

My big problem is that mathematics shows "what can be" and not "what is" when it creates models. I see no logical conclusion with an aparrent fit between model and reality. They might cirumstantially in fact be the same, but mathematical physics is postitivist in the sense that the equations do not have to tell us about anything "true" (epistemologically, that is) but only have to give us the right answers from what we plug into them.

I think it is a very odd position to take to say that "ah yes but maths says it CAN be like so and so", and go on to conclude that it must therefore be like so and so. Maths can model almost anything you choose. Complex topological costructs are not "real" in any sense whatsoever. Imaginary numbers are not real. They do not exist "out there". They are tools in a logic process. In the same way as a Socratic argument using hypotheses does not prove that the hypotheses are real situations. Showing how something can be so, is not the same as proving that something is so.

The mathematical invention of the zero is a good case in point. It clearly is not something that philosophy could apprehend a priori, and it required a bit of jigerypokery to invent the tool which we are all familiar with as "0". I wonder, perhaps we regard this commonplace without due thought. What does "0" actually mean?

Ignore "What is existence?" and ask instead "What is nothing?"

Cheers.

Rob.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FghtinIrshNvrDie
nevermind... we just started a circle and are goin right back around on the merry-go-round... I'm not going to bother refuting the post, as it is so thickly riddled with arumental fallacies.

Ryan


Hah, your not going to refute my post then you attack it as being "thickly riddled with arumental fallacies." Make up your mind. But that's fine I'll bow down to your superior intellect and scurry back into my pop culture burrow.

Hey, d60944 good post though im not in total agreement. I still feel that the scientific/mathematical answers have more value for me personally, but not being an expert thats all it is, my opinion. Btw not such a long and windy post, ive done alot worse!!

Cheers
M4S



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

I still feel that the scientific/mathematical answers have more value for me personally


My take was rather more that mathematics does not provide "answers", merely methods and approaches.

Cheers.

Rob.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I always get “heated” about these questions. The real problem here is the question itself, it’s a bad question. Not just yours, but every time this has ever been asked.

The contemplation of “existence” is a human made phenomenon, it’s a man made “problem”. Everything that is sentient or alive to one degree or another has some self awareness of course, but humans have somehow got their self awareness so befuddled we actually start to question our very existence or the things around us existences. And not only do we question why and how, we are so screwed up that we even question whether existence itself is real! ONLY HUMANS DO THIS!

How many of us have had teachers or professors ask the ole’: “Prove to me that desk exists…” crap? We always answered “well I see it, I can touch it...”, and of course that was always followed with “well, how do I know you exist, prove that..”

It’s all a crock.

The question is actually arrogant. Are we so smart that we have the ability to understand and more importantly question our own existence? Or existence itself? ARROGANCE!

Why? How many bugs crawling on the ground have ever wondered “why” or “how”? None! Look at your cat licking itself in the corner and ask it what it thinks about whether it exists or not. I know it’s a silly practice, but that’s my very point: Only humans question existence, no other organism that we know of does.

I know what you are going to say: “well, humans are more intelligent, that’s why we question…” While this is true in part, it’s not even close to the answer. Some people use this very argument to prove divine intervention. You know what that is? MORE ARROGANCE!! If humans can’t figure it out, we invent an answer!

You know, I don’t know the answer, don’t pretend too, but to question existence itself is a silly practice that’s only found in humans and is the most arrogant trait possible.

For me, I don’t ask. It’s not important. Don't get me wrong, I am as interested (arrogant) as the rest of humanity to know the big “why”, but knowing it, or pursuit of it is not important to me.

When I put on my shoes in the morning I just accept that those are really my feet and those shoes are really on them. I accept that when I come home from work and my 2 year old son attacks me with screams of joy and delight that makes me feel good and loved. I accept that doggy-doo really stains the rug and it’s a pain to clean it, the little bastar…um, I just accept reality as it relates to me.

And I guess that’s my response to your question, Humans just need to accept reality as it relates to them. Don’t question existance; nothing good has ever come from it.


Oh, and P.S. “…Physics is based on an action-reaction basis…” The logical, human part of me is fascinated by this, but in “reality” the understanding of “physics” is another human specific phenomena. I mean after all, if reality and existence itself can be questioned, what’s physics? Makes your head spin huh? Mine does…




[edit on 2-5-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by d60944

I still feel that the scientific/mathematical answers have more value for me personally


My take was rather more that mathematics does not provide "answers", merely methods and approaches.

Cheers.

Rob.


I understood that, i was trying to say that i understood your argument more than some of the others that didnt accept the scientific/mathematical viewpoint. I still feel that the scientific/mathematical seems more rational to me. Thats all.

Peace
M4S



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I always get “heated” about these questions. The real problem here is the question itself, it’s a bad question. Not just yours, but every time this has ever been asked.

The contemplation of “existence” is a human made phenomenon, it’s a man made “problem”. Everything that is sentient or alive to one degree or another has some self awareness of course, but humans have somehow got their self awareness so befuddled we actually start to question our very existence or the things around us existences. And not only do we question why and how, we are so screwed up that we even question whether existence itself is real! ONLY HUMANS DO THIS!

How many of us have had teachers or professors ask the ole’: “Prove to me that desk exists…” crap? We always answered “well I see it, I can touch it...”, and of course that was always followed with “well, how do I know you exist, prove that..”

It’s all a crock.

The question is actually arrogant. Are we so smart that we have the ability to understand and more importantly question our own existence? Or existence itself? ARROGANCE!

*post trimmed due to size*



Why do u find curiosity arrogant? Why do u think its arrogant for humans to want to know the answers? A web definition for the word arrogant states "a sense of self-respect, a refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in one's accomplishments". whether or not its impossible to fathom, there's nothing arrogant about trying.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Curiosity is not arrogant, questioning existence is.

It means that we think that we should be able to understand existence, and that’s entirely arrogant. We are nothing but organisms with no other purpose than to breed and self preserve just like every other living thing. The only difference is what “tools” humans developed to achieve that goal: Our brains. Cheetah’s use speed and agility, Rhino’s armor and brawn, humans use thought. But in the end we exist to propagate ourselves, that’s it. No different than flies and field mice.

It’s just an fortunate (or unfortunate?) side effect that the same tool nature chose for humans to use to propagate ourselves also causes us to think about things beyond what’s minimally required to exist. Thus we contemplate.

But much of human curiosity and contemplation has nothing to do with our prime directive: To continue the species. How much effort and energy do people spend each day doing things that have no effect on our survival? How many other living organisms do the same? Almost none.

I think its OK to ask “how”, after all the answer to “how” may lead to better self preservation. But to ask “why” doesn’t help, it’s a human only trait that has nothing to do with making kids. And it’s arrogant.

Look at a pride of lions. Not one ounce of effort or energy is spent doing anything but self propagation. The males hunt all night to provide food (energy) to the pride. They rest during the hot hours of the day to preserve as much energy as possible. The females take care of the cubs to make sure as many grow up healthy as possible. Weak cubs are allowed to die off as not to become a burden on the pride. The cubs mock fight in preparation for hunting. The pride does nothing else, ever. Why? Because any expenditure of energy that does not provide a return on that investment is dangerously wasted. A pride of lions, just like every other living organism, has only one responsibility: To survive. Those lions don’t ask “why”, they just “do”.

It’s quite humbling to think the way I do about this. I am a big pile of chemical reactions that come together in just the right way to enable me to reproduce myself through interaction with other similar functioning piles of reactions. Instead of muscles, teeth, or speed, my chemicals developed higher reasoning to preserve itself instead. And with that came self awareness. And self awareness leads to arrogance.

Bottom line: It’s arrogant to question ones own existence, It implies that it would make a difference if we knew the answer or not, and it simply doesn’t matter. Does it matter to that pride of lions? No it doesn’t, so why would it matter to us?



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Perhaps we should have named the thread :
HUMANS cannot prove their own existance.
Because its not just science that tiols with this, no religion can prove its own existance either... all they can do is quote myths and prophecies... science can give you their data, and data extrapolated from that data... but without proving existance, you cant assume that religion or science exist at all...

its definately the question itself thats to blame. lol.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I tend to think about the paradox of existence and sometimes the best explanation i can come up with (which isnt an explanation at all but simply something which contains the paradox) is that the universe itself craves to know where it came from and why. Since all of reality works on the principle of logic one would assume that anything that is created is not accidental but logical. So, intelligence must have a purpose and so does emotion.
Perhaps i am making this more confusing than explanatory but maybe we are universe`s way of attempting to examine itself and figure itself out. So we are just pieces of a whole universe trying to figure out why it exists.

However we are unfortunately bound by the burden of finite existence, in our reasoning. Assuming that something cant come from nothing is pointless since we are dealing with a paradox. Reality must be a lot more complex than we could ever comprehend thus the only way of understanding is through evolution.

I do think that humans have lost themselves in reality so much that they simply experience it now instead of joining together and attempting to figure it out. Perhaps by evolving we would filter out less of reality`s characteristics and understand it more, since our senses are processing and defining the reality, there is a lot more going on than we think.

I guess what im trying to say is that the only way to understand is to constantly seek wisdom, and i mean whole of humanity, not just scientists, cause if we stimulate our brains in such a way it will facilitate further evolution and understanding.

Wow. I should cut down on smoking :p

P.S. Relating to evolution, i had a very trippy thought few weeks back. (I dont mean to insult any of you, nor i necessarily agree with this thought, it just came and freaked me out) I thought that what if the only reason we are not evolving further is the fact that we are still carnivorous. If you look at human body and compare it with flesh eating animals, there arent many similarities but compared to a plant eating animal we compare very well. At the end of the day we are still killing in order to survive where we could simply eat plants only and still be just as healthy. Strange.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join