It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Can matter actually exist? Nope!

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:55 AM
and you please tell my me why are arguing with me ?


posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:13 AM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

Because you have been proclaiming to know more than everyone else and then failed in proving so.

I've just kind of made your argument redundant haven't I? Is that the first time you have realised that I wasn't debating about matter existing?

Regardless, I'll leave you with your opinions. I don't see any point in continuing this debate.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:50 AM
reply to post by Death_Kron

well no you took issue with the reason for my own statements? i did not say i knew more than anyone?

I stated even be for you jointed that matter was real and you took issue with me upon the subject ?

so how can an argument that never existed become redundant?...

I stated in my first post that matter was real.. you argued about what? just me being smart??

and were did i say that you did not think matter was real...i was pointing out aspects of you own argument to my so called arrogance.

all of which can be obtained at your local library or use the internet...

sorry if i hurt your feelings.. just by understanding some things you didn't

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:52 AM

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
what you fail to understand is that matter is a combination of energy

have a nice day

Oh and read more books

Matter is not a single object but a combination of its parts "energy" ; )

that is why matter is energy ect and vise versa.

Hope that helps

Very first page

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:34 AM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

i did not say i knew more than anyone?

Really? What about these little gems then:

but i do have more understanding than you cant put past you ego

yes i was born on earth.. untill he died and i took his place

do you think someone who can understand you own life better than you is spooky?

do not shy away because i know more than you...

and you took issue with me upon the subject...

No, I took issue with you attitude and some of your farcical beliefs.

so how can an argument that never existed become redundant?...

Simple; because I never argued whether matter existed or not.

i was pointing out aspects of you own argument to my so called arrogance

Yes, I have highlighted your own arrogance above.

just by understanding some things you didn't

And there you go again...

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:49 AM
i was stating facts?

what is your problem?

I mean now we are not even talking about matter are we really?

you are just taking issue with points i made when the topic was is matter real?

like i said be for i answered the question of the OP....

you just said you think matter is real so what is your point? because right now it looks like the only thing you are doing is trolling

and this is my gift

uses your critical logic based skills

im sure you will enjoy the question

[edit on 29-6-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:22 AM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

You wasn't stating facts! That's my problem, you are not some sort of oracle and you didn't "come back to replace him"

I'm not trolling, like I said I had a problem with you attitude.

I like how you have ignored the fact you said you haven't claimed to be smarter than anyone and yet I just posted 4 quotes from yourself providing in fact you have been doing.

Ignored that part didn't you?

Matter is real if we both agree on that then theres nothing left to say, I'll check that thread when I get time and post my answer.

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:42 AM
reply to post by Death_Kron

look my friend late me just state some facts...

Just because i understand how something works does not equate into smartness or being better than anyone..

Giving the information i am aware of does NOT make me better But i do Understand what i am talking about...

Many people have things they could tell me.. does that make them better?

better is your ego mate

On my very first post on here i told the truth and i got 4 stars..not like that matters but i said i hope it helps..

Yes some people have views that differ from my own and rightly so... for its their right to do so.

But when some people make epic fails then its better to help other than insult.. correct?

You see the reason why we are "me and you" are having this back and forth has nothing to do with matter what so ever

But the manner in how come across. I did not force you to accept what i said did i?

I only put my own case forward.

and just for the record

You are here

is that not amazing on its own but yet you question the validty of my statements...

So now what? you are happy that you have won a debate i did not care for that you started just because i upset something in side of you?

emotions my friend are useless i think you need to focus on being on planet earth not your ego.

Have a nice day

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

It's laughable that you think I have an ego problem, but yeah thanks I'll enjoy my day.

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Xtinguish

Originally posted by FrostyPhilosopher
reply to post by Xtinguish

This is an interesting post. ...

Great response!

Yes! John Locke is someone I have planned to start reading, as Berkley and Locke are both empiricist. Most of the Berkley writings I've read rarely even touch upon the rationalist options. He is normally targeting John Locke instead. My next read will probably be Essay Concerning Human Understanding by Locke., which I hear attacks rationalism pretty vividly.

As stated above the two are both empiricist, but they do differ on how we gain knowledge and ideas. In fact I had read somewhere that David Stove had said that Berkley believed that there were only two options: his own system and Locke's. So, proving Locke's system wrong amounted to proving his own system right. Such fascinating stuff!

Well, thanks!

I really like both Berkeley and Locke. I guess the big difference is that Berkeley goes as far as saying that everything we interact with is mental, and that's all there is, while Locke is going to say that we interact with mental things (our sense perceptions) but those perceptions represent something in the real world.

My specialty is not History of Philosophy, but if I had to pick a school in history to study, it would be the British Empiricists, guys like Hume, Locke, Berkeley... I love those guys. I myself am an Empiricist I would say, but Rationalism is very popular nowadays, even Direct Realism, so I often face an uphill battle.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by FrostyPhilosopher]

[edit on 2-7-2009 by FrostyPhilosopher]

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:31 AM
Right, just as we percieve our world we are rearranging it by our mere perception of it, thoughts affect matter, even on a cellular level, that cell may be a lot larger to those that have the awareness to see through it.

Just by our mere looking at something has already altered it, changed it from its original state.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by menguard]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:12 AM
You want know what reality is?

Reality is the representation of 1 of 2 sides commonly known as 'Yin & Yang'.

Matter does exist simple because it can and it has to. You see, Physicists are questing to find out route of the 'Big Bang' Theory to discover who we are, why we are here and how it all began. This however is only half of the battle simply because the big bang does not explain what actual reality is and why the Cosmos can exist.

To understand what the Cosmos actually is, you need to understand the concept of 'Space' and by space I do not mean the Planets, Stars and Galaxies as a collective. I am talking about the actual 'Space' and 'Dimension' that the Cosmos is built upon. Reality is a re-occurring responce to an understanding and a realization that the Cosmos is possible and therefor becomes 'reality'.

In modern day Theoretical Physics it has become known that the is more than 4 dimensions, your typical 3 spatial and 1 time dimension. I personally believe that 1 and 2 dimensions are only theoretical or produced in order to understand 3 dimensions thoroughly. For a simple example, holding a sheet of paper... one would consider this to be close to 2 dimensional but truth has it that if you were to remove any of the 3 dimensions from the paper it would cease to exist. I presented this theory to a Mathematician friend of mine and he come up with quite a mind boggling question. He said: How many dimensions does a shadow have then? My answer was: None, shadows do not truely exist. They are just patches in scenery that light is unable to capture. Basically 'shadow' is just a name given to an area without intense lighting.

Anyway, back to the question at hand. It is believed that there is an infinate number of universes out there commonly known as a multi-verse. This supports my theory in a strong way as the constant occurrence of reality is formed thus making multiple dimensions and universes in general.

I need a rest now but maybe I will explain more of my theory at a later date. As for the answer to matter... if it's possible that it cannot exist then it is inevitable that it does. Not only because opposites are the ultimate law of reality but also you would not be reading this forum now if it didn't.

Crazy Successor

[edit on 3-7-2009 by Mad Regent]

posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by Mad Regent

ah i love this post! going to give you a star... if you read it close "not you coz your wrote it" lol but others

You will understand something very important about yin and yang..

what is yin and yang? why do we have pattens whis do we have matter and energy?

all are the same ? answers to questions

what came be for the patten? chaos .. from chaos comes order.. only problem people have is understand they are both chaos and order

Your mind has no shape and is as big as the universe

You body? well... work it out ; )

you see You are YIN and YANG and we are the YANG to its YING

freaky? well not really just takes time to use to it.. tho some people will argue about the facts and use god and other things like aliens..

but look at the evidence its all around you

look at my name ? LOL so funny

I mean do you think all this came from no were? its very complex stuff making universes...

check this story...only short for practical reasons...

A man sat on a rock wondering why he was here... as he stat upon the rock..he looked up at the sky and down at his feet... then it struck him

the very question why he was asking was the answer

quantum physics 101

you ask because that is how you work.. everyday as a function of your life you ask every word that pops out your mouth is a statement or a question

what is the differnece with a statement and a question?

your happy with one and the other is keeping you going in that regard.

so.. what has that got to do with matter?

You are not the man on the rock asking the question your the answer

so what happens next? soon you will be the man on the rock

have a nice day

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:16 PM
I haven't read this thread for a while. I felt that it posed intriguing questions, but after reading the last several pages I believe its principle participants may be misinterpreting one another, resulting in circular arguments.

How's this for a compromise, you guys?

Matter may not exist the way we think it does or perceive it as existing, but we can be reasonably assured that something exists, lest we would not be having this conversation. However, we cannot be absolutely, positively, authoritatively assured of the nature of whatever that "something" is, because we are bound by our perceptions and/or measurements, which are at least potentially (though not necessarily,) fallible.

That doesn't conflict with either of your statements/arguments, but also doesn't disqualify or deny either perspective. It also injects what I like to call "the humility of uncertainty" into both outlooks.

What do you think?

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by AceWombat04

Matter may not exist the way we think it does or perceive it as existing, but we can be reasonably assured that something exists,

yeah its called being alive?

look the bigger you get we give things names ..

being here and mesuring it = matter

the thing that makes up matter is engergy but the smaller part is matter aswell

force my friend

its crazy.. matter is only desciption of SOLID OBJECTS


are matter AND energy the thing ur skin.. thats matter the part in between is energy

think of electrons whizzing around a nuclei


thats why it cant be Destroyed... BOTH the same thing lol

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

While I totally agree with you, what I was suggesting as a compromise between you and your colleague's/friend's congruent yet - for some reason unapparent to me - contrasting viewpoints, is that the very concepts of matter and energy, nuclei, etc. are predicated upon observation, measurement, and perception, which may (though by no means necessarily are or must) be fallible and therefore potentially incorrect. Thus, we can say with reasonable certainty that something exists, but whether or not the actual (not perceived) nature of that "something" is in fact similar to what we conceive of as energy and/or matter, cannot be absolutely known.

If you would prefer, we could also/instead say that matter does and must exist, but that what matter actually is and its nature cannot be definitively proved, only observed and interacted with.


posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:05 PM
well your very description of matter gives rise to it

that is why we have the word matter?

you give rise to it because you consist of it?

if you say matter as a "thing" is not real you would not be here

its how we measure physical reality ie being alive?

[edit on 4-7-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

Precisely. Our measurements could be wrong, though. That's all I'm saying. I concur with you completely that "matter," as a description of whatever "we" are, exists. It's our perception and measurement thereof that could, potentially, be erroneous, in my opinion. That's all.

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 01:46 PM
i think the initial question is flawed because "real" is subjective to this reality we are in. so, matter would be real in this reality but it wouldn't be in any other reality

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:52 AM

Originally posted by dviper785
i think the initial question is flawed because "real" is subjective to this reality we are in. so, matter would be real in this reality but it wouldn't be in any other reality

How can something not be real in reality? That is a contradiction.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in