Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
One more thing, there are things far beyond the scope of our universe, scientist are starting to believe this along with that there are things beyond our "Physical" universe which means things that are beyond matter and energy. while more scientist are trying to figure out how our reality was created the only conclusion some can think of is that.
1. There is something beyond reality that we cannot conceive
2. Our universe is finite and is part of a larger multiverse, in which a universe can be completely different and even have completely different laws of physics like the way we look at this universe. There laws of matter and energy may be completely different from what we currently know. With this statement what we say is not possible in this universe for example "GOD" a "four sided triangle" may very well possible beyond our universe.
We are only human and only understand a tiny fraction of what the universe even is, there are things that our brains cannot conceive and may ever be able to.P.S My classmate typed this
um, colossus, which grade are you in? seems to me like your inquisitive but not knowledgable enough to appropriately deal with the subjects you bring up. so even though your brand of reasoning and "facts" cud probably convince a 6th grader of your oppinion, it wont work well here.
there are things beyond the scope of our universe, thats true and the only way we know about them is through SCIENCE. it wud be a mistake to think that things beyond our universe are beyond our SCIENCE. {and if by PHYSICAL you mean SOLID, then yes, there are things like that too but they are still under the power of science to work with}
those are not the ONLY conclusions scientist come up with, now ur talking like a preacher or new age writer who doesnt know much about what scientists think.
simply because we can not CONCEIVE of things doesnt mean we cant mathematically/scientifically WORK with them {case in point quantum phenomenon}. it doesnt make them mystical, it just makes them have properties that our intuitions are not meant to work with through evolution.
a four sided triangle {looking from the same static point of view} is IMPOSSIBLE IN ANY UNIVERSE OF THE MULTIVERSE. this is because the laws of denoting and definition, a TRIANGLE can only have three sides, this is an axiom that doesnt change with universes regaurdless of their different physics or dimentions.
also, GOD can never be true in any universe that exists within cause-effect. your arguments remind me of the psuedoscientific spout, delivered by people like dinesh de souzo.
and understand one very important thing. just because our BRAINS can not conceive of sumthing does not mean we can not SCIENTIFICALLY work with it. science works on many things our brain cant fully comprehend, and works at them well. {case in point, the atomic bomb}
Originally posted by leonheartmm
um, colossus, which grade are you in? seems to me like your inquisitive but not knowledgable enough to appropriately deal with the subjects you bring up. so even though your brand of reasoning and "facts" cud probably convince a 6th grader of your oppinion, it wont work well here.there are things beyond the scope of our universe, thats true and the only way we know about them is through SCIENCE. it wud be a mistake to think that things beyond our universe are beyond our SCIENCE. {and if by PHYSICAL you mean SOLID, then yes, there are things like that too but they are still under the power of science to work with}
those are not the ONLY conclusions scientist come up with, now ur talking like a preacher or new age writer who doesnt know much about what scientists think.
simply because we can not CONCEIVE of things doesnt mean we cant mathematically/scientifically WORK with them {case in point quantum phenomenon}. it doesnt make them mystical, it just makes them have properties that our intuitions are not meant to work with through evolution.
a four sided triangle {looking from the same static point of view} is IMPOSSIBLE IN ANY UNIVERSE OF THE MULTIVERSE. this is because the laws of denoting and definition, a TRIANGLE can only have three sides, this is an axiom that doesnt change with universes regaurdless of their different physics or dimentions.
also, GOD can never be true in any universe that exists within cause-effect. your arguments remind me of the psuedoscientific spout, delivered by people like dinesh de souzo.and understand one very important thing. just because our BRAINS can not conceive of sumthing does not mean we can not SCIENTIFICALLY work with it. science works on many things our brain cant fully comprehend, and works at them well. {case in point, the atomic bomb}
Originally posted by leonheartmmI have a question, your goal is to talk me into not believing in god right?
if you had read carefully what i said was "you are allowed to CALL other people OUT on their bullshit"saying sumthing does not make it true. to CALL OUT sum1 you have to provide evidence and reasoning. since you provide neither, you obviously cant call me out.
Originally posted by leonheartmmOK since you sound smart I will ask you some Questions.
^no, my goal at the time was to reply to your points.
1. Do you believe we humans and the animals on are planet are the only living things in all the universe.
2. Would you agree to the fact that by definition an omnipotent being would be able change the laws of science to what ever he wants them to be?
3. Explain how the universe was created.
4. Can it be possible that reality itself is just an illusion
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
OK since you sound smart I will ask you some Questions.1. Do you believe we humans and the animals on are planet are the only living things in all the universe.
2. Would you agree to the fact that by definition an omnipotent being would be able change the laws of science to what ever he wants them to be?
3. Explain how the universe was created.
4. Can it be possible that reality itself is just an illusion
1. i dont know, but looking at the rarity of life, probably yes{atleast in this portion of the universe
2. "by definition" yes. but i dont agree that such a definition is in any way indicative of reality.
3. from what we know, it was probably created by sub quantum vacume fluctuations interacting with each other in another universe
4. well id ask you to define reality first, but if you mean "everything we think exists" then yes its possible.
im dying to know how these have anything to do with anything on this thread.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. i dont know, but looking at the rarity of life, probably yes{atleast in this portion of the universe2. "by definition" yes. but i dont agree that such a definition is in any way indicative of reality.
3. from what we know, it was probably created by sub quantum vacume fluctuations interacting with each other in another universe
4. well id ask you to define reality first, but if you mean "everything we think exists" then yes its possible.
im dying to know how these have anything to do with anything on this thread.
1. Ok
2. But if thats the case an omnipotent being would have to somehow be beyond reality as we know it.
3. where did that other universe come from? were did the very first universe come from? It would eventually have to created by something different
4. If its possible it may be possible for things to exist outside our laws of science.
and to the last question, it doesnt you just seem like the smartest poster ive come across on here
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
1. Ok
2. But if thats the case an omnipotent being would have to somehow be beyond reality as we know it.
3. where did that other universe come from? were did the very first universe come from? It would eventually have to created by something different
4. If its possible it may be possible for things to exist outside our laws of science.and to the last question, it doesnt you just seem like the smartest poster ive come across on here
1. .
2. no, it that case an omnipotent being wudnt EXIST, just like a 4 sided triangle doesnt exist
3. from yet another universe. there is no first universe, in all likelyhood, the chain of causation continues infinitely
4. no, it wud mean that mathematics and calculating measures wud have to take into account the different axioms of the other universe and use them to come up with theories to explain them. science{i.e. the hypotheticodeductive method} still holds and evidence is still key.
ahh, sarcasm.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
no it wouldnt there is no evidence that there are not things beyond our reality, and if there is how would we even have evidence?3. Impossible.
also how old are you
yes but that is a negetive. for a proposition to even be considered valid, it has to be falsifyable, and you are making your propositon unfalsifyable. its the classic definition of the negetive evidence fallacy/russel's teapot.
heres a question, what makes you think this so called "reality" "beyond evidence" exists in the first place?
3. absurd
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes but that is a negetive. for a proposition to even be considered valid, it has to be falsifyable, and you are making your propositon unfalsifyable. its the classic definition of the negetive evidence fallacy/russel's teapot.heres a question, what makes you think this so called "reality" "beyond evidence" exists in the first place?
3. absurd
what makes you think it doesnt? if it does any type of science you try to bring up would not relate/apply to it in any way
also how old are you, i told you my age 😠
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what makes you think it doesnt? if it does any type of science you try to bring up would not relate/apply to it in any wayalso how old are you, i told you my age 😠
reality and the age old arguments of logicians and philosophers. what your failing to see is that again and again, you are making your position unfalsifyable, and hence, fallacious.
please read these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
im 21
Originally posted by leonheartmm
reality and the age old arguments of logicians and philosophers. what your failing to see is that again and again, you are making your position unfalsifyable, and hence, fallacious.please read these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
im 21
First off Holy Sh%$ LOL
second some thing that would exist outside of reality. these laws and statements wouldnt apply in any way to it.
also we dont need to debate any further i already know how this would continue. Thanks for the time anyway