Existence vs Awareness

[Mojo]

P.S. Sorry I took so long at getting back at that one. I couldn't think of anything appropriate to say at the time.

It's never stopped you posting before.

 

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Iacchus:
And, if you're suggesting that there is nothing substantial behind your words, then what are you (and folks around here) getting all worked up for?

The trouble is that there is no substance behind your words. For example, when I asked you if you had any evidence that God exists and is responsible for the creation of the universe, you replied:

The whole Universe is chock full of evidence that the impossible exists.

Would you care to back up this assertion and actually provide some of this evidence?

And by the way, Iacchus, you seem to have missed this. Is there any chance that you could show us some of this evidence? If "the whole Universe is chock full of evidence" you shouldn't have any trouble pointing it out to us.

 

[Mercutio]

It had more to do with Mercutio asking if gravity caused things to fall ...

Obviously if I didn't experience the sense of gravity I wouldn't be capable of falling now would I?

Heh...so, by definition, rocks must experience the sense of gravity...

Except that there is no sense of gravity, and except for the fact that even in the weightlessness of space you are continuously experiencing gravity (that's why they call it free-fall).

I think we have found yet another area of knowledge that Iacchus is willing to talk about despite utter ignorance.

 

[Belz...]

Then you were equivocating, since your previous paragraph read:

How's the poor chap supposed to cope, if you can't use your terms consistently

Yeah, that was my fault entirely. Let's just say this:

Workings of the Universe: How the universe functions. Immutable.
Laws of physics: How we describe those workings. Subject to revision.

 

[Iacchus]

Heh...so, by definition, rocks must experience the sense of gravity...

Rocks are affected by gravity, yes.

Except that there is no sense of gravity, and except for the fact that even in the weightlessness of space you are continuously experiencing gravity (that's why they call it free-fall).

Except that gravity does exist or, the phenomenon we associate with it.

I think we have found yet another area of knowledge that Iacchus is willing to talk about despite utter ignorance.

Really? I was in fact thinking something else.

 

[Iacchus]

It's never stopped you posting before.

Well, basically he was fessing up to being full of it, and I wasn't sure what to make of it.

 

[Belz...]

Whether they're penned by some "omnipotent God" or not is another issue.

No, it's the SAME issue, because you claim that someone made those laws in advance. Let's drop the term "omnipotent god" and replace it with "designer" or "lawgiver". The point is that the mere existance of something, like the "workings of the universe", does not entail anything save for its existence.

It's simple. I don't believe the Universe just "happened" of its own accord. That there must have been a whole myriad of immutable laws set in place in order for it to so.

We know that you believe that. Now the next step is to challenge that belief and see if it holds up to evidence. So far you are yet to take this step.

I understand that words (typically) are descriptions of "actual" things.

Cthulhu. Unicorn. Hades. Valkyrie. Words are, as you say, TYPICALLY, descriptions of actual things. But they need not be.

Ever try jumping off the edge of a twenty story building? Please folks, don't go trying this at home.

The term "Laws of gravity" does not describe gravity, Iacchus, but the laws themselves. Try again.

 

[Belz...]

His point is, gravity is just the name given to the process of things falling. When we say "gravity caused X to fall", we mean "X fell in accordance to the theory of gravity". We don't actually know what gravity is, just how it appears to work.

And we have some reason to believe that, in fact, there is only one process at work, namely conservation of energy. But if true, I don't think we can infer some form of "lawgiver" behind all of this, simply because you'd EXPECT conservation of energy to occur, no matter what, or no matter what the "laws" of physics are like.

As you much you would like to try or, so it would seem (this was directed more towards Merc), you can't escape the fact that something happens as a result of something else.

Oh, yes we can.

 

[Iacchus]

And by the way, Iacchus, you seem to have missed this. Is there any chance that you could show us some of this evidence? If "the whole Universe is chock full of evidence" you shouldn't have any trouble pointing it out to us.

What, pointing out that the Universe exists and, that we exist? The evidence of whatever it is, as impossible as it may be, is the fact that we're here.

 

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Iacchus:
The whole Universe is chock full of evidence that the impossible exists.

Originally Posted by Mojo:
And by the way, Iacchus, you seem to have missed this. Is there any chance that you could show us some of this evidence? If "the whole Universe is chock full of evidence" you shouldn't have any trouble pointing it out to us.

What, pointing out that the Universe exists and, that we exist? The evidence of whatever it is, as impossible as it may be, is the fact that we're here.

The fact that the universe exists, and that we exist, is not evidence that impossible things exist. The universe exists, and we exist, therefore neither of these things is impossible. Pointing out that something exists does not provide evidence that impossible things exist, as anything that exists is by definition not impossible.

Now, kindly provide some of this "evidence that the impossible exists" that you claim the universe is "chock full of".

 

[Iacchus]

No, it's the SAME issue, because you claim that someone made those laws in advance.

I did? No, I'm afraid we haven't advanced the argument that far yet.

Let's drop the term "omnipotent god" and replace it with "designer" or "lawgiver". The point is that the mere existance of something, like the "workings of the universe", does not entail anything save for its existence.

Actually, I see no need to bring up a designer, not at this point.

We know that you believe that. Now the next step is to challenge that belief and see if it holds up to evidence. So far you are yet to take this step.

It's strickly a matter of common sense. Most would refer to it as cause-and-effect.

Cthulhu. Unicorn. Hades. Valkyrie. Words are, as you say, TYPICALLY, descriptions of actual things. But they need not be.

Even if they are imaginary (as in concepts), they are still things.

The term "Laws of gravity" does not describe gravity, Iacchus, but the laws themselves. Try again.

If we weren't referring to something that was real (with real consequences), there wouldn't be much point in bringing it up would there?

 

[Iacchus]

The fact that the universe exists, and that we exist, is not evidence that impossible things exist. The universe exists, and we exist, therefore neither of these things is impossible. Pointing out that something exists does not provide evidence that impossible things exist, as anything that exists is by definition not impossible.

Now, kindly provide some of this "evidence that the impossible exists" that you claim the universe is "chock full of".

Well, if whatever it is, is impossible to know, we are in effect saying anything is possible. So, why are we so quick to discount that Goddidit? How is it possible to favor one thing over another?

 

[Mojo]

Well, if whatever it is, is impossible to know, we are in effect saying anything is possible.

I take it that the evidence you claimed the universe was "chock full of" has suddenly evaporated.

So, why are we so quick to discount that Goddidit?

Can you provide any evidence that God exists?

How is it that you can favor one thing over another?

If there's no evidence for something existing, there's no reason to believe it exists.

 

[Iacchus]

All I'm suggesting is that existence seems to be based upon an impossibility. Evidence of this, as you folks continue to suggest, is that it's impossible to know. However, I would contend that it must be based upon something real and tangible, otherwise we wouldn't be here, experiencing it as if it were.

 

[Mojo]

All I'm suggesting is that existence seems to be based upon an impossibility.

It evidently is not, as the universe exists. If it was impossible it wouldn't exist.

 

[Mojo]

I would contend that it must be based upon something real and tangible, otherwise we wouldn't be here, experiencing it as if it were.

Would you care to provide evidence of this real and tangible "something"?

 

[Iacchus]

It evidently is not, as the universe exists. If it was impossible it wouldn't exist.

Well, I honestly can't conceive of it getting here on its own, not without something existing prior to it. Got any ideas?

 

[Mercutio]

Heh...so, by definition, rocks must experience the sense of gravity...

Rocks are affected by gravity, yes.

Which is it? Are you retreating from your earlier, false, statement about "experiencing a sense of gravity"? Or are you equating your earlier, false, statement with simply "affected by gravity", and making an even bigger mistake?

Words have accepted meanings, Iacchus. Using them in a new way does not help your arguing skills any.

 

[Mercutio]

Well, I honestly can't conceive of it getting here on its own, not without something existing prior to it. Got any ideas?

So, your own ignorance makes something "impossible". Thankfully, we are not all limited by your ignorance.

 

[Tricky]

Well, I honestly can't conceive of it...

And herein lies the root of most of your problems. You can't conceive of things. Even when you've had things explained, you still can't conceive of them. Even when you're shown evidence for things, you still can't conceive of them. You remind me of the joke about the blond who says to the doctor, "Doc, it hurts when I touch my knee, and it hurts when I touch my chin, and it hurts when I touch my side and it hurts when I touch my nose..." The doctor interrupts and says, "I think I see the problem. You have a broken finger."

Your "broken finger" is your limited capacity for conception.