I would consider myself an atheist but recently I feel I may have to change that label because of what I was thinking...

So I was just sitting around thinking and I was perceiving the concept of "self" within the universe. And I asked myself what distinguishes my own being from another persons being. The obvious answer is we are separate entities and therefore separate people. However, the concept of "space" (a location of nothing) is literally impossible and is a man made delusion of the senses. Science and philosophy tells us (if I'm not mistaken) that "nothing" cannot exist (ex nihilo nihil), this means there is no space between anything and for all intensive purposes, every single thing is connected at one point or another. In order for things to be separate there must be some point of isolation, one does not exist. From this knowledge that theres only "being" and not "nothingness" we can conclude that everything is one being, one massive form of pure existence. Although we perceive ourselves as individuals we are still interconnected with every aspect of the world.

When you take a thing, such as person, any object for that matter, and boil it down to what it is, what you come up with are sub-particles (electrons, protons, neutrons) which if I remember correctly are hypothesized to be just pure energy of some form or something abstract along those lines. So if you boil down every object and thing in the universe what it would come down to is one massive energy structure with no definite end or beginning. This is what we would call pure being, noumenon, thing in themselves.

Now what does this all mean? If everything is connected than everything is simply one thing. That one thing is pure existence, pure knowledge (distributed amongst every "individual" organism), all powerful, pure energy. We all have a conception of a higher being because we are intertwined within that pure being, we make the sum of the parts.

This thing is not "god" its just pure existence. So, its like god but not in any cognizant self-aware sense. This is why everything (in my opinion) in terms of ethics and absolute truths is completely subjective and relative to the observer. There is no possible way to validate my opinion over another person's opinion because since we are incorporated into the same being our opinions can be both correct and wrong. Everything in life is self-contradictory and our existence is no different.


Think about it, once we die, we decompose and become something else and our matter is forever changing and becoming, we live eternally, not as our human persona's but our matter is always present. Science tells us matter cannot be created or destroyed. Our conception of our existence dies but never our existence in itself.

Now the obvious way to refute this would be to say "If we're all powerful than how come we cannot know all of this and do what we want" but to counter that refute its as simple as realizing that we have a misconception of god as this single humanesque being who acts like we do. However, this is not the case. Our "god"/existence electron thing simply holds within it all the power of the world and all the knowledge in the world and the world itself. The ability to use it is irrelevant of its capacity and power.

This seems pretty logical from my standpoint but I'm just posting this to find any flaws so feel free to point them out and I'll do my best to refute them if possible.

I enjoyed reading that.
Your ideas are very similar to mine, and I think these ideas can give a much more interesting and scientific perspective on religious/spiritual teachings.

OP is saying pretty much the same thing about God as me, Deepak Chopra, Neale Donald Walsch, Stephen Gaskin, Stuart Wilde, Christian mystics such as St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avilla, Hindu yogis, and a bunch of Sufi Muslims.

IMHO, we got it.

Yes, that's essentially my views ..

Welcome to Gnosticism!

While we wait for Armsmerchant to chime in, watch this video: http://sunrise-production.org/Unity_Movie1.html

Welcome to Gnosticism!

While we wait for Armsmerchant to chime in, watch this video: http://sunrise-production.org/Unity_Movie1.html

This video is founded on a lot of metaphysical BS and incoherent logic.


In my opinion, the material always just was and always will be, these particles re-arrange themselves, combine and create depending on circumstances (i.e. the Big Bang). The video is advocating that it was created by some "non-material substance" which I disagree with.

none the less its interesting.

Mr. Kitty, welcome to the 'god' that logic and reasoning first discovers. As your mind continues to open, you will begin to find out some rather surprising details about this all encompassing energy.

Mr. Kitty, welcome to the 'god' that logic and reasoning first discovers. As your mind continues to open, you will begin to find out some rather surprising details about this all encompassing energy.

Would you care to enlighten me?

Would you care to enlighten me?

I don't mean to use this as an insult, but your mind is closed to the idea of this 'god' possessing a consciousness, to it having the ability to communicate with other conscious forms, to it having the ability to reorganize itself without the limitations science suggests it has, to it possessing its own feelings, its own will, and a direct relationship with individual conscious life forms.

I was too, and when told I was closed minded to those things, my mind snapped shut against the idea entirely for some time. If it has led you to this conclusion once, it will do it again, however, so I see no harm in presenting this information to you. This confused me for some time, but I will let you hear this: Religious faith is sourced in fear of punishment. Spiritual faith is first sourced in reason and logic. Later, in the understanding that some things just don't follow either one. A moment will come when you are broken and nothing seems to work for you anymore. When all solutions fail, one either suicides or the mind opens to new solutions. Either choice: This is when it is discovered that god is God.

Congratulations! You've discovered that by using fringe definitions of words and attributing importance to trivial "facts" you can come up with woo. Amazing.

I don't mean to use this as an insult, but your mind is closed to the idea of this 'god' possessing a consciousness, to it having the ability to communicate with other conscious forms, to it having the ability to reorganize itself without the limitations science suggests it has, to it possessing its own feelings, its own will, and a direct relationship with individual conscious life forms.

I was too, and when told I was closed minded to those things, my mind snapped shut against the idea entirely for some time. If it has led you to this conclusion once, it will do it again, however, so I see no harm in presenting this information to you. This confused me for some time, but I will let you hear this: Religious faith is sourced in fear of punishment. Spiritual faith is first sourced in reason and logic. Later, in the understanding that some things just don't follow either one. A moment will come when you are broken and nothing seems to work for you anymore. When all solutions fail, one either suicides or the mind opens to new solutions. Either choice: This is when it is discovered that god is God.

You can say "I'm closed minded" but the whole concept of some sort of supernatural "god-like" being existing is supported by nothing but blind faith.

If your advocating that through some sort of personal revelation and intellectual ascent up the platonic ladder of "ideas" I shall come across a type of universal consciousness than its another story, but to believe in a separate god-like personification is just inane

If your advocating that through some sort of personal revelation and intellectual ascent up the platonic ladder of "ideas" I shall come across a type of universal consciousness than its another story, but to believe in a separate god-like personification is just inane

Love your work!^^^^^^

Your original post is also very good, and IMHO if you need a 'label', then perhaps agnostic?

This thing is not "god" its just pure existence. So, its like god but not in any cognizant self-aware sense.
^^^^ Sounds like something from LaoTzu......

Think about it, once we die, we decompose and become something else and our matter is forever changing and becoming, we live eternally, not as our human persona's but our matter is always present.
And this ^^^ sounds like Australian Aboriginal spirituality:
"When a person dies their yimaruk*(soul/lifeforce - note added by rdzd) goes free. (D.Rose 1992 P.P. 69-70) To some it is identified with the bones, enduring in the country where they are laid. As the bones disintegrte they become part of the earht as does life. So country contains it's own life and the traces of all those other lives that belong to that country, enriching in turn all the living species of that country."
* "Among the Yarralin, yimaruk is one of the terms used for life in a continuous sense:
It endures as part of an ongoing life process which infuses the whole cosmos. It is universal in the sense that all living beings share in it, but it is also specific in that it is identified with particular individuals and often bears a close relationship to country.

The yimaruk which a person has now was another person or animal before and will become another person or animal later." (D.Rose 1992 P.59)
Apologies for the length but the text is from notes I took by hand and as I had cause to review them recently they were fresh in mind and it struck me the similarity to your thoughts. Here's some more that seems uncannily close:
Aboriginal life is based on the concept that the whole cosmos is a closed self reproducing, self-regulating system of life which seeks a steady state, in which all life is maintained at optimum levels of productivity, knowledge and so on.
It is a living system inwhich all the parts are likewise
*alive
*conscious, that is capable of knowing and acting
*related to each other
Each part is a moral agent. Each part has it's own law and is responsible for maintaining and enhancing itself and the whole, while respecting the other parts that do likewise.
The ultimate criterion of morality is the preservation, nurturance and enhancement of life. The menas to do this is to preserve the relationships between the parts set up from the beginning. So while the law is expressed as rules of behaviour it is fundamentally about relationships.(The Aboriginal Gift, D.Rose 1984)
Do you see the similarity?

Our conception of our existence dies but never our existence in itself.Very interesting thoughts thanks for posting them!

Congratulations! You've discovered that by using fringe definitions of words and attributing importance to trivial "facts" you can come up with woo. Amazing.

And you posted this because??

Unless you actually have something to say with any validity take your ad hominem somewhere else. :rolleyes:

^^^^ Sounds like something from LaoTzu......


And this ^^^ sounds like Australian Aboriginal spirituality:


I will look into both of those, thanks.

And you posted this because??

Unless you actually have something to say with any validity take your ad hominem somewhere else. :rolleyes:

1. I posted it because I wanted to, that's kind of what this forum allows...

2. Nothing in that post was an ad-hominem attack. Now I know you're basking in the surprise circle jerk these hippies have thrown you (that is an attack right there) but please try not to throw around words like an idiot.

3. If you want me to expound, sure thing:


a. ex nihilo nihil does not mean "nothing can't exist". It means "nothing comes from nothing" and refers to the idea that things must have an explanation or a cause.

b. You're using an extrmely vauge definition of "nothing". For example you say that there is "there is no space between anything" yet there certainly is. In a vaccume, where there is only a relatively small amount of molecules, there is a larger amount of space between them. That's what space is called space in the first place!

Now that area might still enjoy certain physical objects like gravity (i.e. there is a field of gravity all around those molecules) but they have still have space between them.

c. You say that these particles are essentially energy, but that's not true either. They are matter. Matter differs from energy. Of course, matter can become energy, but there are distinctions in Physics.


d. Even if we accept everything that's wrong in your post as true, just for the sake of argument, you are still giving importance to some trivial "fact" (again accepting those things as factual). It would be as important as the oppossite; that is to say, not very important at all.

Yes (if we accept what you've said as true) we'd be "interconnected". The Low Preassure Compresser in a jet engine is "interconnected" with the peanuts a passanger is eating. So what? That doesn't help us at all. It's complete woo to place some sort of magical importance to that.

1. I posted it because I wanted to, that's kind of what this forum allows...

2. Nothing in that post was an ad-hominem attack. Now I know you're basking in the surprise circle jerk these hippies have thrown you (that is an attack right there) but please try not to throw around words like an idiot.

3. If you want me to expound, sure thing:


a. ex nihilo nihil does not mean "nothing can't exist". It means "nothing comes from nothing" and refers to the idea that things must have an explanation or a cause.

Same concept, non literal meaning. If nothing comes from nothing than nothing cannot exist. Even the very definition of nothing implies there isn't anything there, if there is nothing there how can it "be"? It can't.

b. You're using an extremely vague definition of "nothing". For example you say that there is "there is no space between anything" yet there certainly is. In a vacuum, where there is only a relatively small amount of molecules, there is a larger amount of space between them. That's what space is called space in the first place!

Now that area might still enjoy certain physical objects like gravity (i.e. there is a field of gravity all around those molecules) but they have still have space between them.

Gravity is between them, gravity occupies that space, therefore there is no space, energy is still a "thing", not a "no-thing". How can you say "nothing" is there when you just said gravity is there? Granted, there may be space because we cannot perceive gravity, but regardless, there is something there and not nothing there.

c. You say that these particles are essentially energy, but that's not true either. They are matter. Matter differs from energy. Of course, matter can become energy, but there are distinctions in Physics.

Yeah I don't really know too much about physics to be exact in terms of definitions, but regardless for my point the terms can be interchangeable (even if they are two separate things), everything is matter, everything is energy, the same principle and concept I'm advocating can be derived from either statement.


d. Even if we accept everything that's wrong in your post as true, just for the sake of argument, you are still giving importance to some trivial "fact" (again accepting those things as factual). It would be as important as the opposite; that is to say, not very important at all.

Why don't you go into further detail telling me whats wrong? Just saying its wrong doesn't really get us anywhere. This isn't "my belief" or "truth" if you read the post it's just an idea I had that seems to make sense. So please, if its wrong, prove it to me so I don't go around preaching it.

Yes (if we accept what you've said as true) we'd be "interconnected". The Low Pressure Compressor in a jet engine is "interconnected" with the peanuts a passenger is eating. So what? That doesn't help us at all. It's complete woo to place some sort of magical importance to that.

If what I said is true and you still fail to see the significance that everything is for all intensive purposes, the same, one being, than I don't know what more I can say...

Same concept, non literal meaning. If nothing comes from nothing than nothing cannot exist. Even the very definition of nothing implies there isn't anything there, if there is nothing there how can it "be"? It can't.

Wrong on multiple levels.

1. According to the phrase nothing can exist, it just must come from something. Like for example, a vacuum comes from something.

2. It's a latin phrase that was uttered hundreds of years in the past... Who the hell says that it must actually be the case in reality?

That's like saying: "Labor omnia vincit", therefore I can conquer death through hardwork.


Gravity is between them, gravity occupies that space, therefore there is no space, energy is still a "thing", not a "no-thing". How can you say "nothing" is there when you just said gravity is there? Granted, there may be space because we cannot perceive gravity, but regardless, there is something there and not nothing there.

I didn't say "nothing" was there, please read what I say carefully before you put words in my mouth.

I said you were using a vague definition of "nothing" and explained to you that there was space between these particles contrary to your completely erroneous claim ("there is no space between anything") in order to show just how vauge it was.


Yeah I don't really know too much about physics to be exact in terms of definitions, but regardless for my point the terms can be interchangeable (even if they are two separate things), everything is matter, everything is energy, the same principle and concept I'm advocating can be derived from either statement.

Wrong, they can't be used interchangeably precisely because they are two different things. Not everything is energy, and not everything is matter.

You talk about how great Science is in other threads but apparently you have no clue what it actually says.



Why don't you go into further detail telling me whats wrong? Just saying its wrong doesn't really get us anywhere. This isn't "my belief" or "truth" if you read the post it's just an idea I had that seems to make sense. So please, if its wrong, prove it to me so I don't go around preaching it.

I already did just that! Try reading please. I showed you how your premises (e.g. "nothing cannot exist (ex nihilo nihil)", "there is no space between anything ", "everything is energy", etc.) were wrong. Then, in what you just quoted, I proceeded to show how trivial your "idea" is even if we ignore all that's wrong (your premises) with it.


If what I said is true and you still fail to see the significance that everything is for all intensive purposes, the same, one being, than I don't know what more I can say...

I don't "fail" to see anything. That implies there is some objective significance to begin with and you haven't even gotten close to showing that.

Wrong on multiple levels.

1. According to the phrase nothing can exist, it just must come from something. Like for example, a vacuum comes from something.

Look, I'm sorry that you can't draw conclusions from ideas unless they're placed directly in front of you...But by analyzing that phrase (by first determine its validity and then some) we can clearly come to the conclusion that nothing does not exist. Nothing by definition means "not existing" how can "not existing" exist? It can't. Put your mind past one dimensional thoughts and read between the lines a little.


2. It's a latin phrase that was uttered hundreds of years in the past... Who the hell says that it must actually be the case in reality?

Logic? :rolleyes: If you don't think so than refute it. But like I said. Nothing means no thing. How can no thing exist? It doesn't.

That's like saying: "Labor omnia vincit", therefore I can conquer death through hardwork.

Thats a motto. Ex Nihilo Nihil is a philosophical expression from Parmenides and as far as I know its accepted as correct by every major philosopher.

I said you were using a vague definition of "nothing" and explained to you that there was space between these particles contrary to your completely erroneous claim ("there is no space between anything") in order to show just how vague it was.

I'm using space and nothing as the same word. Space implies a gap, a void and hey! What do you know? Nothing :rolleyes:

I'm sorry you couldn't draw that connection. If gravity occupies that space than the space is occupied, that means the space does not exist.



Wrong, they can't be used interchangeably precisely because they are two different things. Not everything is energy, and not everything is matter.

This doesn't prove anything I said wrong. Not to mention that it doesn't matter what I call the "universal stuff", I can say it's energy, I can say its nous, I can say its matter. Its the same principle, stop being so concerned with definition.

My only point was everything is made up of the same stuff. What I call that stuff doesn't prove that thesis wrong.


I don't "fail" to see anything. That implies there is some objective significance to begin with and you haven't even gotten close to showing that.

Once again, you haven't proven one thing about my argument wrong, just that I'm using the wrong words to describe my argument. Even IF I changed the wording in my argument to fit your simplistic desire than it would still be the same argument.


Stop attacking my use of language and start attacking the meaning of my language. Until you do that, you've said nothing important.

Your not attacking my argument or the ideas behind my argument, you're simply attacking how I present my argument, perhaps you can prove I'm using a word wrong (I probably am) but that doesn't disprove the idea behind the word

Attack meaning not appearance. Otherwise we're just going to argue about language all day and not get anywhere. So start over and attack the idea itself not the wording in my idea.

Another potentially interesting thread becomes back and forth bickering.
Mr.Kitty55 if you want to explore your ideas and their implications then I don't recommend paying any attention to rust.

So even if there is technically no 'empty' space between anything, the problem is that you haven't demonstrated that this connection has any significance whatsoever.
An alien 3million light years away and I might be interconnected by a 3million light year chain of atoms, but that doesn't mean we have any influence on each other.

So even if there is technically no 'empty' space between anything, the problem is that you haven't demonstrated that this connection has any significance whatsoever.

The point is that if everything is made up of the same stuff and all that same stuff is connected than everything you know of is simply one being. There is no such "thing" on its own independent, everything is one being. This would account for God and our "purpose" (in terms of my perception of the individual) in what we view as the world.


An alien 3million light years away and I might be interconnected by a 3million light year chain of atoms, but that doesn't mean we have any influence on each other.

My whole point is that the apparently separate alien and yourself, are really the same thing. Whether or not you can perceive this is contingent on your ability to transcend the seemingly finite body and experience reality outside the realm of your current conception of the world.

There is no influence on one another because you are both the same being, along with everything else.

You have a very creative definition of the word "being."

And also, so let's say you're right and the entire universe is one being. If we exhibit no influence on other parts of this being and all continue to function essentially as independent beings in the traditional sense of the term, then what does it even matter? What is the significance of it?

You have a very creative definition of the word "being."

And also, so let's say you're right and the entire universe is one being. If we exhibit no influence on other parts of this being and all continue to function essentially as independent beings in the traditional sense of the term, then what does it even matter? What is the significance of it?

The significance is harder to understand through our current human perspective. The significance is in the beauty of existence. Aldous Huxley said something along the lines of how we can describe and reenact experiences but never fully capture the essence of the experience, except for the very moment we are perceiving/experiencing it. I think this relates perfectly to how we can never fully comprehend our meaning until we begin to appreciate things for what they are (being in itself) and start to see things as a whole and beyond their biological and societal functions.

Meaning is something that cannot be described in a sentence or even with words for that matter. Meaning is an experience that one can only comprehend to themselves. The whole idea behind this universal notion of unity is to transcend the body and the human mental limit to engage in pure being along with every other seemingly independent object in the world. When we can fully comprehend reality, then we can fully comprehend meaning.

After all, how can you understand the significance of something if you don't even know what it is? The best way to start would be like I mentioned earlier, to see things past their biological and social value for what they truly are.

Another potentially interesting thread becomes back and forth bickering.
Mr.Kitty55 if you want to explore your ideas and their implications then I don't recommend paying any attention to rust.

I'd reccomend the exact opposite; how can you fully explore your ideas if you refuse to take into account that they might be wrong, or if you're not prepared to question them?

Look, I'm sorry that you can't draw conclusions from ideas unless they're placed directly in front of you...But by analyzing that phrase (by first determine its validity and then some) we can clearly come to the conclusion that nothing does not exist. Nothing by definition means "not existing" how can "not existing" exist? It can't. Put your mind past one dimensional thoughts and read between the lines a little.

I can draw conclusions just fine, it's that we can't draw conclusions from what you've claimed that is the problem here. You are essentially taking a phrase, deeming it absolutely correct, and then making conclusions based on that. That is not logical. That is fallacious.

Also, thank you for proving how dishonest it is to leave these crucial words so vaguely defined. You left "nothing" vague so that whenever you encounter an opposing viewpoint you can move the goal post at will.

Logic? If you don't think so than refute it. But like I said. Nothing means no thing. How can no thing exist? It doesn't.

Logic says absolutely no such thing, which would explain why you failed miserably at showing that it did and only presented a question instead of a proof; and it would fall unto you, the person using a latin phrase, to prove that latin phrase holds true.

Thats a motto. Ex Nihilo Nihil is a philosophical expression from Parmenides and as far as I know its accepted as correct by every major philosopher

Again: The expression does not mean "nothing cannot exist". It means "everything must have an explanation or must come from something else". Those two things are not equivalent.

Even if we accept this ridiculous claim of yours (that "it's accepted as correct by every majory philosopher" - something you pulled completely out of your ass and is still an argument from authority even if it were true) the fact remains that it does not mean what you say it means.
You are still using a latin phrase - which you haven't shown even says the thing you say, let alone that what you claim it says is correct - as a premise for your argument. That's incredibly ridiculous and if you were really honest in your request of wanting people to show you how wrong your statements were in order not to repeat them, you'd see this is a one major flaw.

I'm using space and nothing as the same word. Space implies a gap, a void and hey! What do you know? Nothing
I'm sorry you couldn't draw that connection. If gravity occupies that space than the space is occupied, that means the space does not exist.

That's the whole point, thank you for making it for me! You are using words that Science uses ("space" in particular) in convinient ways to "prove" your ridiculous point.

Sorry, but it's not my fault that someone making claims of things that fall into the realm of Science, is using completley unscientific meanings.

This doesn't prove anything I said wrong. Not to mention that it doesn't matter what I call the "universal stuff", I can say it's energy, I can say its nous, I can say its matter. Its the same principle, stop being so concerned with definition.

My only point was everything is made up of the same stuff. What I call that stuff doesn't prove that thesis wrong.

The problem is that they aren't made of the same stuff preciesly because "matter" is not equal to energy. There are things in this universe that are matter, and things that are energy. They are, by definition, not the same. There is also dark matter, which doesn't even hold the same properties as the matter we observe and makes up the vast majority of the universe. You saying "Everything is made up of the same stuff" is completely wrong and unscientific.

Once again, you haven't proven one thing about my argument wrong, just that I'm using the wrong words to describe my argument. Even IF I changed the wording in my argument to fit your simplistic desire than it would still be the same argument.

False. You dishonestly portraying what I've said is not going to change the fact that I've refuted the premises that are fundamental to your argument. It's not the language that I have the most problem with, it's things like you saying "everything is made of the same stuff" which is completely incorrect, or you saying "Ex Nihilo Nihil" as if that proved anything, when it does not; that is what I have the most problem with and that's what I've shown is wrong in your argument. Your complete rape of the English language is secondary to the slew of logical fallacies you've comitted.

So in summary:

1. Does Ex Nihilo Nihil mean that nothing cannot exist? No.

2. Have you shown Ex Nihilo Nihil is true? No.

3. Have you proven that eveyrthing is made of the same stuff? No.

4. Have you shown how your argument - (i.e. everything is interconnected) isn't trivial? No.

Another potentially interesting thread becomes back and forth bickering.
Mr.Kitty55 if you want to explore your ideas and their implications then I don't recommend paying any attention to rust.

Right, the problem here is people questioning what he said! It would have been a much better thread had nobody questioned the claims he made...

http://www.geekalerts.com/u/sheep-stool.jpg

I can draw conclusions just fine, it's that we can't draw conclusions from what you've claimed that is the problem here. You are essentially taking a phrase, deeming it absolutely correct, and then making conclusions based on that. That is not logical. That is fallacious.

Also, thank you for proving how dishonest it is to leave these crucial words so vaguely defined. You left "nothing" vague so that whenever you encounter an opposing viewpoint you can move the goal post at will.

I didn't do it intentionally, my only fault is assuming people will understand the definitions I'm using. However, even if people misrepresent my definitions (in terms of this argument) the overall meaning can still easily be obtained like I showed earlier.


Logic says absolutely no such thing, which would explain why you failed miserably at showing that it did and only presented a question instead of a proof; and it would fall unto you, the person using a Latin phrase, to prove that Latin phrase holds true.

So prove it wrong. You've done nothing here but say its wrong, not actually proving anything.

Here, I'll prove it right.

1.) Nothing by definition means "not existing"

2.) How can something that doesn't exist, exist? IT CAN'T

3.) Nothing comes from nothing because "no-thing" cannot produce something since it, itself is not a thing capable of production.

4.) So nothing must come from something? NO! The law of conservation of mass states matter cannot be created or destroyed.

5.) Logically, nothing is not a real thing, but a misrepresentation of reality by the human mind to further understanding on a biological and social level.

Logical method ^^^^^



Again: The expression does not mean "nothing cannot exist". It means "everything must have an explanation or must come from something else". Those two things are not equivalent.

Even if we accept this ridiculous claim of yours (that "it's accepted as correct by every major philosopher" - something you pulled completely out of your ass and is still an argument from authority even if it were true) the fact remains that it does not mean what you say it means.

1.) I've been read Beyond Good and Evil and am currently reading Being and Nothingness and both Sartre and Nietzsche cite that exact phrase when attempting to disprove metaphysical claims used by Kant, Spinoza and Plato.

2.) I used it to come to the conclusion "nothing isn't real". If you don't see that than fine. But beyond it's literal meaning it can be used to derive that concept, at least for me. I'm sorry you don't see it.

You are still using a Latin phrase - which you haven't shown even says the thing you say, let alone that what you claim it says is correct - as a premise for your argument. That's incredibly ridiculous and if you were really honest in your request of wanting people to show you how wrong your statements were in order not to repeat them, you'd see this is a one major flaw.

Because I have never seen it proved wrong. The concept explained by the Phrase has been around since 500 BC and I have never seen anyone disprove it. I assumed everyone accepted it as common knowledge, if you don't believe in it than stop complaining about it and prove it wrong.


That's the whole point, thank you for making it for me! You are using words that Science uses ("space" in particular) in convenient ways to "prove" your ridiculous point.

Sorry, but it's not my fault that someone making claims of things that fall into the realm of Science, is using completely unscientific meanings.

Well now that you know how I'm using the definition feel free to refute my point.



The problem is that they aren't made of the same stuff precisely because "matter" is not equal to energy. There are things in this universe that are matter, and things that are energy. They are, by definition, not the same. There is also dark matter, which doesn't even hold the same properties as the matter we observe and makes up the vast majority of the universe. You saying "Everything is made up of the same stuff" is completely wrong and unscientific.

Okay, this is what I wanted you to do from the beginning...

Since I'm not really an expert on this I'm going to need to draw this out to understand it.

This is how I got to my conclusion. As far as I know and have been taught everything in the Universe is composed of atoms, which are composed of electrons, neutrons and protons. Those three things are composed of electrical charges, what I would call energy...

So what am I getting wrong here? What I believed was that if you boil everything down to its ultimate root than you have the same sort of "cosmic, underlying omnipresent energy"...

I didn't do it intentionally, my only fault is assuming people will understand the definitions I'm using. However, even if people misrepresent my definitions (in terms of this argument) the overall meaning can still easily be obtained like I showed earlier.

Obtained through faulting reasoning since you've used numerous logical fallacies, as I showed earlier. It's quite an absurd proposition to expect people to have to not only evade your ridiculous definitions but also your false reasoning.


So prove it wrong. You've done nothing here but say its wrong, not actually proving anything.


1. I don't have to prove it wrong, you have to prove it right. You haven't (and this attempt of yours doesn't even come close).

2. You're completely mixing up things here. The latin phrase means "nothing comes from nothing" or in other words" everything has an explanation or cause". If you try to follow the discussion you'll see I said:

"It's a latin phrase that was uttered hundreds of years in the past... Who the hell says that it must actually be the case in reality?"

In other words, I implied you hadn't shown that the phrase (what it actually says, not your erroneous interpretation of it) is true in reality. That's what I wanted you to prove.

I don't want you to prove that "nothing" can't exist when you get to define both nothing and exist. I don't doubt your ability to reach a "proof" of something you get to define at will. As if saying "I define nothing to be something that doesn't exist, ergo nothing doesn't exist" were difficult. It isn't, It's the equivalent of "I define god as a pizza, therefore god exists". Amazing.

1.) I've been read Beyond Good and Evil and am currently reading Being and Nothingness and both Sartre and Nietzsche cite that exact phrase when attempting to disprove metaphysical claims used by Kant, Spinoza and Plato.

2.) I used it to come to the conclusion "nothing isn't real". If you don't see that than fine. But beyond it's literal meaning it can be used to derive that concept, at least for me. I'm sorry you don't see it.

1. So what? Sartre and Nietzsche are "all major philosophers" (which is what you claimed - before you forget what you said)? No. Not that I'd take your word for anything because you obviously didn't understand what the term means in the first place.

2. What is that suppose to mean? That's the intelelctual equivalent of "I got things wrong, oh well". How nice.


Because I have never seen it proved wrong. The concept explained by the Phrase has been around since 500 BC and I have never seen anyone disprove it. I assumed everyone accepted it as common knowledge, if you don't believe in it than stop complaining about it and prove it wrong.

"I haven't seen it proved wrong" isn't an argument. Your ignorance isn't an argument against something. I haven't seen the center of the Earth either.

And again, I don't have to prove it wrong. You don't get to take a latin phrase, annoint it with all the importance and truth you want and then expect people to take is as proven. It's up to you to prove that it does apply.

Well now that you know how I'm using the definition feel free to refute my point.

What point? That when you get to define "space" and "nothing" to suit your needs... you can suit your needs? That's pretty obvious by now.


Okay, this is what I wanted you to do from the beginning...

I did do that from the beggining. That you didn't understand it until now is another story. Here's me doing it many posts ago:

"You say that these particles are essentially energy, but that's not true either. They are matter. Matter differs from energy. Of course, matter can become energy, but there are distinctions in Physics."

I said pretty much the same thing there: Matter and energy are not the same, and not eveyrthing is matter, and not everything is energy.



This is how I got to my conclusion. As far as I know and have been taught everything in the Universe is composed of atoms, which are composed of electrons, neutrons and protons. Those three things are composed of electrical charges, what I would call energy...

What are you getting wrong? Well for starters...

1. Not everything is composed of atoms. Light for example, is not an atom. If it were, we'd be fucking dead.

It's rather telling that you say that because just earlier you were berating me because you said gravity fields would still be in a vaccum, and unless you think gravity is an atom, then you're contradicting yourself...

2. The "composed of electrical charges" bit is also wrong. They are composed of even smaller particles. (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/public/lab-info/quark.html)

......................


Look, in the philosophical world it is accepted that "nothing" does not exist. I tried to show it to you the same way my philosophy professor explained it to me. If you think I did a shitty job convincing you than there's nothing I can do about it. But when you just say something is wrong and don't bother to prove it wrong, you sound like an idiot who clearly realizes that he has been proved wrong.

Obviously you don't "have to prove it wrong" but if you would like some credibility or respect I think you should. If someone just walks around all day claiming ideas are wrong with no evidence he doesn't garner much support for his opinion on the subject.

But if you don't want to, don't. However, let me ask you this: Do you believe nothing exists????

Because thats exactly what it seems your advocating by telling me that "saying nothing does not exist is wrong", by saying that (which you did, I paraphrased) implies you believe nothing is a real thing...


Oh and this small thing....


In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense either. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically.

Sounds like I was correct.......

"You say that these particles are essentially energy, but that's not true either. They are matter. Matter differs from energy. Of course, matter can become energy, but there are distinctions in Physics."

I said pretty much the same thing there: Matter and energy are not the same, and not everything is matter, and not everything is energy.

Look, I said earlier that this was not some sort of truth, just an idea I had, so I'm going to ask some questions to fully understand this matter/energy concept, alright?

1.) Okay, so matter is composed of electrons, neutrons and protons

2.) Those are composed of even smaller particles as proven by the link you showed me

3.) Than what are those even smaller particles made up of?

What are you getting wrong? Well for starters...

1. Not everything is composed of atoms. Light for example, is not an atom. If it were, we'd be fucking dead.

Okay, so I was reading about light earlier and its composed of photons which are massless and have no electrical charge...Now, what are they composed of than? I was unable to find the answer to that...

It's rather telling that you say that because just earlier you were berating me because you said gravity fields would still be in a vacuum, and unless you think gravity is an atom, then you're contradicting yourself...

Ah, good point, like I said I'm nowhere near a physics expert...

2. The "composed of electrical charges" bit is also wrong. They are composed of even smaller particles. (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/public/lab-info/quark.html)


However, this doesn't quite exactly prove my whole theory incorrect...

I (along with the philosophical/scientific community) believe that nothing is not a real thing, simply a concept to comprehend the complexity of life to a fuller extent.

Because nothing does not exist. Everything is attached indefinitely and influences everything else through gravity. Everything is interconnected within one massive system. I am also starting to question the existence of light due to Zeno's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#The_dichotomy_paradox)When you take into account what Zeno came up with my concept of pantheism makes sense. We cannot actually move because we are just one massive thing, our senses are merely delusions which were created to keep the perception of individuality in tact when in reality we can only derive understanding from our minds, not the world around us.



If everything is connected and there is no boundary, because there is no "nothing", no void exists (as proven by science)...

Then wouldn't that make everything one thing?

Then wouldn't that make everything one thing?

A key of a keyboard is not a keyboard.

A key of a keyboard is not a keyboard.

Is the keyboard complete without the key?

Is the keyboard complete without the key?
No. :)

Look, in the philosophical world it is accepted that "nothing" does not exist.

That's not an argument. That's a reiteration of the same unsubstantiated claim you've made. A pretty fucking ridiculous claim since if the "philosophical world" teaches us anything it's that there are a shitload of different views - even to the point of not believing in the deductive logic and rules of inference we hold so dear - so as to make any claim that there is some all-encompassing consensus quite laughable.

But when you just say something iswrong and don't bother to prove it wrong, you sound like an idiot who clearly realizes that he has been proved wrong.

1. Didn't say it was wrong. You are putting words in my mouth... while calling me an idiot. Brilliant.

2. I wouldn't look like an idiot; I would look like someone who actually knows that the burden of proof is on the person who made the initial claim... which is you.


Sounds like I was correct.......


Correct about what? That only shows two things:

1. That there are gravity fields within the vacuum, something I said.

2. That it IS theoretically possible for region without those fields to exist. "practically impossible" does not equal "impossible"; it's a statement deliberately made to allow possibility (hence why the modifier "practically" was added) while at the same time implying difficulty.



1.) Okay, so matter is composed of electrons, neutrons and protons

2.) Those are composed of even smaller particles as proven by the link you showed me

3.) Than what are those even smaller particles made up of?


As far as we know, nothing else. They are, as of the evidence we have now, the most basic part of matter.



Okay, so I was reading about light earlier and its composed of photons which are massless and have no electrical charge...Now, what are they composed of than? I was unable to find the answer to that...

You are unable to find an answer because they are called an elementary particle for a reason: there is no evidence to suggest that they are made up of anything else. That's the end of the road in terms of light: photons.


I (along with the philosophical/scientific community) believe that nothing is not a real thing, simply a concept to comprehend the complexity of life to a fuller extent.

As if you had any fucking clue what the philosophical/scientific community believed. Sorry, but when you're so wrong in the Scientific claims you've made - see above - you sort of lose any right to claim authority regarding what the "scientific community" believes...


Because nothing does not exist. Everything is attached indefinitely and influences everything else through gravity. Everything is interconnected within one massive system. I am also starting to question the existence of light due to Zeno's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#The_dichotomy_paradox)When you take into account what Zeno came up with my concept of pantheism makes sense. We cannot actually move because we are just one massive thing, our senses are merely delusions which were created to keep the perception of individuality in tact when in reality we can only derive understanding from our minds, not the world around us.

If everything is connected and there is no boundary, because there is no "nothing", no void exists (as proven by science)...

Then wouldn't that make everything one thing?

You're rambling now.

1. How does Zeno and his paradoxes - which have been resolved by Math at least in term of movement - make you question the existence of light?

2. You say we cannot move yet immediately after wards you say we create, and have senses... Please, by all means, explain to us how we're able to create and have senses... without anything moving.

3. Again, even if we follow this faulty logic of yours you have still yet to show us how this "idea" of yours is at all important. How is it any different than me saying "God is a pizza, there is a pizza right here, therefore god exists"? You are defining "being", "nothing", and "one" as will to fit your needs and have given us nothing save from some useless "fact" in return. Wonderful.

At least my god tastes pretty fucking awesome.

On the subject of 'nothing' I can't understand how anyone can question the position the OP has taken and still claim an ounce of logic. It's something that has been known for a very long time but as far as I know Parmenides, from ancient Greece, was the earliest known exponent.
Parmenides explains, "The other, namely, that It is not, and that it must needs not be, — that, I tell thee, is a path that none can learn of at all. For thou canst not know what is not — that is impossible — nor utter it" (4, 5). His point is that one cannot conceive of what is not, since one can neither think nor speak about nothing. Nothing cannot be, therefore, since it cannot be conceived, and only what can be conceived can be. He then adds apparently what he considers another necessary or self-evident truth: "For it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be" (4, 5). In other words, he espouses the rationalist dictum that thought and Being are identical, from which it follows that, if one cannot think or speak about nothing, then nothing cannot be, in which case it is impossible to hold that something is not and that nothing is. Since one can think about Reality ("It is"), it follows that Reality must be, and, if it is, it cannot not be. Conversely, since it cannot be thought of, nothing cannot exist.


http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Parmenides.htm

Mr Kitty, here's some more, hope you're ok with the copy pasta?

Parmenides1 [Tr.]
Come now and I will tell you – and you must spread my account when you have heard it – the only roads of enquiry to be thought of: the one of ‘is’, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the path of Conviction (for Truth is her companion); the other of ‘is not’, and that it needs not be – that, I tell you, is a path that is altogether indiscernible. For you could not know or utter what is not (for that is impossible).

Parmenides2 [Tr.]
It is necessarily the case that saying and thinking are the reality. For being is and nothing is not. I bid you keep this in mind.

Parmenides3 [Tr.]
For surely this shall never be proved, that things which are not are. Restrain your thought from this way of enquiry.

Parmenides4 [Tr.]
Thinking and the thought of that which is are the same thing. For you cannot find thought without something that is, in respect of which it is uttered.

Parmenides5 [Tr.]
It [i.e. the path] never was, nor will be, for it is now whole, one and continuous. For what kind of origin will you seek for it? How and from what source could it have grown? I shall not let you say or think from what is not. For what is not can be neither uttered nor thought. And what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner if it began from nothing? Therefore it must either be completely or not at all. Nor will the force of argument allow anything else to come to be ever from what is not. Therefore Justice has never loosened her fetters to allow anything to come to be or pass away, but holds it fast. Our judgement concerning these things lies in this: it is or it is not. And it has been judged, as is necessary, to set aside the one [path] as unthought and unnamed (for it is no true path), and to take the other which is real and true. And how could what is be in the future? And how might it have come into being? For if it came into being it is not; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and passing away unheard of.[3]
8.1. The argument, then, is sublime in its simplicity: only being is, since nonbeing cannot be. Being is therefore one: the collateral existence of nonbeing would have meant two, from which an infinitude of divisions would then have arisen. Now, since it is the same thing that can be thought and can be, any thought of that which is not will be impossible. For a thought of that which is not will be a thought of nothing, and hence not a thought at all. It follows, moreover, that sameness and difference can have no meaning, since it requires at least two for this to be possible, and that both time and change are illusory, since only ‘is’ is.


For mine the above is in substantial agreement with your position, for me it's a liberating realisation, there can't be nothing, so there can't be any gaps between anything,therefore all must be connected and thus is essentially 'one' thing. One infinite thing as there could not be anything apart from it for what would seperate? Infinite, therefore, beyond description, it is above and below, within and without.

On the subject of 'nothing' I can't understand how anyone can question the position the OP has taken and still claim an ounce of logic. It's something that has been known for a very long time but as far as I know Parmenides, from ancient Greece, was the earliest known exponent.


If you cannot understand that, then that explains a whole lot.

Questioning is far more reasonable than blindly following what he said because he quoted a latin phrase he didn't even know the actual meaning of.

If you're talking about logic, then surely you see how ridiculous his train of reasoning ("Latin phrase says X, therefore X must be true") - which is what I had the most problem with - was.

If you cannot understand that, then that explains a whole lot.

Questioning is far more reasonable than blindly following what he said because he quoted a latin phrase he didn't even know the actual meaning of.

Why do you keep acting as if I don't know the literal meaning of a phrase because I looked at it's underlining principle?

If you're talking about logic, then surely you see how ridiculous his train of reasoning ("Latin phrase says X, therefore X must be true") - which is what I had the most problem with - was.


NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

I made the ill assumption that the people on this forum are educated in philosophy (such as redzed who understands just fine) therefore I simply stated the latin phrase to remind such educated people of the principle of nothing.

I wasn't trying to prove to you nothing doesn't exist from the start. I made the poor assumption you were educated enough to know that already

Look, if I'm wrong about that than prove me wrong , because I have never seen anything anywhere that can substantially prove the concept of "no-thing" correct.

HOWEVER!!!! I have seen (as redzed and I both posted) substantial accepted proof that "no-thing" is merely a misrepresentation of the human perception.

If you don't want to accept evidence that "nothing" isn't real than fine, but you look ridiculous when you just keep telling me that it's wrong to make that claim and provide no evidence to disprove me.

So pretty much its your word against all the evidence (parmenides) I and redzed provided.

Correct about what? That only shows two things:

1. That there are gravity fields within the vacuum, something I said.

I thought that I agreed with you after you made the point??

2. That it IS theoretically possible for region without those fields to exist. "practically impossible" does not equal "impossible"; it's a statement deliberately made to allow possibility (hence why the modifier "practically" was added) while at the same time implying difficulty.

The reason they say "practically impossible" is because it's still a theory and therefore currently impossible. They're simply leaving it slightly open because no one can no for certain because our logic only takes us so far.

However, based on our logic we can assume for all intensive purposes, that nothing does not exist. That's their point. That's whats they believe.

As far as we know, nothing else. They are, as of the evidence we have now, the most basic part of matter.

You are unable to find an answer because they are called an elementary particle for a reason: there is no evidence to suggest that they are made up of anything else. That's the end of the road in terms of light: photons.

So we have small particles and photons and nothing else. Everything is made up two things interconnected through unseen forces...However, there must be something that makes up photons and those other small particles....


As if you had any fucking clue what the philosophical/scientific community believed. Sorry, but when you're so wrong in the Scientific claims you've made - see above - you sort of lose any right to claim authority regarding what the "scientific community" believes...

I was correct about the opinion of "nothingness" in the scientific community. If I'm not correct that than show me a link of a legitimate study that can prove nothing exists.

I have found plenty that prove the contrary and you have ignored all of them.



1. How does Zeno and his paradoxes - which have been resolved by Math at least in term of movement

"That is, while calculus tells us where and when Achilles will overtake the Tortoise, philosophers do not see how calculus takes anything away from Zeno's reasoning that concludes that this event cannot take place in the first place"

They never actually fully resolved the paradox...However, I assume you have understand the concept of "things-in-themselves" and how it is merely another misrepresentation of the senses.........

Anyway, if there are no things in themselves (I'm not explaining this to you, if you're not familiar with this principle go look it up) therefore "photons" aren't merely photons and our perceptions of the world can never truly be labeled as something. Therefore how can "light" be light when light is photons and how can photons be photons if there are no "things in themselves"...Perhaps there are no things
but maybe just thing ????

2. You say we cannot move yet immediately after wards you say we create, and have senses... Please, by all means, explain to us how we're able to create and have senses... without anything moving.

I will use the same argument that Zeno does. Delusion of Senses. Also do you need movement for thought? I don't think so, ideas and concepts are not tangible, space filling things. I think...

3. Again, even if we follow this correct logic of yours you have still yet to show us how this "idea" of yours is at all important. How is it any different than me saying "God is a pizza, there is a pizza right here, therefore god exists"? You are defining "being", "nothing", and "one" as will to fit your needs and have given us nothing save from some useless "fact" in return. Wonderful.

At least my god tastes pretty fucking awesome.

I go on preconceived ideas of those words, you apply them more to a concrete world while I use them more in the abstract platonic sense, the whole reason we're probably having this disagreement is due to my failure to define my words before I used them.

Look if there can only be things and not "no things" as well as no actual things in themselves, than what do we have? Maybe just one giant thing? I simply tried to give you my opinion. My basis for logic and reason was more philosophical, not scientific, I think that may be why you don't understand what I'm saying exactly. But whatever, I'm sure your solution is infallible :rolleyes:

Why do you keep acting as if I don't know the literal meaning of a phrase because I looked at it's underlining principle?

Because you didn't "look at it's underlining principle" because the phrase does not mean "nothing cannot exist", which is what you said it meant.


I made the ill assumption that the people on this forum are educated in philosophy (such as redzed who understands just fine) therefore I simply stated the latin phrase to remind such educated people of the principle of nothing.

No, that's what you're claiming now.

You said: "Science and philosophy tells us (if I'm not mistaken) that "nothing" cannot exist (ex nihilo nihil)".

The only reason to include that phrase is as a way to confirm what you just sayd (i.e. to confirm that "Science and philosophy). Which is essentially what I said. When you say "Science and philosophy tell us" that's you saying "X is true".


I wasn't trying to prove to you nothing doesn't exist from the start. .

Exactly, that's the whole problem! You have to! That's your job.

Saying "I assumed you knew that already" is a childish response made by someone who wants to avoid their burden of proof. Sorry but it's not my job to substantiate (or unsubstantiate) what you've said. That's your job.

P.S. Please, spare me the bullshit about "people on this forum [not being] educated in philosophy" when it's blatantly obvious you're just desperately searching Wikipedia to try and keep up, and when you didn't even now basic facts about Physics. It's pathetic.

Quote:
"I wasn't trying to prove to you nothing doesn't exist from the start. ."

Exactly, that's the whole problem! You have to! That's your job.

Mindblowing! Sounds like ... nitpicking, or inflation? Making a mountain out of a molehill! Can't argue there is a 'nothing' in existence so, demand evidence 'nothing does not exist'? Fair go! Is it not obvious 'nothing' cannot exist? What proof is required of this?

Mr Kitty, here's a relevant quote from the Hua Hua Ching -- believed to have been written by LaoTzu
Can you dissolve your ego? Can you abandon the idea of self and other? Can you relinquish the notions of male and female, short and long, life and death? Can you let go of all these dualities and embrace the Tao without skepticism or panic? If so, you can reach the heart of the Integral Oneness. Along the way, avoid thinking of the Oneness as unusual, exalted, sublime, transcendental. Because it is the Oneness, it is beyond all that. It is simply the direct, essential, and complete truth.

I thought that I agreed with you after you made the point??

I thought so too. I'm pointing out how I said it first thus you saying "Sounds like I was correct......." to something I said is pretty fucking silly.


The reason they say "practically impossible" is because it's still a theory and therefore currently impossible. They're simply leaving it slightly open because no one can no for certain because our logic only takes us so far.


So in other words, it could be that nothing exists? Excellent. Thus, your claim: "Science and philosophy tells us (if I'm not mistaken) that "nothing" cannot exist" is false since what Science actually tells us, according to your own source, is "Nothing could exist".

So we have small particles and photons and nothing else. Everything is made up two things interconnected through unseen forces...However, there must be something that makes up photons and those other small particles....


1. Two things? There are more than two "Small particles" - I'm assuming you mean elementary particles. Thus not everything has to be made up of "two things" and definitely not made up of "the same thing" as you erroneously said.

2. Who said there must be something that makes up photons and other "small particles"?

I was correct about the opinion of "nothingness" in the scientific community. If I'm not correct that than show me a link of a legitimate study that can prove nothing exists.

1. Again learn about the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you, not me. It's not up to me to disprove things when you haven't substantiated them in the first place. Saying "I thought you knew" isn't an argument, it's a cop-out.

2. You were not correct and you yourself already provided the link. Your own source says that "Nothing" could exist.



They never actually fully resolved the paradox...However, I assume you have understand the concept of "things-in-themselves" and how it is merely another misrepresentation of the senses.........

This is a very nice example of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Had you actually bothered reading the thing instead of just quickly glancing at things you think support your ridiculous views you would have seen the author doesn't buy into your ridiculous conclusion. He in fact contradicts it:

"The theory of special relativity answers Zeno's concern over the lack of an instantaneous difference between a moving and a non-moving arrow by positing a fundamental re-structuring the basic way in which space and time fit together, such that there really is an instantaneous difference between a moving and a non-moving object, insofar as it makes sense to speak of "an instant" of a physical system with mutually moving elements. Objects in relative motion have different planes of simultaneity, with all the familiar relativistic consequences, so not only does a moving object look different to the world, but the world looks different to a moving object.


This resolution of the paradox of motion presumably never occurred to Zeno, but it's no exaggeration to say that special relativity vindicates Zeno's skepticism and physical intuition about the nature of motion. He was correct that instantaneous velocity in the context of absolute space and absolute time does not correspond to physical reality, and probably doesn't even make sense. From Zeno's point of view, the classical concept of absolute time was not logically sound, and special relativity (or something like it) is a logical necessity, not just an empirical fact. It's even been suggested that if people had taken Zeno's paradoxes more seriously they might have arrived at something like special relativity centuries ago, just on logical grounds.


...


In all four of Zeno's arguments on motion, the implicit point is that if space and time are independent, then logical inconsistencies arise regardless of whether the physical world is continuous or discrete. All of those inconsistencies can be traced to the implication that, if any motion is possible, then the range of conceivable relative velocities must be unbounded, corresponding to Minkowski's "unintelligible" G¥.

What is the alternative? Zeno considers the premise that the range of possible relative velocities is bounded, i.e., there is some maximum achievable (conceivable) relative velocity, and he associates this possibility with the idea that space and time are not infinitely divisible. (It presumably didn't occur to him that another way of achieving this is to assume space and time are not independent.)
"


If you actually read the text, you'd see the author is saying that Zeno was correct in as far as that the old conception of space, time and motion were not correct and would lead to contradictions. He does not say that we cannot currently answer those paradoxes.



Anyway, if there are no things in themselves (I'm not explaining this to you, if you're not familiar with this principle go look it up) therefore "photons" aren't merely photons and our perceptions of the world can never truly be labeled as something. Therefore how can "light" be light when light is photons and how can photons be photons if there are no "things in themselves"...Perhaps there are no things
but maybe just thing ????

You said it yourself. IF there are no things in themselves. Zeno doesn't prove that there aren't.



I will use the same argument that Zeno does. Delusion of Senses. Also do you need movement for thought? I don't think so, ideas and concepts are not tangible, space filling things. I think...

This explains absolutely nothing. The point is you're contradicting yourself by saying there is no movement while at the same time proposing things that require it (unless of course you can prove that creation and thought do not require movement.






Look if there can only be things and not "no things" as well as no actual things in themselves, than what do we have? Maybe just one giant thing? I simply tried to give you my opinion. My basis for logic and reason was more philosophical, not scientific, I think that may be why you don't understand what I'm saying exactly. But whatever, I'm sure your solution is infallible :rolleyes:

So in other words you cannot show how your idea is more important or meaningful that me redefining "god" to suit my needs? Excellent.

Also, please stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say my "solution" is infallible. Stop acting like a child.

... part of metaphysics moves, consciously or not, around the question of why anything exists - why matter, or spirit, or God, rather than nothing at all? But the question presupposes that reality fills a void, that underneath Being lies nothingness, that de jure there should be nothing, that we must therefore explain why there is de facto something. Henry Bergson

There is still a single story of a way. Along this way there are signs exceedingly many, that being is uncreated, and also imperishable, whole unique, immovable, and complete. Nothing was not once nor will it ever be, since being is now altogether. Parmenides

Liberating .... to realise the universe need have no cause .... other than the impossibility of there being nothing, so there must be something. That something is one thing, as in - totally connected! There cannot be any gaps or 'nothing' to seperate us from each and all.

Mindblowing! Sounds like ... nitpicking, or inflation? Making a mountain out of a molehill! Can't argue there is a 'nothing' in existence so, demand evidence 'nothing does not exist'? Fair go! Is it not obvious 'nothing' cannot exist? What proof is required of this?

My argument doesn't rest on "nothing" existing or not existing. It rests on his inability to prove most of anything he has said. His inability to show that everything is made up the same thing, his inability to show any importance to his "idea", his inability to understand basic fundamentals of physics, his erroneous claims about Zeno... and yes, his inability to definitely show - while having definitively claimed - that "nothing cannot exist" . The existence or non-existence of "nothing" is merely one of those things I've mentioned.

You dishonestly focusing on that one aspect and ignoring the rest while you try to lecture me about "nitpicking or inflation" is rather hilarious.

.

You dishonestly focusing on that one aspect and ignoring the rest while you try to lecture me about "nitpicking or inflation" is rather hilarious.

It sounds like nitpicking Rust cause you are demanding he prove something which needs no proof!

Ahh yes, we all know how much philosophers love the argument "I don't need to prove this because I deem it obvious". What a brilliant display of philosophical prowesss right there!

Oh, and of course let's not forget the brilliant display of ignoring the fact that this was a small part of my overall point, and that in my argument I even assumed he was correct in this instance (i.e. I assumed nothing couldn't exist) and still presented points against his "idea".

Ahh yes, we all know how much philosophers love the argument "I don't need to prove this because I deem it obvious". What a brilliant display of philosophical prowesss right there

Thats no more than a distraction Rust, you did nitpick on an obvious point, it's ok if you want to argue the point, but why be such an ass about it?

1. You saying it's an "obivious point" is not going to make it so. "I deem X obvious therefore I don't have to substantiate X" is not a valid argument, it's a dishonest tactic. I could understand full well if you or the OP thought nobody would question this point and were surprised when someone did - that's perfectly reasonable - however to continously fail to provide any proof, to continously berate me for asking for it, and to continously use circular arguments ("It's true because it's obvious that it's true") to maintain what you're saying is true, now that is being an "ass" about things.

2. Sorry but your lecture about being an ass doesn't hold any weight when you apparnetly don't see any problem with the OP being an ass (e.g. "I made the ill assumption that the people on this forum are educated in philosophy (such as redzed who understands just fine) therefore I simply stated the latin phrase to remind such educated people of the principle of nothing. ") when it agrees with your beliefs - or when it praises you in the process, so please spare me the bullshit. If you don't see any problem with the OP using logical fallacies left and right, then I don't see why I should hold my tongue. I prefer rude truth to polite falsehood. It seems you prefer the oppossite.

--


Besides, can't I just propose that assholes have a different brain than non-assholes (They are jackass dominant) and thus that I shouldn't be faulted for what I have no/little control over? :D

Besides, can't I just propose that assholes have a different brain than non-assholes (They are jackass dominant) and thus that I shouldn't be faulted for what I have no/little control over? :D

LOL:D That is genuinely funny! I see your point;), don't completely agree, but I respect your right to it and appreciate the humour.

RUST


Rather than go back and refute each individual thing you said in a game of "you said but I meant" all over again, which would do nothing in my hopes of obtaining some sort of understanding in regards to this discussion we're having, I would rather take this into some sort of general direction. So, lets start at a new point. I read everything you said but I feel by responding I'm just perpetuating this argument of "intentions" which really isn't getting us anywhere...I'd rather learn something than attempt to prove you wrong...


Things we agree on (I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong):

1.) Nothing does not exist

2.) There are no things in themselves (In other words everything is made up of some underlining substance)

3.) Everything is flux (I assume you would agree with me on this based on what you posted on Zeno) To make sure we're on the same page with that let me ask you: Wasn't the author's point Zeno misconstrued reality of space and time by assuming things are stagnant, when in reality, everything is in constant change and movement? Zeno did prove the past conception of space and time wrong with his logic, but when applied to the new ideas of space and time, his argument falters because we know accept things are in constant movement, correct?

And it may take me a little while to get back to you because I'm moving into my dorm tomorrow and what not so I'm going to be rather busy.

Sorry but it seems rather dishonest for you to get to completely ignore the instances where you were wrong. Although you might not want to admit it: you were wrong. You were wrong in your claim regarding Zeno, for example. You were wrong in your claim regarding what Science says of nothing, as well.

Now, that that (i.e. you not getting away with glossing over the fact that you were wrong) is over, I'll answer your questions:


1. I don't know if nothing does in fact exist or not. I have not seen any compelling argument in either direction. Not one that you have provided, that's for sure. It's a question many philosophers don't think we can even answer given how our language rules our thoughts and how biased it may be against the idea of "nothing".

2. I don't agree with that. First of all, I believe you're using "things in themselves" to mean something different from what it is usually seen as meaning in philosophy. Second of all you don't explain what you mean by "made up of some underlining substance". What do you think elementary particles are made up of?

3. Nope. The article pretty much rules that out by accepting relativity which posits that whether something is in motion is relative to the observer to begin with. Thus, we can find a point of reference for which not all things are in motion.

Sorry but it seems rather dishonest for you to get to completely ignore the instances where you were wrong. Although you might not want to admit it: you were wrong. You were wrong in your claim regarding Zeno, for example. You were wrong in your claim regarding what Science says of nothing, as well.

Now, that that (i.e. you not getting away with glossing over the fact that you were wrong) is over, I'll answer your questions:

I'm coming back to them, I just wanted to get rid of all the pointless argument that we've been having, but don't worry I'll come back to them...However, we have to establish some basic conceptions of the universe before we go any further...


1. I don't know if nothing does in fact exist or not. I have not seen any compelling argument in either direction. Not one that you have provided, that's for sure. It's a question many philosophers don't think we can even answer given how our language rules our thoughts and how biased it may be against the idea of "nothing".

Okay, well then shall I try to convince you?

The definition of nothing: No thing; not anything: "The box contained nothing. I've heard nothing about it."

So than if by definition "nothing", means "no-thing" than how can a "no-thing", be a thing? When it precisely says in it's definition that it is not a thing?

Or better phrased: How can something that by definition does not exist, exist? Obviously it can't. Thus, "nothing" is only a mere human misrepresentation of the world.

If that doesn't supply you with sufficient reasoning let us use analytic statements...

Now there are two views, one claiming nothing exists and one claiming it does not (indecision does not qualify for this)

Let's apply the two views in analytic statements:

View 1: "Nothing exists"

This view we know is wrong because it is self-contradictory. It basically says "no-thing is a thing", not possible.

View 2: "Nothing does not exist"

This view we know is correct because it follows the logic behind the word "nothing", which we know means "no-thing", no-thing is not a thing, this makes perfect sense.

The idea that "nothing" does not exist is considered to be one the basic principles of philosophy that is actually accepted as truth, I don't know how much more clear I can make that. I have never heard of any philosopher accepting that "nothing" is actually a real thing or place...

It's okay to agree with me, the object of this isn't to be infallible, no one's perfect, the object is to obtain some form of higher understanding (at least for me)...


2. I don't agree with that. First of all, I believe you're using "things in themselves" to mean something different from what it is usually seen as meaning in philosophy.

Definition: Thing in itself - Things in themselves (ding an sich in German) are the ultimate constituents of reality. However, we can never perceive things in themselves directly. We only perceive their appearances with our senses and mental faculties. Nonetheless, we can infer these appearances have a cause, and we can infer that things in themselves are this cause even though we can know nothing about them.

Just to clarify, when I said things in themselves don't exist, the "things" to which I was referring to were things that we can perceive.


Second of all you don't explain what you mean by "made up of some underlining substance". What do you think elementary particles are made up of?

The above definition is also accepted as a philosophical "truth" and from it's meaning we can conclude that elementary particles are nothing more than a misinterpretation of "true substance", which we believe is impossible to fully comprehend.

However, for pragmatic reasons science still adheres to concepts such as "elementary particles"

3. Nope. The article pretty much rules that out by accepting relativity which posits that whether something is in motion is relative to the observer to begin with. Thus, we can find a point of reference for which not all things are in motion.

Before I disagree, I'll provide you with my definitions of "movement" and "change"to prevent confusion...

Example: I am sitting as still as humanely possible on a chair right now, no movement can be detected. However, I am still moving in terms of my inner functions. My cells are in constant movement, growing, destroying, being deystroyed, working. Although myself as the whole appears to be stagnant, my composition is in complete flux. Like my body, every other perceivable and known object works in exactly the same manner.

Everything known has forces acting on it and as time goes on the "thing" changes. Everything is flux.

Do you agree with that or no?

1. I don't know if nothing does in fact exist or not. I have not seen any compelling argument in either direction. Not one that you have provided, that's for sure. It's a question many philosophers don't think we can even answer given how our language rules our thoughts and how biased it may be against the idea of "nothing".

"Thou canst not recognize not-being (for this is impossible), nor couldst thou speak of it, for thought and being are the same thing."
Parmenides

Thought experiments:
If someone says, how did something come from nothing? what are they really asking about? Most of us think we know what somethingness is, but what exactly is nothing? Let's find out. Imagine you are transported all the way back to the beginning of time. Imagine standing at the very precipice of the birth of the whole multiverse. Imagine a cliff and out beyond the edge of the cliff there is nothing at all. So you put your hand out to the surface and touch the originating moment. Now push through it. Reach beyond. What is it like? Any words come to mind? Is it frightening, or menacing? Is it vibrant with all the potential of being? Is it thick or dark, warm or cold? Is it as simple as simple can be. Of course if you describe something, or feel anything, you haven’t gone enough beyond the origin of existing things. So try one more time. Let your mind drift beyond the edge of time, beyond all descriptions, beyond all senses. And yes there it isn’t, just beyond the edge of rational thought itself, hidden there in a blackness darker than black, a quiet beyond silence, a stillness beyond rest. Oh my, there “isn’t” the absolute void.

Are you still here! You didn't disappear? And you didn't get sucked in? But did you feel it? Did you at least sense it? “NO!” What do you mean “NO”! We were right there! How could that be? I wonder what went wrong. You must not have a very good imagination! No wait, maybe you do, maybe that is the problem. Maybe your imagination is getting in the way because what we are trying to imagine isn't cold or dark, or a void or an abyss, it isn’t quiet or simple, and it’s hardly anything to be afraid of, because it doesn't exist. Maybe this nothing is unimaginable because there is nothing to imagine. Indeed if you came up with any sense of what is beyond the cliff, then you sort of missed the point.

http://everythingforever.com/ywexist.htm

....... suppose that nothing should have ever existed at all. If so, that "Nothing exists" would be true. Thus the proposition "Nothing exists" denies the very class of things that it itself denies. If "Nothing exists" is true, then we must admit that a truth exists. If a truth exists, that "Nothing exists" is false. Again, it is a universal denial that falls into the class of things that it itself denies. Certainly a universal denial so universal as to deny the existence of everything, with any level of ontology, denies its own truth and existence as such, and so has become absurd. This of course does not mean that it is necessary that matter, the phenomenal world, and life must exist. But whether there is a God or not, whether there is a material world or not, whether there is consciousness or not, that something exists, must be true. For nothing to exist, it could not even be true that nothing exists, since in such a world not even a truth can exist; and if it is true that nothing exists, then it follows that something must exist. Thus it is impossible that nothing should have ever existed, and at no time in history has there been a state when nothing at all existed. Necessary truths are truths that cannot at any time, anywhere, be false; and thus something has forever existed, and there will always be something that exists.
http://www.angelhaunt.net/ontologyetc/impossible.htm

I'm coming back to them, I just wanted to get rid of all the pointless argument that we've been having, but don't worry I'll come back to them...However, we have to establish some basic conceptions of the universe before we go any further...

That's the problem right there: It's not pointless because your argument hinged one way or another on those very things you were wrong about!


Okay, well then shall I try to convince you? "I define 'nothing' as something that doesn't exist, ergo it doesn't exist"? That's your argument? Amazing! I don't doubt your ability to build an argument around definitions you've hand picked. This is the equivalent of me defining god at will and saying I've proven god exists because I've defined as a pizza, and this pizza right here exists.

Sorry but this is not really convincing. Especially not when you use phrases like "The box contained nothing" when doesn't even help your case; either the box really contained nothing, in which case you're wrong, or it didn't, in which case the complex language surrounding the word "nothing" - a language you're completely squashing by fixating on definitions that you think prove your point - is readily apparent.


Definition: Thing in itself - Things in themselves (ding an sich in German) are the ultimate constituents of reality. However, we can never perceive things in themselves directly. We only perceive their appearances with our senses and mental faculties. Nonetheless, we can infer these appearances have a cause, and we can infer that things in themselves are this cause even though we can know nothing about them.

Just to clarify, when I said things in themselves don't exist, the "things" to which I was referring to were things that we can perceive. Thank you for providing the definition. That very definition is exactly what you weren't using when you implied that "There are no things in themselves" was the equivalent of "everything is made up of some underlining substance". "Everything is made up of some underlining substance" is not the same as "there are no things in themselves".


The above definition is also accepted as a philosophical "truth" and from it's meaning we can conclude that elementary particles are nothing more than a misinterpretation of "true substance", which we believe is impossible to fully comprehend.

However, for pragmatic reasons science still adheres to concepts such as
"elementary particles"Again, you arbitrarily claiming this is a "philosophical truth" isn't going to make it true, and it sure as hell isn't going to convince any reasonable person; circular logic rarely does.

You also didn't really answer the question. You gave the equivalent of "I don't know... but I know it's something".


Example: I am sitting as still as humanely possible on a chair right now, no movement can be detected. However, I am still moving in terms of my inner functions. My cells are in constant movement, growing, destroying, being deystroyed, working. Although myself as the whole appears to be stagnant, my composition is in complete flux. Like my body, every other perceivable and known object works in exactly the same manner.

Everything known has forces acting on it and as time goes on the "thing" changes. Everything is flux.

Do you agree with that or no?No, I don't agree and for the same reason I gave before. You just changed the point of reference to the cellular level and decided things were still in motion... Except the same point applies at the cellular level! Any motion depends on the observer, and we can fix a point of reference there where movement is relative just as it is in a higher up level when you're sitting perfectly still.

This is once again an example of you mangling up concepts. "Something having forces acting on it" does not mean "motion".

---

In the end you haven't even explained why it's necessary or important that we agree on these three points, much less provide a convincing argument regarding them.

Redzed: Please read the last sentence of my statement:

It's a question many philosophers don't think we can even answer given how our language rules our thoughts and how biased it may be against the idea of "nothing".

Your quotes are extremely good examples of this. Not to mention that the last quote speaks of another "nothing" all together (i.e. "nothing existing" in the sense of "there is nothing" or "there is absolutely no existence of anything in the whole universe" or to quote your own quote, which you should be reading in the fucking first place, "a universal denial so universal as to deny the existence of everything"- neither of which is what we're speaking of here).

P.S. Not being able to "recognize not-being" and not being able to "speak of it" does not mean that it cannot exist. That's if we agree with Parmenides in the first place...

I don't want to argue with you anymore...I feel like a teacher talking to a reluctant student...This doesn't help me in any way...........


UHHHHHHHHH.....If I need to talk to ignorant people I can go talk to some homeless people or something

Oh, please spare me the bullshit. Someone who's been trolling Wikipedia for "philosophical truth" and then failing miserably at it - to the point of using a source that utterly refuted his point regarding a paradox because he thought it "helped" him - has no room to call anyone else "ignorant".

I'm reluctant it's because I don't like agreeing with things that are wrong or not convincing. Don't fault me for being skeptical, fault yourself for falling too quickly into bullshit. Not that it matters in any case because you never even once showed the importance of "teaching" me any of those three points. At no point in time do we know what the hell you were trying to do. I have no problem agreeing, for the sake of argument, that some of those are true (e.g. "nothing cannot exist") to carry out the discussion further, if I know what you were trying to do in the first place. I don't. For all I know this was your idea: try to get me to agree with three silly things and when I don't insult me.

P.S. I love how you attack other people for not being knowledgeable of philosophy - as if you were - and then you end your high and might philosophical discourse by insulting other people and leaving like a little child. Funny shit! :D

I don't want to argue with you anymore...I feel like a teacher talking to a reluctant student...This doesn't help me in any way...........


UHHHHHHHHH.....If I need to talk to ignorant people I can go talk to some homeless people or something

Tried to warn you.

Another potentially interesting thread becomes back and forth bickering.
Mr.Kitty55 if you want to explore your ideas and their implications then I don't recommend paying any attention to rust.


Edit: Although I'm not sure what you have against homeless people.

Tried to warn you.

Nice contributions to the thread! I especially like the part where you ignore all the "bickering" he did just because he happens to agree with some of your ridiculous beliefs.

P.S. I love how you attack other people for not being knowledgeable of philosophy - as if you were - and then you end your high and might philosophical discourse by insulting other people and leaving like a little child. Funny shit! :D

Look, philosophy has to be built off something.

How can you explain to someone math if they don't believe 2 + 2 =4?

You can't.

I can't explain my philosophical ideas if you don't accept BASIC WELL KNOWN philosophical principles, because if you haven't noticed, everything is built off another thing. So please, spare ME the bullshit and don't even bother replying and leave this thread so something intelligent can form free of your ignorance and reluctance to be proven wrong.

Look, philosophy has to be built off something.

How can you explain to someone math if they don't believe 2 + 2 =4?

You can't.

I can't explain my philosophical ideas if you don't accept BASIC WELL KNOWN philosophical principles, because if you haven't noticed, everything is built off another thing. So please, spare ME the bullshit and don't even bother replying and leave this thread so something intelligent can form free of your ignorance and reluctance to be proven wrong.

1. Mathematics and the philosophy we're discussing here are not comparable.

Mathematics is a system we've defined. 2+2=4 because we've defined 2, 4 and the operator + in such a way that 2+2= must invariably equal 4. This is tantamount to defining a game like poker or blackjack - those are the rules we've set, and everything else in the realm of blackjack (e.g. winning, losing, betting, cheating, etc.) falls from those rules. That is not the case with general philosophy.

There is no magical truth that cannot be questioned in philosophy. There are only arguments. I challenge you to find any philosophical text from a philosophical authority that unequivocally says that those points are true, without question. I believe you wont find any. You will find arguments from people who've thought about the issue and have given their take on it. Sometimes many people happen to agree with them. Sometimes many people disagree. But to claim that there is some absolute truth in this philosophy is naive, and to do so without first providing any shred of evidence for the claim is utterly dishonest and absurd. Once again, just because you deem it a "well known philosophical principle - which in itself doesn't mean it's true or false - doesn't make it so.


2. You conveniently fail to address - which shows how you're not really interested in having the discussion in the first place - that I already said I was willing to agree to some of those points for the sake of argument, if I knew what the point of you conveniently wanting to evade admitting you were wrong on the multiple claims you made before, was. That you are so reluctant to do so seems to indicate that what you really want is disagreement, so that you can throw this hissy fit you're throwing now and belittle me like a child, while your dishonest cheerleaders cheer you on.

It's frustrating! Attempting effective communication via the written word. IMHO this conversation is worthwhile so ... Rust, yes Parmenides and others talk of another type of "nothing" and thus give a type of definition, or existence, to nothing. Context is the determinant, when we speak of nothing in the fridge, it's rare there actually is. However to posit an 'absolute' no-thing is entirely a different and I thought obvious thing. Not so it seems, apologies? Once again I can't see your face or hear your tone.

Perhaps Shantideva can shed some light on the point I'm attempting to illustrate. I believe this to be a crux to understanding. If in fact there is something rather than nothing, for no other reason than -- there can't be 'no-thing', that changes everything, for me.

Something that exists with true existence -
What need is there for it to have a cause?
Something that is wholly inexistent -
Again, what need has it to have a cause?

Even by a hundred million causes,
No transformation is there in nonentity.
For if this keeps its status, how could entity occur?
And likewise, what is there that could be so changed?

When nonbeing prevails, if there's no being,
When could being ever supervene?
For insofar as entity does not occur,
Nonentity itself will not depart.

And if nonentity is not dispersed,
No chance is there for entity to manifest.
Being cannot change and turn to nonbeing,
Otherwise it has a double nature.

Thus there is no being,
Likewise no cessation.
Therefore beings, each and every one,
Are unborn and are never ceasing.


btw, NOT A COPY PASTA Hand typed from "The Way of the Bodhisattva" by Shantideva. The foreword by The Dalai Llama indicates it is a part of a tradition in which 'the principle focus is on teachings designed to cultivate the mind of one wishing to benefit all sentient beings.'

That is what I felt was the intention of the OP, to discuss an edifying subject and to test that thesis in the crucible of criticism! Can we agree there can not be an absolute nothing from which something was created? If so, the universe needs no cause? Existence is the imperative? What effect does that have on the need for a creator?

It changes everything, IMHO, to realise there cannot be a state of nothingness from which I was created. there has always been a something, a totally connected something, a something I am a part of. Part of a continuum with no beginning or ending, one-thing, one shared history, one shared everlasting life. The illusion is that one is somehow seperate.

Seperate? What would seperate? Even empty space ... if one was to measure the light from distant stars and see that as energy, how much energy is present in a cubic metre of seeming nothingness? The distant stars are connected to me... to us, all things are connected in one way or another without seperation... one thing.

I believe this to be a crux to understanding. If in fact there is something rather than nothing, for no other reason than -- there can't be 'no-thing', that changes everything, for me.

To you it might change everything, to me? Not even close.

That passage uses colorful language to try to give importance to the concept but in the end it's rather circular. It supports the idea that it's wonderful - it gives weight to the colorful language -with even more colorful language.

"We are never creasing!" But why is that important? "Because we are all one!". Rinse and repeat. I see absolutely no difference between falling for those mystical sounding descriptions and not doing so, save from some arbitrary importance you've given to "oneness" or the like.

I have logically come to the conclusion several things.

Everything is moving, there is no nothing and all we can know about things is that they exist, not what they are.


This would imply everything is interconnected at one level or another. Draw your own conclusions

I have logically come to the conclusion several things.

I think the more accurate thing to say would be that you read the idea of one or more Philosophers on these subjects and decided to agree. That is, unless you actually have a deductive argument that follows the rules of inference (if you're studying Philosophy that would be a great place to start: knowing how to make a proof in the first place). If so, by all means post it! You can keep claiming you've "logically concluded this" but isn't going to make it so; you must provide a deductive argument following correct rules of inference and with true premises. As of now the only thing we know is that you've made multiple errors in determining things like what atoms are made up of, what light is made up of, what Zeno's paradoxes say and whether they have been answered or not, whether Science says "nothing" could exist or not, et cetera.

You decided to agree. That is, unless you actually have a deductive argument that follows the rules of inference (if you're studying Philosophy that would be a great place to start: knowing how to make a proof in the first place). If so, by all means post it! .

Are you serious? Really?



Would you like me to copy and paste this thread?

Are you serious? You're the one who's been lecturing people on their knowledge of Philosophy and you don't know a what a deductive argument is in the first place? This thread is not a deductive argument that follows the rules of inference.

This is you presenting your idea, and failing miserably in substantiating the numerous claims you've made.. Your posts are nothing close to a deductive argument, (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/8/6/986243ab779fa1d9b4d9ab8e0d8342da.png) much less one we could reach conclusions on.


For example, just to use one of your latest claims: "everything is moving". You've provided nothing that resembles a deductive argument for that statement. In fact, you've been shown how utterly incorrect you are not only by me but your own source. The idea of motion depends entirely on the frame of reference we use. Depending on what you are observing and what your frame or reference is, not everything is moving. Your own source, the one regarding Zeno's paradox which you used incorrectly to try an argue that we hadn't resolved the paradoxes, correctly states both this as well as the fact that we can determine difference between a moving object and a unmoving object, something impossible if everything were moving.

Hell you were just a few posts ago arguing that nothing can move - that movement was impossible - and now you're here arguing that everything is moving! This alone should show any reasonable observer how out of your depth you are in this conversation. You're grasping at straws. You are glancing over texts and making claims regarding things you haven't fully understood.

Are you serious? You're the one who's been lecturing people on their knowledge of Philosophy and you don't know a what a deductive argument is in the first place? This thread is not a deductive argument that follows the rules of inference.

This is you presenting your idea, and failing miserably in substantiating the numerous claims you've made.. Your posts are nothing close to a deductive argument, (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/8/6/986243ab779fa1d9b4d9ab8e0d8342da.png) much less one we could reach conclusions on.

I used analytic statements, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_proposition) the system created by Immanuel Kant. You said they were wrong. I no longer care about anything you have to say, your opinions are an example of belligerent ignorance. Everyone on this thread agrees with me, which is why no one came to your defense, only mine. Yet, I'm the one whose crazy. :rolleyes:.

Not to mention everything that Redzed posted in my defense that logically concluded the absence of nothing. I didn't bother to post it because everyone understands that concept............Except you................That actually is a fact. Thats why no one else challenged it but you. You are the only person to reject that fact, you were even unable to find anyone in the world of philosophy that agrees with you. Because you were wrong. You didn't want to admit it, so after being proved wrong numerous times you said

"I'm willing to accept something as "true" for the sake of argument." Fuck you. Even after you realized how wrong you were you still lacked the ability to admit it. Fuck you, once more.



Hell you were just a few posts ago arguing that nothing can move - that movement was impossible - and now you're here arguing that everything is moving!

I was going to come back to that, like I said but because you refused to accept anything, I was unable to get past even the most basic and simplistic philosophical truths, which is why we have done nothing but argue.


I'm now adding you to my block list so something other than stupidity and trolling can prevail.

I used analytic statements, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_proposition) the system created by Immanuel Kant. You said they were wrong. I no longer care about anything you have to say, your opinions are an example of belligerent ignorance. Everyone on this thread agrees with me, which is why no one came to your defense, only mine. Yet, I'm the one whose crazy. :rolleyes:.

1. Your statements were not analytic propositions as Kant described them, save maybe for your convenient re-definition of "nothing" to mean "that which doesn't exist".

For example, you claiming that everything is in motion is not a analytical statement. You claiming that everything is made up of the same thing is not a analytical statement. You saying that the source you provided showed how hadn't resolved Zeno's Paradoxes, is not a analytical statement. You claiming that Science says nothing cannot exist, is not a analytical statement.

Moreover, the only thing Kant created was the way to classified these statements in order to distinguish them from other propositions. He didn't create analytical statements.

2. I find it quite hilarious that you talk about logic while at the same time engaging in this blatant argumentum ad populum. Just because the majority of people "defended" you (which is an exaggeration to begin with - the only real "defense" you got was from Redzed, and he was focusing on the aspect of whether nothing can exist or not) does not mean you are correct. That is hardly a surprising turn of events in a thread meant to rally the people that support your unsubstantiated ideas.


Not to mention everything that Redzed posted in my defense that logically concluded the absence of nothing. I didn't bother to post it because everyone understands that concept............Except you................That actually is a fact. Thats why no one else challenged it but you. You are the only person to reject that fact, you were even unable to find anyone in the world of philosophy that agrees with you. Because you were wrong. You didn't want to admit it, so after being proved wrong numerous times you said Redzed didn't prove anything. He posted the writings of certain philosophers that agreed with him. That's what you fail to understand time and time again: That's not proof. Philosophy doesn't say "Kant said it, therefore it's a philosophical truth".

Like I said before, and you ignored:

I challenge you to find any philosophical text from a philosophical authority that unequivocally says that those points are true, without question. I believe you wont find any. You will find arguments from people who've thought about the issue and have given their take on it. Sometimes many people happen to agree with them. Sometimes many people disagree. But to claim that there is some absolute truth in this philosophy is naive, and to do so without first providing any shred of evidence for the claim is utterly dishonest and absurd. Once again, just because you deem it a "well known philosophical principle - which in itself doesn't mean it's true or false - doesn't make it so.

Not to mention that many of the philosophers Redzed quoted were dealing with another conception of "nothing" all together and he admitted as much (i.e. "yes Parmenides and others talk of another type of "nothing" - Redzed. )

"I'm willing to accept something as "true" for the sake of argument." Fuck you. Even after you realized how wrong you were you still lacked the ability to admit it. Fuck you, once more. How was I wrong? Did I claim nothing had to exist? No. I only asked you to prove your claim. That's it. There is nothing to be "wrong" about in asking you to prove your claim. Had you read my posts you've seen that I didn't make the opposite claim (which is what would make me wrong or right). I merely asked you to support what you had said. I explicitly stated that on the issue of "nothing" existing or not existing, I had not chosen a position because I hadn't seen any compelling argument either way.


I was going to come back to that, like I said but because you refused to accept anything, I was unable to get past even the most basic and simplistic philosophical truths, which is why we have done nothing but argue.
Like I said, I was willing to accept some of your points for the sake of argument if I knew what the whole point of you deliberately ignoring the instances where you contradicted yourself and your sources, was. You didn't do that which shows that you didn't care about the discussion, but simply about focusing on something petty in order to make your escape from the discussion.


I'm now adding you to my block list so something other than stupidity and trolling can prevail.How sad that you had to result to that. What's worse, your dream is pretty much doomed to failure given that the bulk of the "stupidity" (your word) found here would be yours:

- It was you who claimed light was made of atoms.

- It was you who claimed Zeno's paradox hadn't been answered and provided a source that utterly refuted you.

- It was you who first claimed movement wasn't possible only to contradict that moments later by saying everything was in motion

- It was you who claimed Science agreed "nothing cannot exist" only to post a source that left the possibility of it existing open.


Sorry but if you want stupidity and ignorance to end here on Totse, you're gonna have to delete that account of yours ASAP.

Not to mention that many of the philosophers Redzed quoted were dealing with another conception of "nothing" all together and he admitted as much (i.e. "yes Parmenides and others talk of another type of "nothing" - Redzed. )


Now there's a subtle twist on words;) I accepted your point that there is another definition of nothing, however that is not what Parmenides is talking about! Perhaps you should in fact read those passages rather than skimming them for ammunition.

Once more it seems your motives in posting are in order to win an argument. Mr Kitty asked for constructive criticisms, yes you have given some worthwhile examples, however, they are disjointed and, mixed with scornful statements that indicate you are operating out of pride, rather than any desire to actually assist the OP in his understanding.

I have focused on the aspect of nothingness because the premise upon which I was taught, from early childhood, was there is a righteous and holy god who exists wholly apart, seperate, from this 'sinful' world; and somehow he created this from nothing. The impossibility of there being an absolute nothing removes any need for a first cause and destroys the premise upon which is based the false image given by the teachers of fundamentalist deist religions.

This is IMHO the starting point. The origin/cause/reason for there to be anything at all rather than nothing, needs to be clearly established before any meaningful discussion can be had on the nature of our existence or, who/what god is.

Now there's a subtle twist on words;) I accepted your point that there is another definition of nothing, however that is not what Parmenides is talking about! Perhaps you should in fact read those passages rather than skimming them for ammunition.

I didn't twist anything. Stop accusing me of such lies.

Please read what I said again. I said:

" many of the philosophers Redzed quoted were dealing with another conception of "nothing""

Is that true or not? Are you denying that at least some were speaking of another conception of "nothing" that neither I nor Kitty were talking about? Please note that at no point in time did I ever say that all were, nor did I say that Parmenides was one of them. I merely said just what I quoted right there above, and then provided a quote of yours to show exactly where you (I thought) conceded as much.

If that's not what Parmenides was talking about... then tell that to yourself! It was you who said "Parmenides and others talk of another type of "nothing""


Once more it seems your motives in posting are in order to win an argument. Mr Kitty asked for constructive criticisms, yes you have given some worthwhile examples, however, they are disjointed and, mixed with scornful statements that indicate you are operating out of pride, rather than any desire to actually assist the OP in his understanding.

We've already covered this countless times before:

1. You have absolutely no way of knowing why I post. You have no clue if I post to "win" an argument - and I remind anyone reading this that it's you who brought up "winning" in this thread, I haven't. All you know is that I have posted what I did. The reasons are mine and mine alone. Please stop attributing me things you have no fucking clue about; that's disgustingly dishonest of you.


2. Even if I post to win, which I do not (thought I doubt you'd accept that as true but convniently that's not your "ego" getting in the way of the fact that you don't possess the knowledge of why I post), it would still be unimportant to the truth or falsehood of what I post. You should be first and foremost concerned with the truth of what I post, and leave any concerns as t o why I post to me... the only one who has any knowledge of that issue, and the only one in any position to change or improve that situtatin - if indeed it needed improving in the first place.


3. Mr.Kitty's posts have been filled with "scornful statements" and you've kept your mouth completely shut. Your utter hipocrisy on this issue is quite distateful. If you're going to lecture me on "scornful statements" then please try to make sure you don't conveniently ignore the instances where the people you're defending act in similar or worse ways just because you're defending them. And please try not to lecture me right after I poted a pretty reserved and unscornful reply to his endless barrage of insults (i.e. after all the insults he hurled at me, the only real insult I provided was to call his mistakes "stupid" and that's after he provided me with the same insult).

-

As for the rest, my point is that: your "defense" of his consisted did not consist of what he was implying. It focused on one area, and it didn't provide any conclsuive proof, just quotes from certain philosophers that happen to agree with you.

I could be wrong altogether Rust, maybe you have truly altruistic reasons, but when I see you have typed that anothers opinion is hilarious, well .... that's mocking the person. Once again, I can't see your face, or hear your tone, so have only your words as a guide.

Nothing
Have you ever thought about the beginning? What
is that, you say? You know—whatever it was that
showed up first. Or whatever it was that was here
first, at the earliest moment in time. Have you ever
strained your brain to think about that?
Wait a minute, you say, isn’t it possible that in the
beginning there was nothing? Isn’t it possible that
kazillions of years ago, there wasn’t anything at all?
That’s certainly a theory to consider. So let’s consider
it—but first by way of analogy.
Let’s say you have a large room. It’s fully enclosed
and is about the size of a football field. The room is
locked, permanently, and has no doors or windows,
and no holes in its walls.
Inside the room there is...nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust
at all. No light at all. It’s a sealed room that’s pitch
black inside. Then what happens?
Well, let’s say your goal is to get something—
anything at all—into the room. But the rules are: you
can’t use anything from outside the room to do that.
So what do you do?


Remainder of thought experiment at: http://www.everystudent.com/pdf/journey.pdf

I challenge you to find any philosophical text from a philosophical authority that unequivocally says that those points are true, without question.

"Nothing can be made out of nothing" Titus Lucretius Carus 96BC

The Roman Philosopher Titus Lucretius presented his own version of this argument, he recognized that space could never end, for what would happen, Lucretius asked, if we throw a dart at the outer edge. "Wherever you may place the ultimate limit of things, I will ask you: 'Well then, what does happen to the dart?' The universe has nothing outside of it to limit it", wrote Lucretius, recognizing what we still believe today scientifically, that space or the universe cannot become thin or simply end, beyond which there is nothing. Later Einstein showed that space is flexible, and is curved by massive obejcts, and we now call the curvature of space time gravity. It followed from Einstein's theories that space might be curved into some sort of loop, such as a figure eight, making the universe finite. But as mentioned, in the last few years scientists have determined that Lucretius was correct about the infiniteness of space, since the known universe shows no sign of being curved into any kind of repeating loop.

"Nothing comes from nothing", Lucretius said, and I remember discovering this paradox as in boyhood, because I walked around for several weeks fully convinced that the universe could not possibly exist. As my own existence persisted, I finally relented to the idea that something had somehow cheated it's way past the original nothin. And a lot of people make that erroneous conclusion. Literally everyone recognizes the simple logic that something cannot come from nothing, and yet in the face of our own existence and the unwavering presence of the universe, and in the absence of any other explanation, we conclude that by some fluke chance the impossible must have happened somehow. Its actually a terribly damaging form of surrender, not merely because it is a faulty explanation, but because it plants a seed in our mind that our internal logic is out of sync with the universe. It even places into question a sensible reality. Consider how damaging it is to place into question our ability to reason, and how damaging it is to not see the Universe or reality as ultimately sensible.

"Nothing" isn't a science word but the principle that existence is neither created nor destroyed is universally true throughout science.

.....

Space isn't a form of non-existence. Matter, energy, and space, are all part of the same thing. They are all part of the same existence.

Hand typed from "Everything Forever - Learning to See Timelessness" Gevin Giorbran. everythingforever.com

I could be wrong altogether Rust, maybe you have truly altruistic reasons, but when I see you have typed that anothers opinion is hilarious, well .... that's mocking the person. Once again, I can't see your face, or hear your tone, so have only your words as a guide.



That's just it! You just have words to "guide" you and those words do not imply "doing things to win an argument" or "inflating your ego". They, if we interpret them as mockery, imply just that: mockery. Unless you're suggesting that someone mocking someone else must invariably mean "wanting to win an argument" or "inflating his ego" then the fact that you only have words is the perfect argument for why you shouldn't be accusing someone in the first place!

That coupled with the fact you only see it fit to chastise the people who disagree with you but not the people who agree with you, makes the whole endeavor pretty ludicrous.

--

As for the other post...

From your own source:

"The Roman Philosopher Titus Lucretius presented his own version of this argument"

This fits quite nicely with what I said:

"I challenge you to find any philosophical text from a philosophical authority that unequivocally says that those points are true, without question. I believe you wont find any. You will find arguments from people who've thought about the issue and have given their take on it. Sometimes many people happen to agree with them. Sometimes many people disagree. But to claim that there is some absolute truth in this philosophy is naive, and to do so without first providing any shred of evidence for the claim is utterly dishonest and absurd. Once again, just because you deem it a "well known philosophical principle - which in itself doesn't mean it's true or false - doesn't make it so."

[Changed the bold so you could focus on the relevant area]

Lucretius didn't say "This is a philosophical truth, if you deny this you're a moron". Right? He gave his take on the issue.

Did you read the quote from Giorbran? If you did you would have read this: "Literally everyone recognizes the simple logic that something cannot come from nothing". The passage may have quoted Lucretius but it is in fact a part of a more complete exposition. Actually .. did you read any of the quotes or, . is it that you actually believe it's possible for nothing to exist?

Yes, I did read the whole quote, I just don't give any importance to some guy I don't know taking stuff straight out of his ass by claiming to know what "literally everyone" knows, understands and/or recognizes...

Yes, I did read the whole quote, I just don't give any importance to some guy I don't know taking stuff straight out of his ass by claiming to know what "literally everyone" knows, understands and/or recognizes...

I see, because you don't know him, you are going to use that ignorance to scorn his work by stating "taking stuff straight out of his ass". You don't know that! Seems you are determined to be confrontational rather than answering the question. Do you Rust think it possible for an absolute nothing to exist?

I see, because you don't know him, you are going to use that ignorance to scorn his work by stating "taking stuff straight out of his ass". You don't know that!

1. Wrong. It's because he provides absolutely no way of validating his claim that "literally everyone" recognizes what he claims they recognize, that I'm going to suggest he pulled that straight out of his ass. In other words you might be more familiar with: I called bullshit. Or if you prefer less naughty language then, "That good gentleman's claim regarding what the totality of humanity recognizes, remains unsubstantiated within the confines of this most-wonderful debate"


2. Do you not see a problem with saying "You don't know that!" just a few posts away from when you accused me of doing things for my ego or for "winning" the argument... when you didn't know that?



Seems you are determined to be confrontational rather than answering the question. Do you Rust think it possible for an absolute nothing to exist? How was I "confrontational"? You get to reduce me completely to the point of knowing why I argue (i. to "win" or for my "ego") and that's not confrontational? But if I say that someone who just claimed to know what literally everyone - that includes me and you by the way - recognized pulled something straight out of his ass, that's just awful? What a ridiculous double standard.

As for the question, sorry but I didn't see the use in answering a question that's already been answered:

" I don't know if nothing does in fact exist or not. I have not seen any compelling argument in either direction. Not one that you have provided, that's for sure. It's a question many philosophers don't think we can even answer given how our language rules our thoughts and how biased it may be against the idea of "nothing"."

" I don't know if nothing does in fact exist or not. I have not seen any compelling argument in either direction. Not one that you have provided, that's for sure. It's a question many philosophers don't think we can even answer given how our language rules our thoughts and how biased it may be against the idea of "nothing"."

That's not an answer, that's a copout! It is simple logic and literally everyone does get it .. oh except for those who are too blind to see!

That's not an answer, that's a copout! It is simple logic and literally everyone does get it .. oh except for those who are too blind to see!

Am I supposed to lie now to please you because you don't like the answer I gave?

It's the truth: I haven't seen anything convincing. All the arguments I've seen of it's non-existnece/impossibility seem convincing in the beginning, but really provide nothing substantial and in the end if we're defining "nothing" to be a place without any physical objects (particles, energy, grativational fields, etc.) then it's the domain of Science to determine if in fact such a thing could in fact exist. Mr.Kitty's own source suggests that Science cannot remove the possibility, thus my position.

P.S. Thanks for calling me blind. Every single passive-aggresive insult you give me while at the same time lecturing on "scornful" remarks only highlights your hipocrisy.

Also, could I now follow your lead and say, "Seems you are determined to be confrontational rather than answering the question" since you evaded all the points and questions I made in the previous post and provided a insult just now? Or am I the only one who's supposed to answer questions here?

Simple logic! Can absolutely nothing exist? Yes/No

I already answered you: I don't know.

But really, why should I even bother answering that when you've made it quite clear you're not going to provide me the same courtesy of providing answers to the questions I made?

I already answered you: I don't know.

But really, why should I even bother answering that when you've made it quite clear you're not going to provide me the same courtesy of providing answers to the questions I made?

Up to you Rust. You are the one criticising Mr Kitty's theory, yet you refuse to answer a simple question about it? Yet that point is critical to his theory. For you to criticise then say: "I don't know" is not an answer to a Yes/No question of simple logic. It seems like a copout -- particularly from one who seems to pride themself on their command of logic. Either Nothing can exist or it can't. Where is there any room for "I don't know'? The questions you asked me, I'm happy to answer -- if they are on topic.

Up to you Rust. You are the one criticising Mr Kitty's theory, yet you refuse to answer a simple question about it? Yet that point is critical to his theory.

1. My answer to the question isn't critical for anything regarding his point. What I believe is quite simply inconsequential in determining whether what he has said is true or not. I already said multiple times that I was willing to accept it as true for the discussion to continue. He decided to repay me with a barrage of insults while you stood completely silent.

2. I don't refuse to answer the question, I refuse to answer the question based on the dishonest tactic you're using of limiting my answers. By your sleazy tactic it would be perfectly fine for me to berate an agnostic or a weak-atheist by continuously barraging them with "Does god exist, Yes or No!?" and not accepting their perfectly legitimate answer of "I don't know".


Either Nothing can exist or it can't.

Who said otherwise? I said that I don't know which one of those it is.

The questions you asked me, I'm happy to answer -- if they are on topic.

So complaining about my scornful language is on topic (I'm assuming this given your penchant for wanting things to remain on topic - I would hope you're not being a complete and utter hypocrite right now)? Then please answer the question's I've made regarding your accusations.

1. My answer to the question isn't critical for anything regarding his point. What I believe is quite simply inconsequential in determining whether what he has said is true or not. I already said multiple times that I was willing to accept it as true for the discussion to continue. He decided to repay me with a barrage of insults while you stood completely silent.
Where I live, there is a defence of provocation, even for criminal acts.
Here's where you started pissing all over this thread:
Page1: Congratulations! You've discovered that by using fringe definitions of words and attributing importance to trivial "facts" you can come up with woo. Amazing.
........
Page 2. Nothing in that post was an ad-hominem attack. Now I know you're basking in the surprise circle jerk these hippies have thrown you (that is an attack right there) but please try not to throw around words like an idiot.
..........


Page 1: mockery and scorn, page 2: insulting language; also you admit to "an attack", not till page 6 does Mr Kitty reply with anything approaching what you accuse him of, mean time he is polite and respectful! You on the other hand continue to make subtle digs with well placed epithets and scornful language ... see "defence of provocation".


"Does god exist, Yes or No!?" and not accepting their perfectly legitimate answer of "I don't know".

Obscurationist, irrelevant, and totally different. It may be possible that a god exists or not, but how is it possible that a 'nothing' could exist?

Where I live, there is a defence of provocation, even for criminal acts.
Here's where you started pissing all over this thread:

Page 1: mockery and scorn, page 2 insulting language, admits to "an attack" not till page 6 does Mr Kitty reply with anything approaching what you accuse him of! Meanwhile you continue to make subtle digs with well placed epithets and scornful language ... see "defence of provocation".


Which has what to do with the fact that my answer to the question isn't critical for anything regarding his point or the fact that I was willing to accept it as true for the discussion to continue and thus this serves as no excuse for the discussion ending in his childish manner?

Ignoring this pretty important detail, I'm sorry you prefer being provided falsehoods while acting polite, to being provided truths while acting rude. I don't. Apparently, when he makes a whole list of unsubstantiated claims and engages in a multitude of logical fallacies that's not provocation, but if I dare express just how I feel about his posts then I'm the guilty party... How fucking stupid.

Not that your "defense of provocation" excuse holds that much water given that the discussion simmered way down - at least on my part - long before he began lashing out. Not to mention that "You did something wrong first" isn't really a defense that justifies you keeping your mouth conveniently shut for all this time.


Obscurationist, irrelevant, and totally different. Do you get off on this Rust?1. What's obscurantist about what you just quoted?

2. How is it irrelevant when it deals precisely with your claim that the only possible answers are "yes" and "no" when that's not really the case and you are dishonestly reducing my ability to answer by withholding from me the ability - or at least not recognizing it and berating me when I don't fall for your sleazy tactics) to answer a question I don't know the answer to with "I don't know"?

3. How is it different? The agnostic and/or weak-atheist that answers "I don't know" is expressing the truth of the situation: he does not know whether a god exists or not. That is the same exact situation here: I don't know whether "nothing" can exist or not.


P.S. I like how you edited your attack . Are you going to use the "defense of provocation" there too based on my amazingly evil and scornful previous post (/sarcasm)?

To answer your new, edited question:

Many theists and atheists would maintain, just like you are, that it's impossible that a god does (doesn't) exist. Just because you think something is obvious doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone else. Piaget would be disappointed in you.

3. How is it different? The agnostic and/or weak-atheist that answers "I don't know" is expressing the truth of the situation: he does not know whether a god exists or not. That is the same exact situation here: I don't know whether "nothing" can exist or not.




It is not the exact same situation Rust, it's you attempting to obscure your unneccessary attacks on the poster. Your attempt to ameliorate your rude behaviour by claiming it's all ok cause you were stating 'truth' does not excuse it. You don't have any 'truth' by your own words -- you do not know!

It is not the exact same situation Rust, it's you attempting to obscure your unneccessary attacks on the poster. Your attempt to ameliorate your rude behaviour by claiming it's all ok cause you were stating 'truth' does not excuse it. You don't have any 'truth' by your own words -- you do not know!

Don't really see why he has to explain away his rude behavior. Being rude, assholish, prickish, etc. does not diminish the logic used, the facts, or the truth as he sees it.

If I were to end that sentence with something like ....you fuckhead.... would it make my point less valid .... you fuckhead?

If I were to end that sentence with something like ....you fuckhead.... would it make my point less valid .... you fuckhead?

Wondered how long till the sycophant chimed in.

It is not the exact same situation Rust, it's you attempting to obscure your unneccessary attacks on the poster. Your attempt to ameliorate your rude behaviour by claiming it's all ok cause you were stating 'truth' does not excuse it. You don't have any 'truth' by your own words -- you do not know!


1. Are you joking now? I'm honestly asking... because if not it means you're deliberately putting words in my mouth and misinterpreting what I said. I said it was the exact same situation in that the agnostic/weak-atheist position is analogous to my position here on "nothing". That particular part of my post had absolutely nothing to do with my insults, yet here you are trying to make it seem as if it did. Either you are having trouble reading things, or you're dishonestly trying to portray my posts/replies in a very different light.

Another example of your dishonesty would be saying that I don't have any truth just because I've said "I don't know" (the truth) regarding one out of the myriad of different points made in this thread.


2. I'm not here excusing anything. I don't have to excuse my behavior to some guy on the internet. Sorry, but you're not that important. I'm here to explain the truth: I find his use of logical fallacies and repeated claim of unsubstantiated things much worse than any insult I gave. If you don't agree, oh well.

1. Are you joking now? I'm honestly asking... because if not it means you're deliberately putting words in my mouth and misinterpreting what I said. I said it was the exact same situation in that the agnostic/weak-atheist position is analogous to my position here on "nothing". That particular part of my post had absolutely nothing to do with my insults, yet here you are trying to make it seem as if it did. Either you are having trouble reading things, or you're dishonestly trying to portray my posts/replies in a very different light.


And you continue with the subtle mockery by insinuating dishonesty when I was answering your questions as requested. More obscuration! Why don't you get a life Rust instead of pissing all over other peoples ideas and feelings?

And you continue with the subtle mockery by insinuating dishonesty when I was answering your questions as requested.

Please don't blame me for your mistakes.

I said: "How is it different? The agnostic and/or weak-atheist that answers "I don't know" is expressing the truth of the situation: he does not know whether a god exists or not. That is the same exact situation here: I don't know whether "nothing" can exist or not."

That has to do with how both scenarios are analogous in that the weak-atheist/agnostic would answer "I don't know" just as I did here. Saying "It is not the exact same situation Rust, it's you attempting to obscure your unneccessary attacks on the poster" is not an answer to the point I made right there. It may be an answer to another point, but not the one you quoted. Quoting something and then answering with something else is definitely dishonest, and thus not "mockery" for me pointing it out.

Not to mention that I could use your defense (defense of provocation) here since you were making jabs at me long before this supposed "subtle mockery".



More obscuration! Why don't you get a life Rust instead of pissing all over other peoples ideas and feelings?

Again, I have to ask: Are you joking? Do you not see the irony screaming from that sentence?

Sorry Rust you've lost me. No idea what you're talking about! Actually .. no longer care!

What don't you understand? Maybe a short summary of my points will help:

I said the equivalent of "They are the same situation". They being the weak-atheist/agnostic position concerning god and my position concerning nothing.

You responded to that by saying "It is not the exact same situation Rust, it's you attempting to obscure your unneccessary attacks on the poster", which misrepresents my statements because it implies I was saying "they are the same" to something related to my "unnecessary attacks" (i.e. as if I were saying 'me attacking' and 'he not attacking in the form of insults' were the same), when that's not the case.

In an even shorter way, "It is not the exact same situation Rust, it's you attempting to obscure your unneccessary attacks on the poster" is simply not a reply to what you quoted when you stated that.

As for the other point, the irony I thought was readily apparent: You would be doing exactly what you are accusing me of by stating what you did.

Oh, before I forget....Since you no longer care you shouldn't have a problem with me replying to this incredibly childish post of yours:


Wondered how long till the sycophant chimed in.BrokeProphet is hardly a sycophant when it comes to me. This thread right here (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2123124&highlight=Psychology) serves as a great example of how much we butt heads and how his behavior towards me is the complete opposite of sycophantic.

You probably knew this but wanted to make a scornful reply anyway, even after you've whined throughout this thread about my scornful replies. Next time you want someone to take your complaints about their insults seriously, you should try to follow your own advice.


As an interesting aside: Another highlight of that thread would be how some of the theists tried to defend me or attack BP just because they wanted me to succeed in my defense (much like you're ignoring everything Mr.Kitty here). Seems like they didn't really care if I was pissing all BP's ideas and feelings when it convenienced them. Sounds awfully familiar.

Namaste! :)

Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.Buddha

Cheers:)

Oh, how sad that you an I both fall short from that goal!

Oh, how sad that you an I both fall short from that goal!

Agreed!
It is hard to conquer the passions, to suppress selfish desires.
It is hard not to get into a passion when slighted.
It is hard to be even-minded and simple hearted in all one's dealings with others.
It is hard to be thorough in learning and exhaustive in investigation.
It is hard to subdue selfish pride.
It is hard to gain an insight into the nature of being and to practice the Way.
It is hard to be always the master of oneself.
Buddha