Ībn Mūneer Āl-Feylī

If energy is eternal is God needed?

Rate this topic

105 posts in this topic

18 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics...

The refutation to your argument is here:

https://www.quora.com/Does-Roger-Penroses-observation-that-the-probability-of-the-occurrence-of-a-universe-in-which-life-can-form-is-10-to-the-power-of-123-to-1-support-the-case-of-those-who-believe-in-God

P.S. by the way...Roger Penrose is an atheist.

:)

 

 

Edited by Quisant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wmehar2

Quote

If you're saying that God's existence is not necessary since "energy is eternal" then you're implying the  existence of human beings were a random mishap of clashing forces. 

If there was a Big Bang, and we don't know what there was before then, how do you know  energy can't be created nor destroyed?  That's an assumption.   A law that's perceived by Humans, and humans aren't the perfect perceiving entities.

Bro why are you making stuff up? A law>A theory. IT'S A LAW AND NOT A THEORY. Here is the link: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node4.html

Secondly are you saying gravity is simply percieved by humans and doesn't exist? Newtonian laws clearly proves it exists. If you want to deny it? I tell you what, go to a tall building a jump off and then still tell me if it's just a perception. 

Quote

"The reader of the essay entitled Is There A God (What is the Chance the World is the Result of Chance?) may be interested in knowing some hard numbers with regard to the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved). Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”"

 

Ok but a possiblity still exists, so all this is irrelevant and opinions. 

Quote

Infinite as a concept in math doesn't mean it's implied that it exists.  When you're measuring limit breaking dimensions such as speed, force, and a function iterating through time, one can use "infinity" to evaluate what happens when a limit approaches infinity.  which is EVERYWHERE in Physics, String Theory, and other Scientific modes.

Also, Math doesn't take away the fact Science needs to use MATH to find those Aliens.

It doesn't prove the existence of God though. You keep using this logical fallacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Quisant said:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics...

The refutation to your argument is here:

https://www.quora.com/Does-Roger-Penroses-observation-that-the-probability-of-the-occurrence-of-a-universe-in-which-life-can-form-is-10-to-the-power-of-123-to-1-support-the-case-of-those-who-believe-in-God

P.S. by the way...Roger Penrose is an atheist.

:)

 

 

I never claimed to use that number as proof, that would be a non-sequitur as your link states.   The proof is where I've said before,  human beings and things with "life" are anomalies that defy every object and element perceived thus far in the universe.

Slaves to laws of physics don't accidentally create their manipulators, or those possessing life.

Elements of the universe perceived by us do not have will, imagination, and are confined to their trajectory, where as we are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, humanbeing101 said:

@wmehar2

Bro why are you making stuff up? A law>A theory. IT'S A LAW AND NOT A THEORY. Here is the link: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node4.html

Secondly are you saying gravity is simply percieved by humans and doesn't exist? Newtonian laws clearly proves it exists. If you want to deny it? I tell you what, go to a tall building a jump off and then still tell me if it's just a perception. 

Ok but a possiblity still exists, so all this is irrelevant and opinions. 

It doesn't prove the existence of God though. You keep using this logical fallacy. 

Is Time, a Law?  Or does it only exist because human beings are the only things in existence that can perceive it?  We measure time based on how many times Earth orbits around a Sun.

And gravity perceived by humans is still not even perfected in our understanding, in fact gravity is still not fully explainable.   Fun fact Newtonian laws prove it existed but no science today can explain how it functions, we are FAR FAR away from fully understanding Gravity, much less any other transcendental concepts.

Anyway here is from your link:

" In a closed system, i.e., a system that isolated from its surroundings, the total energy of the system is conserved. "

So, the Big Bang that happened, was a system isolated from Which surroundings exactly?  Just eject and think about this for a minute.  I'm not making anything up.   If Energy "was conserved" in a tiny space, and needed to have to BLOW up and scatter about, or rather BIG BANG it out,  then why did it condense and need to explode in the first place?  If there was nothing, and then something became, obviously you're going to have a massive acceleration of "existing things" breaking into empty space.

High pressure to low pressure, high concentration to low concentration, High temperature to low temperature, Existing matter, into non existing matter.  I don't see how Energy can't have been created given these circumstances but either way, that's not my argument as to why God must exist.

My argument is that vessels of body's that contain "life" defy every scientific, mathematical model ever conceived when juxtaposed with we we know now of the known universe.

Kill every life form in the Universe now, and you will never see another like it again until "something" brings it back.

You can't perceive something and claim you know all of it, if all you know is what you see in front of you.  Humans are blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to knowledge. 

Humans can't even perceive frequencies that other life forms easily can with hearing, and eye sight, feeling, and other senses.  We just have brains and tools.  They will only get you so far.

Just because we center everything around ourselves, doesn't make it right either. 

 

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wmehar2

Quote

Is Time, a Law?  Or does it only exist because human beings are the only things in existence that can perceive it?  We measure time based on how many times Earth orbits around a Sun.

No time isn't a law and no scientist ever said it was...

Quote

And gravity perceived by humans is still not even perfected in our understanding, in fact gravity is still not fully explainable.   Fun fact Newtonian laws prove it existed but no science today can explain how it functions, we are FAR FAR away from fully understanding Gravity, much less any other transcendental concepts

Yes we do, when large celestial objects form together, they form a gravitional force because of their mass.

Ok it's still a perception? Bro then as I said jump off a building and tell me if you survive. Ok?

Quote

So, the Big Bang that happened, was a system isolated from Which surroundings exactly?  Just eject and think about this for a minute.  I'm not making anything up.   If Energy "was conserved" in a tiny space, and needed to have to BLOW up and scatter about, or rather BIG BANG it out,  then why did it condense and need to explode in the first place?  If there was nothing, and then something became, obviously you're going to have a massive acceleration of "existing things" breaking into empty space.

I have yet to see any hard science that explains anything outside the universe. 

Quote

You can't perceive something and claim you know all of it, if all you know is what you see in front of you.  Humans are blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to knowledge. 

Humans can't even perceive frequencies that other life forms easily can with hearing, and eye sight, feeling, and other senses.  We just have brains and tools.  They will only get you so far.

 

Then using this logic, how can you percieve God or be aware of the existence of God using your logical faculties when they are inherently flawed since perception is subjective? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Energy man @humanbeing101,  How much energy is needed to sustain one life?

A human?  a fly?  a tartigrade?  clump of bacteria?  A single cell, or atom?  Is Energy is conserved, is there a finite number of "living" objects that there can be in the universe?

Tell me how much energy is needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wmehar2 said:

Mr. Energy man @humanbeing101,  How much energy is needed to sustain one life?

A human?  a fly?  a tartigrade?  clump of bacteria?  A single cell, or atom?  Is Energy is conserved, is there a finite number of "living" objects that there can be in the universe?

Tell me how much energy is needed?

Hehe I hit you well on that logical fallacy question. See you know as well as I do to claim "science is bla bla ". It's the exact same with using your own brain to logically deduce the existence of God, which is completely subjective. 

 

The universe isn't infinte according to science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, humanbeing101 said:

Hehe I hit you well on that logical fallacy question. See you know as well as I do to claim "science is bla bla ". It's the exact same with using your own brain to logically deduce the existence of God, which is completely subjective. 

 

The universe isn't infinte according to science. 

It easy for me. 

Human beings that can do things no object can, vs Asteroid stuck in orbit.  The universe has not scientific need for US.  the universe needs "Gravity", "mass", "heat", thermodynamics, physics, to operate it's course and traverse its trajectory/life cycles.

Human beings are capable of interrupting all of those.  We are illogical.   Our existence (all life forms) is not necessary.

Stars existence is necessary for the Universe Model, Gravity is necessary, the Laws and attributes assigned to Atoms are necessary.  We (life) are not.

That to me is highly suggestive, if not enough evidence for me to deduce an Intelligent creator does exist.

Is life some ornamental added benefit/rider to the Universe?   In order for the Universe to be the Universe you need..., Energy transfer, Nova's, Quasars, Brownian motion, Gravity, and laws.  You don't need Life.

The Universe has no randomness attributed to it.  Each and every thing is quantifiable through mathematics and science, and maybe we don't have math and science progressed enough to quantify it, maybe perhaps we will.  There are laws of Quantum Physics that we don't understand, but they're there keeping the Universe in motion.

Not us (life).

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wmehar2 said:

It easy for me. 

Human beings that can do things no object can, vs Asteroid stuck in orbit.  The universe has not scientific need for US.  the universe needs "Gravity", "mass", "heat", thermodynamics, physics, to operate it's course and traverse its trajectory/life cycles.

Human beings are capable of interrupting all of those.  We are illogical.   Our existence (all life forms) is not necessary.

Stars existence is necessary for the Universe Model, Gravity is necessary, the Laws and attributes assigned to Atoms are necessary.  We (life) are not.

That to me is highly suggestive, if not enough evidence for me to deduce an Intelligent creator does exist.

Is life some ornamental added benefit/rider to the Universe?   In order for the Universe to be the Universe you need..., Energy transfer, Nova's, Quasars, Brownian motion, Gravity, and laws.  You don't need Life.

The Universe has no randomness attributed to it.  Each and every thing is quantifiable through mathematics and science, and maybe we don't have math and science progressed enough to quantify it, maybe perhaps we will.  There are laws of Quantum Physics that we don't understand, but they're there keeping the Universe in motion.

Not us (life).

 

Quote

Human beings that can do things no object can, vs Asteroid stuck in orbit.  The universe has not scientific need for US.  the universe needs "Gravity", "mass", "heat", thermodynamics, physics, to operate it's course and traverse its trajectory/life cycles.

Humans cannot destroy an entire galaxy, we don't have such capabilities. The andromeda galaxy is heading to smah our galaxy into pieces. 

Quote

Stars existence is necessary for the Universe Model, Gravity is necessary, the Laws and attributes assigned to Atoms are necessary.  We (life) are not.

Necessary to what?

Quote

The Universe has no randomness attributed to it.  Each and every thing is quantifiable through mathematics and science, and maybe we don't have math and science progressed enough to quantify it, maybe perhaps we will.  There are laws of Quantum Physics that we don't understand, but they're there keeping the Universe in motion.

They aren't laws yet. However let me ask you a question, can a human being be at two places at once? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, humanbeing101 said:

 

Humans cannot destroy an entire galaxy, we don't have such capabilities. The andromeda galaxy is heading to smah our galaxy into pieces. 

Necessary to what?

They aren't laws yet. However let me ask you a question, can a human being be at two places at once? 

Yea, it's called imagination, visalization.

I mean necessary for the universe to function . life is an attribute and fact,  that can be in two places at once by using ones mind.  

Like now how my mind is thinking about  how I'm going to approach my  boss monday and explain why this code is impossible right now.  and then now here typing  this response .

Then  Monday will come and the imagination part with transpire, as I've conjured it in my imagination.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@humanbeing101, it is not difficult brother, First I was confused that you were questioning the existence of God. 

Since you're prefering to discuss science, let me present you theory of relativity in its very short form.

E= mc2, the famous equation.

In simple terms, the equation represents the correlation of energy to matter: essentially, energy and matter are but two different forms of the same thing.

For understanding mass in this equation, know that there exists "invariant mass," and "relativistic mass." Invariant mass is mass that remains unchanged no matter what frame of reference you are in. Relativistic mass, on the other hand, depends on the object's velocity. In the equation E = mc2, m refers to the invariant mass. This is very important, because this means that your mass does not grow as you go faster, contrary to popular belief.

Like energy, mass can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can also change form. For example, an ice cube can melt into a liquid, but it still has the same mass in both states.

The equation states that mass and energy are the same thing and tells you how much energy is contained inside a certain amount of mass. Essentially, the equation explains that a small amount of mass is full of a large amount of energy.

Now tell me which form you're talking about? Enery or Mass? :) 

You have presented the law of conservation of energy, here is the law of conservation of mass:

"The law of conservation of mass states that mass in an isolated system is neither created nor destroyed by chemical reactions or physical transformations. According to the law of conservation of mass, the mass of the products in a chemical reaction must equal the mass of the reactants."

wmehar2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now before you say anything, let me take you into more depth, there exists massless particles :).

we know that scientifically. The latest example is higgs boson. We now even know the process of creating matter. 

"Matter creation is the process inverse to particle annihilation. It is the conversion of massless particles into one or more massive particles. This process is the time reversal of annihilation. Since all known massless particles are bosons and the most familiar massive particles are fermions, usually what is considered is the process which converts two bosons (e.g. photons) into two fermions (e.g., an electron–positron pair). This process is known as pair production. 

Because of momentum conservation laws, the creation of a pair of fermions (matter particles) out of a single photon cannot occur. However, matter creation is allowed by these laws when in the presence of another particle (another boson, or even a fermion) which can share the primary photon's momentum. Thus, matter can be created out of two photons."

With this, I hereby prove scientifically that energy is not eternal. :D

Edited by Engineer73
wmehar2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

Yea, it's called imagination, visalization.

I mean necessary for the universe to function . life is an attribute and fact,  that can be in two places at once by using ones mind.  

Like now how my mind is thinking about  how I'm going to approach my  boss monday and explain why this code is impossible right now.  and then now here typing  this response .

Then  Monday will come and the imagination part with transpire, as I've conjured it in my imagination.

 

How is it possible a human can be at two places at once from a scientific and logical perspective?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, humanbeing101 said:

How is it possible a human can be at two places at once from a scientific and logical perspective?

 

If a Human can dream, they're already perceiving two places at once.  Extend that further if the dream is about real people in a real place.   But I guess that's a philosophical perspective, as opposed to a "scientific and logical" one.

It should matter what goes on in an "imaginary realm".  Inspiration and profound thinking/planning leads to invention, discovery, and bringing into reality things from the immaterial plane.

If you wanna really take this further to a "scientific and logical" perspective, you can have a human be in 10 different places at once, controlling 10 drones or robots with audio/visual inputs, and then do things with those bodies without physically being there.

Such things only humans are capable of thanks to their minds and "life".

Energy may not be able to be created, and only conserved, but you can create life and destroy life buddy.  Energy can't be measured by life as I've tried to ask you before, "How much energy does it take to retain life in a vessel of a fly, human, bacteria and so forth?"

Because Energy may not be infinite, but if Time is, and humans do develop technology to traverse to other planets and subsist, then you can have an infinite amount of life that has existed from the day of inception.

They would just continuously borrow energy over and over, and no human being is identical to the last, each is unique.  So life, absolutely has the potential to defy logic (as if it already doesn't by just existing) just by existing until the Universe ends - assuming we don't kill ourselves or fail to escape impending astrological danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

If a Human can dream, they're already perceiving two places at once.  Extend that further if the dream is about real people in a real place.   But I guess that's a philosophical perspective, as opposed to a "scientific and logical" one.

It should matter what goes on in an "imaginary realm".  Inspiration and profound thinking/planning leads to invention, discovery, and bringing into reality things from the immaterial plane.

If you wanna really take this further to a "scientific and logical" perspective, you can have a human be in 10 different places at once, controlling 10 drones or robots with audio/visual inputs, and then do things with those bodies without physically being there.

Such things only humans are capable of thanks to their minds and "life".

Energy may not be able to be created, and only conserved, but you can create life and destroy life buddy.  Energy can't be measured by life as I've tried to ask you before, "How much energy does it take to retain life in a vessel of a fly, human, bacteria and so forth?"

Because Energy may not be infinite, but if Time is, and humans do develop technology to traverse to other planets and subsist, then you can have an infinite amount of life that has existed from the day of inception.

They would just continuously borrow energy over and over, and no human being is identical to the last, each is unique.  So life, absolutely has the potential to defy logic (as if it already doesn't by just existing) just by existing until the Universe ends - assuming we don't kill ourselves or fail to escape impending astrological danger.

You've completely strawmanned by position brother. Let me tell you why. I am not talking about imagination or the human ability to imagine. If I asked you can a human jump a million feet in the air. Yes obviously we can imagine a human doing that. I'm talking from a realist perspective. In the real world and physically have you seen a human being at two places at once? 

I'm not going to let you off the hook here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, humanbeing101 said:

You've completely strawmanned by position brother. Let me tell you why. I am not talking about imagination or the human ability to imagine. If I asked you can a human jump a million feet in the air. Yes obviously we can imagine a human doing that. I'm talking from a realist perspective. In the real world and physically have you seen a human being at two places at once? 

I'm not going to let you off the hook here. :)

I've not seen one, but our Prophets AS and our messenger SAW have . I believe that.

I presented my argumentfor why God is necessary and you've presented yours for why He's not.  there's no agreement, it seems.

 

Edited by wmehar2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

I've not seen one, but our Prophets AS and our messenger SAW have . I believe that.

I presented my argumentfor why God is necessary and you've presented yours for why He's not.  there's no agreement, it seems.

 

I'm a thiest bro but I'm playing devil's advocate. :) It is hard being an athiest lol. 

wmehar2 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, humanbeing101 said:

I'm a thiest bro but I'm playing devil's advocate. :) It is hard being an athiest lol. 

We can talk about miracles that we believe in, but we have no proof thereof.   But I don't see a strong argument with the "Eternal" Energy aspect.

Forget Islam, and ponder if God existed and is one and in the same with the energy to a level we cannot fathom (Spinoza's/Einstein's God), and Energy and God are synonymous.  You mentioned there are so many possibilities, and said that X and Y cannot be ruled out and defaulted to Z automatically. 

I don't see a strong atheist argument with the Energy conservation law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have kinetic energy and you have potential energy. If you add these two up, you will get Net Energy. The Net Energy content of the Universe= 0. Why? Because the amounts of kinetic energy and potential energy are also 0! However, you need motion (in time) to have kinetic energy and you need to have a potential field (in space) to have potential energy.  

So if space and time are not eternal, it's senseless to say Energy is still eternal. Because like I said, you need motion ( which requires time) to have kinetic energy and you need a potential field ( which requires space)  to have potential energy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2017 at 1:53 PM, humanbeing101 said:

Oh no, I asked the question wrong. I meant to say energy is eternal*. 

Salam,

What does it mean to be eternal?  Many people understand by eternity that which has existed forever and will exist forever (that which has no beginning or end in time).  But this is what "everlasting" means.  Eternity is not that same as "everlasting".  Eternity does not even have a time span. Eternity doesn't have any duration at all (even if that duration has no beginning or end).  So this immediately disqualifies energy.  It "might" make sense to say that energy is everlasting.  But energy is certainly not eternal!

So what is eternal?  Think of:  

1 + 1 =  2  

This is an eternal truth because there is no situation or circumstance that can make this statement false.  This statement is true in all situations and in all circumstances.  It is therefore eternally true and can never be otherwise.  The fact that you are you and that you cannot be other than yourself is an eternal truth (This is the law of identity where A = A).  Each and every thing is eternally what it is and cannot be other than what it is.  Each thing is, in this respect, eternal.  (If you like, this why a believer can say that everything is eternally predetermined or "written").  Insofar as a thing is eternal, it is nothing but God.                                     

 

 

                    

Hassan- likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Salam,

Brother 

Where have you been?

Haven't seen you for a very long time.

I was also away for about 2 years.

I am here for a short while and would have to leave again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Salam,

not sure if somebody said that before on the 4 pages, but this has a simple solution to me.

 

- First of all no human actually knows what energy is, or has every seen it. All we see is the result and influences thereof.

Name of Allah ( Al-Batin - The Hidden; the All Encompassing )


- Secondly, one form of Energy is "Light". And even though we can only 'see' within a certain spectrum, we know that light has practically a limitless spectrum. Also, in essence all forms of energy, be they sound, x-ray, etc .. are the same.

Scientists study them nowadays by imagining they are either waves or packets of imaginary energy called quanta; hence, wave and quantum theories. 

Name of Allah ( al-Nour - the Light )

 

The Light is eternal and has always existed, and always exist. So I would go so far as saying that Allah is the Energy. Therefore it does not contradict the law claiming that 'it' can be neither destroyed or created. 

 

From a purely logic perspective:

 

1. Light = Energy

therefore,

2. Energy = Light

 

  • the Light =   al Nour = al Lah = the God

 

 

That's how I see it ..

 

"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth." :love:

 

 

 

Edited by 313 Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

So what is eternal?  Think of:  

1 + 1 =  2  

This is an eternal truth because there is no situation or circumstance that can make this statement false.  This statement is true in all situations and in all circumstances.

If only it were that simple...

In Reality, in Nature there are no perfect circles, no straight lines, there is no 1 so completely identical to any another 1 to make 2.

These are concepts, ideas; they have 'mental existence'.  Ideas do not 'exist' in any meaningful way, any more than speed 'exists': they are both abstract concepts derived from our observations of a process. For speed this is the process of motion: for ideas it is the process of thought. I think you are confusing this with 'exists' in the sense of 'is a material object we can point to'.

'Mental existence' is really just a metaphor for "I can think about it", but that act does not give it any actual existence. 

"Mental existence" is not a subset of "existence", it is just a metaphor for thinking about a thing. And thinking about a thing doesn't give it existence: Santa Clause does not exist. 

"One's thoughts exist" is nevertheless a valid statement since in vernacular speech that statement is simply a metaphor for "I think".

wslm.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/6/2017 at 3:41 AM, Quisant said:

If only it were that simple...

In Reality, in Nature there are no perfect circles, no straight lines, there is no 1 so completely identical to any another 1 to make 2.

These are concepts, ideas; they have 'mental existence'.  Ideas do not 'exist' in any meaningful way, any more than speed 'exists': they are both abstract concepts derived from our observations of a process. For speed this is the process of motion: for ideas it is the process of thought. I think you are confusing this with 'exists' in the sense of 'is a material object we can point to'.

'Mental existence' is really just a metaphor for "I can think about it", but that act does not give it any actual existence. 

"Mental existence" is not a subset of "existence", it is just a metaphor for thinking about a thing. And thinking about a thing doesn't give it existence: Santa Clause does not exist. 

"One's thoughts exist" is nevertheless a valid statement since in vernacular speech that statement is simply a metaphor for "I think".

wslm.

*
 

So, 1+1 = 2 is only true in our minds and will only be true inasmuch as "we think about it".... but not true in the natural world?  So, we all just think "1 + 1 = 2"?  There is absolutely nothing objective about 1+ 1= 2?  

So we can't really count things in the natural world?  So when you look at one apple and then you look at another apple, they don't necessarily equate to 2 apples.  They only equate to 2 apples so long as you think they equate to two apples? 

Is there a difference to you between knowing  something and thinking something?

Do you know that 1 + 1 = 2 or do you merely think that 1 + 1 = 2?

what does it mean tin"KNOW" anything at all?  Is knowledge of things  just mere thinking about things?

 

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2017 at 0:20 AM, baqar said:

Brother 

Where have you been?

Haven't seen you for a very long time.

I was also away for about 2 years.

I am here for a short while and would have to leave again.

 

Salam,

Hope you are well brother.  Been busy with other things.  Thanks for asking.

:)

Ethereal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.