Animetric.com
http://www.animetric.com/forum/

Philosophy
http://www.animetric.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=155
Page 1 of 17

Author:  The Adict [ May 17th, 2007, 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Philosophy

Well I'm opening this thread with a slim hope that somebody will be willing to have a philisophical debate with me and whoever else on any subject or just state their opinoins. Let's try to keep this civil though, no cussing or name calling or belitteling other's beliefs. Yeah this could kill the site but I don't think it will. We're all adults so this should be okay, remember CIVIL and no holding grudges, everybodies view and stance on things are different, it's supposed to be that way.

So what shall we start out with? Hummm so many possiblities. Well since somebody already braught it up how about how fleeting life is. But if anybody else want to talk about something else feel free to change subject.

Author:  42317 [ May 18th, 2007, 8:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Philisophy

The Adict wrote:
Let's try to keep this civil though, no cussing or name calling or belitteling other's beliefs. Yeah this could kill the site but I don't think it will.

Come on, we had discussions about philosophy and religion BRS and it DID remain civil and even polite.
Why do you think I returned to the board? :)

And I can give you a philosophical debate... sooner or later at least, since I'm pretty busy with other stuff these days.
So someone else may go ahead.

Author:  The Adict [ May 18th, 2007, 10:55 am ]
Post subject: 

First let me say I'm a noob here, I just started posting when THIS forum opened so I wouldn't know how people here treat the subject. I also know how absolutely ugly this kind of discussions can get, so I was just laying down soem rules, nothing more.

Author:  42317 [ May 18th, 2007, 1:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

By the way, better correct that typo in the thread's subject line. 8)

Author:  spazmaster666 [ May 20th, 2007, 6:25 am ]
Post subject: 

I think I was the one who made that Philosophy thread back in the old forum. But anyhoo, I'll start with a topic:

Does everything in existence have to have a cause? Can something that exists in the universe simply exist without it being caused into existence?

Author:  The Adict [ May 20th, 2007, 1:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

That's a good question. The simple answer for me any way is Yes and they the concience and god. Both I believe have existed before existed and have no definate begining and both don't need or have a reason to exist they just do.

Author:  42317 [ May 21st, 2007, 12:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

spazmaster666 wrote:
Can something that exists in the universe simply exist without it being caused into existence?

From nothing comes nothing.
Everything in existence was caused into existence, even if it was only by a clash of Dark Energy elements.

But metaphysically I doubt that everything in existence has a reason to exist, which is to say: I do not believe that every phenomenon in the known universe has an a priori purpose of some kind, may it be good or bad. Which, in turn, denies the existence of a creator in the Christian sense. 8)

Author:  spazmaster666 [ May 22nd, 2007, 5:12 am ]
Post subject: 

However, if everything has a cause, then what is it that caused the first thing to exist? According to chemistry, matter cannot be created or destroyed. If that's true than what "caused" matter to exist? Even the big band theory posits that something existed before the universe did.

I agree that you cannot get something out of nothing, however, if every thing has a cause, then there must be something that exists prior which then causes that thing to then exist, which would then lead us back to that concept that there much be somethings that exist without a cause. Seems contradictory doesn't it?

Or how about this: do random events have a cause? (i.e. in quantum physics, do the movements of subatomic particles, which to our knowledge is random, caused by something?)

Author:  42317 [ May 23rd, 2007, 8:10 am ]
Post subject: 

spazmaster666 wrote:
if everything has a cause, then what is it that caused the first thing to exist?

That's a mystery, isn't it?
My opinions are going as far as to believe in "higher powers" which provide some form of impetus, but I reject official religious versions.
(Pretty vague, huh?) :(

Author:  Dei [ May 23rd, 2007, 8:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

spazmaster666 wrote:
However, if everything has a cause, then what is it that caused the first thing to exist? According to chemistry, matter cannot be created or destroyed. If that's true than what "caused" matter to exist? Even the big band theory posits that something existed before the universe did.


Science does not explain why, but how. Scientific statements are proven empirically.

spazmaster666 wrote:
Or how about this: do random events have a cause? (i.e. in quantum physics, do the movements of subatomic particles, which to our knowledge is random, caused by something?)


For physical objects, I can use a scientific theory: Relativity. When something moves, everything else compensates. If something seems random, its probably just because the degree of movement is so minute, yet the amount of movement is so much, that it seems random to us.

Then comes the argument, "the first mover".

Author:  AMDS [ May 24th, 2007, 1:02 am ]
Post subject: 

When questions are asked about what was before something else, the answer does not lie in tracing who or what caused it, but rather whether or not time can curve on itself to a point that it repeats itself, and is therefore the "cause" of things or specific things.:shock:

The question then becomes, when is the "End" and "beginning" of time, and can we tell the difference. :?

With the onset of multi-verse theory in the field of cosmology, the theory of everything is on the verge of being solved. But, even then philosophy will take on a new state. More questions will be asked and the process will go on and on. :roll:

Author:  42317 [ May 24th, 2007, 5:56 am ]
Post subject: 

The idea of time not being a "line" but a "circle" is the heart of Buddhism.
Thinking of time as a phenomenon with a beginning and an end is a western concept.
If we think of time as a circular phenomenon the question about causes and beginnings disappears, although with a western cultural background it might be hard to cope mentally with the concept that everything has always existed and that there was never a kind of "nothing" from which everything began. On the other hand, in Buddhist terms, nothing really exists - ambiguity intended. :D The things we perceive as real are only ideas evoked by our misunderstanding we had a mind or a soul.
But Gautama Buddha has also said a very practical thing:
"There are questions to which there is an answer, there are questions to which there are is no answer, and there are questions thinking about which is completely unnecessary."
That one had me rolling on the floor in the seminar.

Author:  spazmaster666 [ May 24th, 2007, 6:37 am ]
Post subject: 

Dei wrote:
Science does not explain why, but how. Scientific statements are proven empirically.


Yes, I know. Science only explains processes, not purpose.

Dei wrote:
For physical objects, I can use a scientific theory: Relativity. When something moves, everything else compensates. If something seems random, its probably just because the degree of movement is so minute, yet the amount of movement is so much, that it seems random to us.


Yeah, but relativity falls apart in the world of subatomic particles. Of course adding to the complications is as opposed to relativity, which is a relatively well established theory (no pun intended), no one really understands quantum physics, not even so-called "quantum physicists."

Author:  Dei [ May 24th, 2007, 7:22 am ]
Post subject: 

spazmaster666 wrote:
Yeah, but relativity falls apart in the world of subatomic particles. Of course adding to the complications is as opposed to relativity, which is a relatively well established theory (no pun intended), no one really understands quantum physics, not even so-called "quantum physicists."


I'm sure theory that can accommodate both large and minute things will eventually be established.

Well, I don't know what's meta-physical about this discussion anymore.

Author:  42317 [ May 24th, 2007, 7:26 am ]
Post subject: 

spazmaster666 wrote:
no one really understands quantum physics, not even so-called "quantum physicists."

Well, you study things in order to understand them. I wouldn't use their current lack of understanding against the researchers. Astrophysicists are still astrophysicists although it is clear to them that 70 % of the universe consists of unknown components so far labelled "Dark Energy", as opposed to "Dark Matter" (20 %) and atoms (5 %).
(See some links at Astrophysics at Bielefeld University)

Page 1 of 17 All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/