|
Pro Tips On How To Make Your Logic/Cubase Tracks Sound Better And More Proffessional! (pg. 22)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cronodevir |
mfitterer1
Science is a production of Logic. Logic makes science. Not the other way around. You are implying that there was no logic, then someone came up with science, then logic was formed. Which is wrong.
As for infinity, it doesn't require observation to know time and space is not infinite.
I mentioned infinity because its part of the Infinite Recession concept, which says that there can't be an unlimited number of events before the current one.
The universe [all time and space, and things dependent upon them], there are only two [2] [Doce] options for how it is here...
1. It was brought into existence.
2. It always existed.
Number 2 cannot be true simply because of the fallacy Ive mentioned over and over again. Further study in any field of science will not change that. Getting more people to think about it will not change it, nothing will change it, there can not have been an infinite number of events before 1200, 2000, now, pick any date you want, it doesn't matter.
Number 1. Things do not bring themselves into existence. The power 'to create', to bring something into existence. Is an attribute. A thing that doesn't exist, is does not have attributes. So it cannot bring itself here. No amount of scientific data, or observation or anything will ever change this fact, ever. A thing that doesn't exist cannot do. Or, to say it more eloquently. ...Doing Entails Being
Conclusion? One who is not part of the universe in any way, not bound by any of its laws, brought it here. Anything that has a body, or is located, or changes, or goes through a process, or is a quantity or had a mode or state, is part of the universe, and the one that created all those things, does not need them.
fledz, you hang around scientists all day who hate the idea of a Creator, so they only try to look at things that "prove" their notions, and they reject anything that brings them to the conclusion that there is a creator. They are just like Catholics, they accept logic that benefits them, and reject logic that doesn't. Not to mention the western science model is so broke it doesn't even recognize the existence of thought for insatnce. Because thought cannot be observed. On top of that, most of it is polluted with crackpot theories and such, and the situation is so messy, no one cares if their achievements are based on 200 year old unproven theories. They believe what they want to believe.
You can have a 'fact' that is based on theories. And if all you have is theories, you have no progress. This old cripple guy, can't think of his name right now..hes made no progress what so ever, yet everyone loves him because they like his theories. Perfect example of people not giving a about the basis of someones claim, they only want to hear the claim itself. |
|
|
| Subtle |
In the universe time is infinite, the time will never ever stop from now on, it will go on forever.
So if time can be infinite, the universe can also. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
No one said it won't go on forever.
I said it had a start. There is a difference. Also, even though long from now people will still be going on about their lives, it won't be infinite... People will never get to a point where they will say "we have reached infinity". They can for example only say "its been 23789627896578965789489736 many years." No matter what era you are in, you can only conclude that a finite amount of time has passed.
Having no end, is not the same as having no beginning. Something that has a beginning is a creation. It was brought into existence by something else. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
No one said it won't go on forever.
I said it had a start. There is a difference. Also, even though long from now people will still be going on about their lives, it won't be infinite... People will never get to a point where they will say "we have reached infinity". They can for example only say "its been 23789627896578965789489736 many years."
Having no end, is not the same as having no beginning. Something that has a beginning is a creation. It was brought into existence by something else. |
You fail to grasp the key point. It is the universe, you can't look at it from a human perspective. If it was created, then who created it? If something created it, then that something is part of the universe. So who created God? If he/she/it has always been here then it's safe to say that the universe is infinite because anything and everything is part of the universe. The universe encompasses everything, even beings of higher power.
The whole point is that if the universe is in an infinite loop it means that there is no beginning or end. Infinity does not have a beginning, just like it doesn't have an end. If the universe eventually fails to expand, which it looks like it will because galaxies are slowing down their movement away from each other, gravity will eventually pull them back into what we started with and the process will be repeated. Over and over again. So you can't say that the big bang was the beginning because it may have happened before an infinite amount of times. A loop (once again) has no start or finish.
And also once again, if God exists (and I'm not saying a God doesn't exist) then that means the universe is infact infinite as that being of power we refer to as a God has and always will be there. You can't be outside the universe.
There is no way to prove that time has to go forwards. No one can say that it can't eventually go backwards. But what is forwards and backwards? They are just something to make our relatively insignificant human brains able to grasp how things work. We created time, it's a relative measure not something of substance and being. It's there to serve a purpose so we can measure what happens and when. |
|
|
| palm |
| i believe in the events from 1992-1999 |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
fledz, you hang around scientists all day who hate the idea of a Creator, so they only try to look at things that "prove" their notions, and they reject anything that brings them to the conclusion that there is a creator. They are just like Catholics, they accept logic that benefits them, and reject logic that doesn't. Not to mention the western science model is so broke it doesn't even recognize the existence of thought for insatnce. Because thought cannot be observed. On top of that, most of it is polluted with crackpot theories and such, and the situation is so messy, no one cares if their achievements are based on 200 year old unproven theories. They believe what they want to believe.
You can have a 'fact' that is based on theories. And if all you have is theories, you have no progress. This old cripple guy, can't think of his name right now..hes made no progress what so ever, yet everyone loves him because they like his theories. Perfect example of people not giving a about the basis of someones claim, they only want to hear the claim itself. |
Bull. There's plenty of scientists who are agnostic and are happy to leave the possibility of a creator open. I'm one of those, but unlike you we recognise that there is no solid evidence of a creator at all. There never has been. I dare you to show me so concrete evidence. While we have open minds and know that there is a possibility of a creator, you seem certain there is one without having any proof whatsoever. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
You fail to grasp the key point. It is the universe, you can't look at it from a human perspective. If it was created, then who created it? If something created it, then that something is part of the universe. So who created God? If he/she/it has always been here then it's safe to say that the universe is infinite because anything and everything is part of the universe. The universe encompasses everything, even beings of higher power.
The whole point is that if the universe is in an infinite loop it means that there is no beginning or end. Infinity does not have a beginning, just like it doesn't have an end. If the universe eventually fails to expand, which it looks like it will because galaxies are slowing down their movement away from each other, gravity will eventually pull them back into what we started with and the process will be repeated. Over and over again. So you can't say that the big bang was the beginning because it may have happened before an infinite amount of times. A loop (once again) has no start or finish.
And also once again, if God exists (and I'm not saying a God doesn't exist) then that means the universe is infact infinite as that being of power we refer to as a God has and always will be there. You can't be outside the universe. |
The universe is limited to Time and Space, the universe is nothing but a bunch of particles and materials that compose other objects and things.. That's it. All Created things need them. Its not "human perspective" its logic. Logic isn't subjective. The one that Created it is not part of it. Because a thing cannot bring itself into existence. -- It cannot be that the Creator was part of something he did not Create yet. And then he created it. This is a fallacy. -- Its as if you said that the computer wrote the code that was needed to build the tools that made the computer that wrote the code. It cannot be.
The Creator is not in a place. He isn't inside or outside, he doesn't have proximity to anything, he isn't in a direction. Because directions, and proximity and locations and places are all properties and attributes of the universe. No matter how you slice it, the first thing had to have been created by one that was not like it. And everything couldn't have always been here. The creator isn't part of "everything". That is the whole point. Things do not create themselves, so anything that depends on the universe in order to exist, couldn't have been the one that created the universe in the first place. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Bull. There's plenty of scientists who are agnostic and are happy to leave the possibility of a creator open. I'm one of those, but unlike you we recognise that there is no solid evidence of a creator at all. There never has been. I dare you to show me so concrete evidence. While we have open minds and know that there is a possibility of a creator, you seem certain there is one without having any proof whatsoever. |
Logic is proof.
Responding to your edit: Time can't go backwards. Because what has happened, has happened, nothing can change that. The world is not deterministic. |
|
|
| Fledz |
 |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Logic precedes anything in science. Its as simple as that. If you used science to find something illogical, than the method or model you used to come to what ever conclusion, is wrong.
Science cannot contradict the very thing that it needs to exist, science cannot contradict logic. |
|
|
| lenieNt Force |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Logic precedes observation.
Something that must logically be, doesn't need observation or science to prove that it is the way it is. Logic is not dependent on science, to prove itself. Science is dependent on logic, other wise it wouldn't function.
So if logic dictates X, then X must be, and science, superstition, what ever we come up with, cannot change X. What can be seen vs what cannot be seen by humans currently, isn't relevant.
If you consider logic to be without standard [you think it changes] then you have no basis for the scientific method. You have no basis for your reasoning, in fact, all functioning would collapse. And you cannot use a system that is illogical, or goes against logic, to try to prove that something else is logical. Just like you can't prove something absolutely when one of your tools to prove it is only a theory.
People cannot grasp basic logic, and everyone wonders why there is friction between some members on this forum? |
"Logic" systems are logical to human beings and the dimension we live in and with the fowl brains we have been given to think and grasp observations. Logic is just a concept invented by human beings.
It is not so that logic precedes observation, quite the contrary, logic is made up after observations we do as humans. |
|
|
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
|
lol u managed to post my old desktop-background |
|
|
|
|
