Home More advice Education & School
Today in r.e we got talking about "Why are we here?" Like - Did god create us - Did we just evolve - No one will EVER know, so why bother? I'm atheist, and my teacher is agnostic which is good. But still - I believe that the big bang did happen. The particles and everything did create enough energy or whatever to BANG! and the Earth was there. (dunno what actually happened, just you know what I mean.) Or, I'm with no one will ever know - stfu about it! But my friend actually said "Maybe we aren't here." And I understood - but no one else did. She said that you have a mind, and you think all the time. Whats to say that everything your doing, everything you have, all the people you know, arent figments of your imagination? That this is like one big dream, or you're on your own in this world. Or.. what if there WASNT a world? What would there be? Nothingness - but nothing is something. Would there be darkness? Darkness is something. Light - light is something. Its so impossible to say because no words have been created to talk about it. Thats my view anyway. Its possible that none of this is real. Yeah, I have arms and legs, I can touch them, I can push other people, touch them, talk to them, and they reply. I can write, eat, sleep, drink, THINK, but thats my mind and I can do whatever I want with my thinking and so maybe none of this is real. Views? That is possible. Have you ever thought about that? Do you (dis)agree? I want to know your opinions. :) ally.
I think you're talking passed each other. Descartes' was establishing a starting point in, "I think, therefore I am." In less succinct language he meant, "Whatever it is that is saying, "I think" IS whatever it is." Whether "I" is only a dream in the mind of cosmic newt, or whether "I" is a unique creation of a personal God, who himself declared His own self-evidents existence with "I AM THAT I AM." I think that might be mean "I am that which is, without reference to anything else."
As for the big bang, physics can explain a whole lot if it is given all the stuff that makes up the universe. The underlying question is where did that stuff come from. Cosmologists have put it, "Why is there something when there could have been nothing?" And, ally_xo, let me take exception with your argument that "nothing is something" and that "darkness is something." I'll start with the easier of the two: "darkness" is the name that humans give to the absence of light. The absence of something is only something else because we create an abstract noun to describe "it" to ourselves. Darkness is only "something" when there is a measurement device (an eye, for instance) that fails to detect light and a mind to observe it. Now, as to the notion that "nothing is something': you are correct that it's hard to get our minds around "nothing". Almost always we think of "nothing" as the absence of stuff. The problem there is that in all of our experience the absence of stuff still leaves a volume of space-time. What we don't often understand that even space-time is something. Space-time began at the big bang and expanded as the universe expanded.
What we are all looking for is what the Buddhists call the "un-conditioned state". (Buddha said, "All conditioned states are transitory."...that is anything that depends on something else doesn't last.) In my opinion, God (I AM THAT I AM) is the only un-caused cause, and is therefore the ultimate reality. Everything else proceeds from THAT THAT WAS, IS, AND WILL BE. But that's just what I believe and stake my life on.
You could ask yourself not only the whole existance thing, but what is real? and how does one define "real"?
I used to think about this a LOT and didn't really get far.
My theory is basically the big bang with the difference of what was before the big bang? Was it just another infinite universe going through a cycle where it makes a big bang, eventually all coming to gether again just to make a bang? And what would the purpose of that be? I cant say anything past that. I think it is, quite simply beyond any possible human perception.
Faith is the evidence of things 'not seen' - that's why it's called Faith - Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God - Simple - if were to die today, you'd get your proof whether you should have believed or not. - the Bible says for those who have accepted Christ, 'to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord Jesus Christ' - all have an individual Choice to make.
Yes, but if I question my existence (I think, therefore I am), then that means "I" exist
So, in order for that theory to work the same way, the rock would have to question it's own existance...otherwise, it's still a part of our "imaginary" world
Obviously someone thought about this - then they filmed The Matrix :-)
I believe we're really here, and we got here by the means of evolution
In the end, it's up to you to figure out which "truth" suits your own logic best...
no like I said interaction proves existence if we created it in our imagination it exists not on a physical plane but in thought its it exists in your imagination "you created it" so it does "exist"
No...obviously you think and you have observations
However, your theory states that in order to exist, you must have the ability to think Since the rock does not think - it does not exist
shes questioning her existence not a rocks and by questioning a rocks existence you further proved my point by acknowledging its existence it does in fact exist
I'm sorry, but that logic is flawed
If it's in your imagination - it does not exist; that is why it's called imaginary
I'm sorry projektx, but I have to call you out on that one
A rock does not think - are you saying it doesn't exist?
but your trying to tell me im not realy thinking and that my observations are all wrong I think thats a flawed concept
I think therefore I am is the answer to your question because you question your existence you acknowledge you exist
I spelt cthulu right and literature wrong
in otherwords cthulu exist in lititure
