Things about Everything

[ForEverAfter]

I have taken sides in the absence of evidence, indeed.

Why?

the many functions suggested by all types of religion

Which are? (I think they're all essentially in agreement with each other, aren't they?)

which have generally poor proof backing up their claims

They (religions) don't attempt to prove anything.

However if I were to go undecided about the function of the universe, I would then have to consider someone or something responsible for this function, the one who placed it and then I would have to search for who created this and I will be lost, just like in my original post, in the same sort of the unproven religious beliefs.

Perhaps, then, we are limited to our understanding based on our expectation that proof is the only evidence of reality and that, when something cannot be proved, it - otherwise - does not exist. (As willow paraphrased more eloquently than I can phrase in my current state.... [15 shots of tequila and one joint.])

Your last statement makes absolutely no sense to me, honestly.

Well, it does make sense... So, maybe, you should read it again... I often, due to my preconceptions of what makes sense and what doesn't, fail to see sense in perfectly sensible statements.

I've reread my last statement(s), and I fail to see the lapse in logic/reason.

In the end, I would like to point out, that you and I mostly share lots of common ideas, but we have been misunderstanding each other.

I know, man.
I'm not being adversarial or antagonistic with you. I'm just a very a strange, blunt person.
And, I suppose, I focus on differences rather than commonalities.
Not because I like conflict, but because I think it (conflict) has a function.
It is futile, as everything is, but I enjoy trying - regardless - to push people in one direction or another.
In your case, I'd like you to be less certain that one day we will know everything.
It's not something I'm particularly invested in... I just think it will do you good.

I think a lot of what you've said is spot on, for the record, and - more than that - well articulated.... Sometimes, people assume that I only see the different paths we take (the negative, if you like) and not the one's we share... But, I assure you: that is not the case.



-FEA

 

[flyhighk]

However, concerning the fonction of the universe, I really see none. In fact Neil de Grasse Tyson once said it.
We are here by chance.

"We are here by chance" says almost nothing about the function of the universe. We are not the universe, but merely a tiny part of it.

we actually answered most of the questions concerning our species

No we didn't.

We have all our planet's history written down.

False. We know very little about our planet's history in comparison to what we don't know. And only a small fraction of what we know about its history came from writings.

Scientists are currently researching and developing our knowledge, we are knowing more and more about the cosmos by the day. so I have no explanation to give when claiming that one day we will know everything. If you think something or someone has placed some sort of limit to our understanding of the universe and to how much we are allowed to know, I believe you (or any one else claiming it) should be the one stating the facts.

By saying that our knowledge is continually growing, therefore we will eventually know everything there is to be known, you are implying that the unknown is finite. Our knowledge may keep growing indefinitely, but unless the unknown (I'm referring to both the known unknown and the unknown unknown) is finite, our knowledge will not include everything we could possibly know.
Unless you can provide proof that the unknown is finite, your statement "one day we will know everything" is unsubstantiated at best.

 

[Br1ngTh3Ra1n]

Why?



Which are? (I think they're all essentially in agreement with each other, aren't they?)



They (religions) don't attempt to prove anything.



Perhaps, then, we are limited to our understanding based on our expectation that proof is the only evidence of reality and that, when something cannot be proved, it - otherwise - does not exist. (As willow paraphrased more eloquently than I can phrase in my current state.... [15 shots of tequila and one joint.])



Well, it does make sense... So, maybe, you should read it again... I often, due to my preconceptions of what makes sense and what doesn't, fail to see sense in perfectly sensible statements.

I've reread my last statement(s), and I fail to see the lapse in logic/reason.



I know, man.
I'm not being adversarial or antagonistic with you. I'm just a very a strange, blunt person.
And, I suppose, I focus on differences rather than commonalities.
Not because I like conflict, but because I think it (conflict) has a function.
It is futile, as everything is, but I enjoy trying - regardless - to push people in one direction or another.
In your case, I'd like you to be less certain that one day we will know everything.
It's not something I'm particularly invested in... I just think it will do you good.

I think a lot of what you've said is spot on, for the record, and - more than that - well articulated.... Sometimes, people assume that I only see the different paths we take (the negative, if you like) and not the one's we share... But, I assure you: that is not the case.



-FEA

-I explained why I have taken sides concerning this matter.

-You could read about all the religions that exist.

-They actually do. Christianity for instance tend to back jesus's existence by publishing a photo of what he could look like, after scanning what they once used to burry him with.

Wow, really? you then replied to my answer wich you claimed I never gave.
And no, missing evidence concerning does not mean it doesn't it doesn't exist. I already said that.ugh.

This is getting borring.

C'mon now I feel like we are mostly repeating ourselves.

 

[Br1ngTh3Ra1n]

"We are here by chance" says almost nothing about the function of the universe. We are not the universe, but merely a tiny part of it.

No we didn't.
False. We know very little about our planet's history in comparison to what we don't know. And only a small fraction of what we know about its history came from writings.




By saying that our knowledge is continually growing, therefore we will eventually know everything there is to be known, you are implying that the unknown is finite. Our knowledge may keep growing indefinitely, but unless the unknown (I'm referring to both the known unknown and the unknown unknown) is finite, our knowledge will not include everything we could possibly know.
Unless you can provide proof that the unknown is finite, your statement "one day we will know everything" is unsubstantiated at best.

We refers to us and the universe. We are in this universe, we are part of the universe and the universe is in us.

Yes we did. Google them.

We know almost everything about the formation of our planet. Google it. Again.

Hm, you said maybe our knowledge will grow indefinitely, in that case we will know the infinite unknown.
What's the problem if the unknown is infinite? Is there a finite limit to our developmen?
Again, unless you can prove there is a limit to our understanding, don't limit it.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Good luck to you.

 

[flyhighk]

We refers to us and the universe. We are in this universe, we are part of the universe

You're contradicting yourself here. Next time you use a word ambiguously, it would be a good idea to explain what you're referring to by that word.

Yes we did. Google them.

Aren't you trying to evade discussion by telling me to google something ? I find it very hard to believe that we answered most of the questions regarding our species, considering the countless problems biologists, medical researchers, psychologists and others try to solve everyday.

We have all our planet's history written down.

We know almost everything about the formation of our planet.

Did you change your mind? Or do you still support your first statement? In that case, I'll repeat : We know very little about our planet's history in comparison to what we don't know. And only a small fraction of what we know about its history came from writings.

Hm, you said maybe our knowledge will grow indefinitely, in that case we will know the infinite unknown.
What's the problem if the unknown is infinite? Is there a finite limit to our developmen?
Again, unless you can prove there is a limit to our understanding, don't limit it.

The contradiction here is ridiculous.

We will never know everything if the unknown is infinite. If we keep adding 1 to a real number, indefinitely, will we ever reach infinity ?

This is getting borring.

If you find that kind of discussion boring, then perhaps you should avoid philosophical discussions altogether.

 

[Br1ngTh3Ra1n]

You're contradicting yourself here. Next time you use a word ambiguously, it would be a good idea to explain what you're referring to by that word.

Aren't you trying to evade discussion by telling me to google something ? I find it very hard to believe that we answered most of the questions regarding our species, considering the countless problems biologists, medical researchers, psychologists and others try to solve everyday.



Did you change your mind? Or do you still support your first statement? In that case, I'll repeat : We know very little about our planet's history in comparison to what we don't know. And only a small fraction of what we know about its history came from writings.


The contradiction here is ridiculous.

We will never know everything if the unknown is infinite. If we keep adding 1 to a real number, indefinitely, will we ever reach infinity ?


If you find that kind of discussion boring, then perhaps you should avoid philosophical discussions altogether.

How am i contradicting myself?

I am not trying to evade discussions. I simply can't explain to you all of our knowledge concerning our biology. There are books made for this. You can buy them or google the info you need. That was my (whay i think was) obvious point.

It's still the same. I think you should have noticed by now that The discussion is regarding physics and biology, formation of the planet earth, not it's history referring to some writing that indicates who was the last commander of the romanian army.

The concept of infinity is a hard one to understand, indeed. However what you are saying strongly contradict what you've said. If we keep on aading one law, how will there be unlimited unknown physics laws? How could we reach infinity?

I do not find philosophical discussion boring. This is a pointless remark to give considering I opened this thread. I did however find the previous replies "boring" in some way because I felt we were repeating some exact ideas over again.

 

[Br1ngTh3Ra1n]

Good luck to you.

Thanks and same to you

 

[ChrisGo]

I hate coming in on a thread once there has been a lengthy debate. There's just too much to comment on. However, I will say this, if we presume to Universe to infinite, how can we assume that we learn all there is to know? If the Universe is infinite, wouldn't the mysteries and secrets about it also be infinite?

 

[flyhighk]

How am i contradicting myself?

"We refers to us and the universe" "we are part of the universe" The universe cannot be a part of itself.

It's still the same.

So you still support your statement : "We have all our planet's history written down." I have to repeat my answer : We do not. Ironically, you find repetitions boring yet you induce them by still supporting a statement that you failed to substantiate.

If we keep on aading one law, how will there be unlimited unknown physics laws?

There will be. It should be obvious.

do not find philosophical discussion boring. This is a pointless remark to give considering I opened this thread. I did however find the previous replies "boring" in some way because I felt we were repeating some exact ideas over again.

You'll always encounter repetitions in philosophical discussion

 

[Br1ngTh3Ra1n]

"We refers to us and the universe" "we are part of the universe" The universe cannot be a part of itself.
So you still support your statement : "We have all our planet's history written down." I have to repeat my answer : We do not. Ironically, you find repetitions boring yet you induce them by still supporting a statement that you failed to substantiate.

There will be. It should be obvious.

You'll always encounter repetitions in philosophical discussion

Are you not part of yourself?

I do find repeating the same exact statement boring, however you are enforcing me to do so with your pointless unwillingness to accept scientific fact.


It's not obvious.And, I'm sure you are not prescribing infinity as "obvious", are you? Last time I checked, infinity had a couple of unsolved paradoxes, it's a long shot from being That obvious.

You will always encounter repetitions in every debate you could ever possibly think of.

 

[swilow]

I think he's being hyper logical. The universe is the totality. We are parts of that totality. The totality itself is not a part; it is the whole that we are discussing here divided.

 

[flyhighk]

Are you not part of yourself?

Surely not. Oxford dictionary :
Part : An amount or section which, when combined with others, makes up the whole of something
or : Some but not all of something

And, I'm sure you are not prescribing infinity as "obvious", are you? Last time I checked, infinity had a couple of unsolved paradoxes, it's a long shot from being That obvious.

I don't prescribe anything, I'm not a doctor. And I'm not describing infinity as obvious.

You will always encounter repetitions in every debate you could ever possibly think of.

I do not find philosophical discussion boring.

I did however find the previous replies "boring" in some way because I felt we were repeating some exact ideas over again.

You do not find philosophical discussion boring, but you find repetitions boring which you agree will always be encountered in discussions. Contradiction.

 

[turkalurk]

yeah, u are being anal and whiney about shit. We are the universe but the universe is not us.

 

[swilow]

^Please don't reply after one month with such pointless comments. They benefit nobody. You should know better.

 

[Jabberwocky]

In my experience, attempting to comprehend cosmic concepts within the confines of the conscious mind alone is akin to trying to stuff an Ocean into a juice box. The other energetic systems of the mind, heart, and body, need to be brought into the process in order to achieve a transcendental awareness that has considerably more room.

^ This! You are made up of more than one type of perception. To tackle questions of the cosmos and to achieve transcendent awareness of it you must experience it with all of your perception. I journaled for years on topics like this and found myself going in circles. My journaling went deeper when I started including the following headings in my journal: physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and tackled the same questions from each of these perceptual centers. Good stuff though, glad you are asking yourself these questions and not settling for what someone else tells you in the nature of reality.