timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Light exist. God is light. Therefore God exist. That was not hard at all.
What Mythology is Subjectively Better
- Thread starter attackfighter
- Start date
Light exist. God is light. Therefore God exist. That was not hard at all.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
CFC posters are zombies.
Timtofly is a CFC poster.
Therefore timtofly is a zombie.
Timtofly is a CFC poster.
Therefore timtofly is a zombie.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
We are so on the same page then. 
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Oddly enough, since I'm not building any spacecraft (working or otherwise) either mythology is equally useful to me in this regard also.
Are we sure we know the whole truth about light? Just like 19th century science had figured out what matter is?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I already hit that one with solipsism. Without accepting some axioms without proof you can't even 'prove' that light exists, much less know any truth about it.
The funniest thing about having chosen light as the demonstration of the 'reality' of physics is that you can start from the same axioms as traditional physics and construct a model in which flipping a switch will suck all the darkons out of your room, and that model is hardly any more complex than the accepted model is. For some applications it is probably more useful.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I agree, if you play dumb and purposedly miss the point, then yeah mythology and science can be considered equivalent.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm assuming your point was to pick a fight, so yes I intentionally missed it.
The sudden appearance in the thread and grabbing a line out of context was a dead give away.
In regards to trying to get to a final (smallest possible) part of matter, it is likely as a blind man (or a man who is in perfect darkness) moving cautiously in a corridor, reasoning it has to end somewhere. Well... one of the simplest to theorise other possibilities is that the corridor runs the circumference of a planet, so it won't ever actually stop. But since he is unable to see he cannot actually note that the horizon of the corridor would remain the same.
And then there are (infinite) other possibilities, far more chaotic
Even if the corridor actually is impassable after some point, why not claim that this is not due to an actual end there but a set impossibility for an observer to go past that vanishing point of a hypothetical horizon
And then there are (infinite) other possibilities, far more chaotic
Even if the corridor actually is impassable after some point, why not claim that this is not due to an actual end there but a set impossibility for an observer to go past that vanishing point of a hypothetical horizon
Akka
Moody old mage.
Just pointing the flaw in your comparison.
But well, if you prefer to purposedly play dumb 'cause you're more interested about the chip crushing your shoulder than about the actual point of the discussion, it's your problem and your own failure.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Akka, other than trying to pick fights with me do you have anything to contribute to this conversation?
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Not the whole truth. We know light exists. You can't just say "Well, guess what, you fools. I deny your reality and I substitute it with my own!" and make light nonexistent.
Now, for gods..
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
So, you can disprove solipsism? I vastly prefer the mythology of physics, even with the requirement of faith in the axioms, but I can't even begin to disprove solipsism myself. Please, continue.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Well, I don't know. The Big Bang is a kind of creation myth, isn't it?
Sure, you can point to evidence justifying this particular view of how the Universe came into being, but equally the Ancients would have pointed to the sky, and the heavens, and volcanoes and stuff to justify their particular creation myths, too. (Or maybe they didn't. Maybe they just made up stories to tell each other round the campfire.)
The Big Bang is the current creation myth. What's to say that in another 10,000 years (say), it won't look as quaint as Genesis does to most people today?
I'd say it's highly likely.
Sure, you can point to evidence justifying this particular view of how the Universe came into being, but equally the Ancients would have pointed to the sky, and the heavens, and volcanoes and stuff to justify their particular creation myths, too. (Or maybe they didn't. Maybe they just made up stories to tell each other round the campfire.)
The Big Bang is the current creation myth. What's to say that in another 10,000 years (say), it won't look as quaint as Genesis does to most people today?
I'd say it's highly likely.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
It's rather easy. Since other things exist, it means that other things aside the mind of the said human exist.
It exists, but picked up in our own way through senses we have. Which is why we cannot experience how other beings pick up other parts of the light spectre. Then again matter is a main parameter for our own intellect, and in another (hypothetical) alien intellect it might not be there, or there in any like form or nature. And likewise (in this hypothetical) we may not pick up countless other phenomena deemed as very main ones by other types of observing beings.
Something does exist in the case of light too, but the light we sense/count with technology, or observe in other objects, is not independent of our system of perception and thus is not the thing-in-itself either.
There is a nice passage by Guy de Maupassant where he argues that music is an art born out of having an ear drum that translates air movement/vibration into sounds, and thus something entirely unrelated to the actual phenomenon (movements/displacements in the medium) now became the basis for an entire art due to us having very particular organs of perception.
Akka
Moody old mage.
As said above, I simply pointed to the problem with your reasoning (you can't put on the same footing mythology and science, for the obvious fact that science WORKS and you can BUILD THINGS based on its rules, while mythology doesn't and is just imaginary).
You're the one who try to pick a fight about it instead of just thinking about the point made. And then blame me for it.
Similar threads
- Poll
