This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A student's prayer.
Return to board index
Post by
Jubilee
It is like reading about gravity in a book. The knowledge of gravity exists to you, but gravity itself doesn't until you examine it.
Can you point to "an actually gravity"? Gravity is that
something
that causes all these effects that we see.
I tried to explain this in a different thread, but you two are confusing formalism with interpretation. That massive bodies move toward one another is an observable phenomenon; that there is a thing called "gravity" that pulls them together is an interpretation, not a scientific claim. (Indeed Einstein proposed an alternate interpretation where nothing pulls the bodies together at all - the math works either way.)
In short the question of whether a thing called gravity "exists" is not a question which can be answered by observing nature. It's strictly a matter of interpretation.
Atik is the one saying he knows gravity exists, not me.
I'm merely arguing that our knowledge of gravity is no different than our knowledge of anything we don't have direct access to. It's knowledge of the thing's various effects.
Post by
Atik
No....you didn't, you saw the effect of gravity. Go read up on the Laws of Gravity Atik.
Which, in gravity's case, is gravity. What it does is what it is. It is the force that pulled things together, like the book and the earth.
Ad Jub said, the father is not a force that made the child. Thus, while the child is an effect of him, it is not him. Unlike gravity, he is not his own effect.
Post by
gamerunknown
Here's
another interpretation
that gets the point across in a humorous way.
Post by
Atik
Here's
another interpretation
that gets the point across in a humorous way.
I remember seing that on damnlol, laughed pretty hard.
Post by
Adamsm
No....you didn't, you saw the effect of gravity. Go read up on the Laws of Gravity Atik.
Which, in gravity's case, is gravity. What it does is what it is. It is the force that pulled things together, like the book and the earth.Previous page, read what
Fenomas
said; he put it far better then I can.
Ad Jub said, the father is not a force that made the child. Thus, while the child is an effect of him, it is not him. Unlike gravity, he is not his own effect.
Um, duh? That still doesn't prove the father doesn't exist to the child.
Post by
Atik
The child never met the father personnally and never examined him. Thus, the father does not exist to the child.
Proven.
Post by
OverZealous
Ad Jub said, the father is not a force that made the child. Thus, while the child is an effect of him, it is not him. Unlike gravity, he is not his own effect.
I don't think I follow any more. If the father did not "make" the child, then who or what did?
Post by
Adamsm
The child never met the father personnally and never examined him. Thus, the father does not exist to the child.
Proven.
Incorrect, as the child would not exist without the Father; your theory, disproven.
Post by
Atik
The child never met the father personnally and never examined him. Thus, the father does not exist to the child.
Proven.
Incorrect, as the child would not exist without the Father; your theory, disproven.
The father exists in terms of reality. That is a completely different form of exsistance.
He does not, however, exist to the child.
Post by
Jubilee
The child never met the father personnally and never examined him. Thus, the father does not exist to the child.
Proven.
Have you met or examined an invisible force?
Post by
Atik
The child never met the father personnally and never examined him. Thus, the father does not exist to the child.
Proven.
Have you met or examined an invisible force?
Yes.
Post by
Jubilee
Yes.
What does it look like?
Post by
Atik
Yes.
What does it look like?
It is invisable, it doesn't look like anything.
invisable does not make it unobservable.
Post by
Adamsm
The child never met the father personnally and never examined him. Thus, the father does not exist to the child.
Proven.
Incorrect, as the child would not exist without the Father; your theory, disproven.
The father exists in terms of reality. That is a completely different form of exsistance.
He does not, however, exist to the child.
Again, incorrect; the child would not exist at all without the father: If the child exists, then his father would exist to him as the father created him. But since you have a vastly different definition of a lot of terms, should probably stop now before I say something I'll regret.
Post by
Atik
the child would not exist at all without the father
True. The provide the child with the existence of knowledge of the father.
If the child exists, then his father would exist to him as the father created him
False, as the child never met the father. So the father does not exist to the child, merely knowledge of him.
Post by
Jubilee
Yes.
What does it look like?
It is invisable, it doesn't look like anything.
invisable does not make it unobservable.
So what does observable mean? That you see (sense) its effects, correct?
Post by
Atik
Yes.
What does it look like?
It is invisible, it doesn't look like anything.
invisible does not make it unobservable.
So what does observable mean? That you see (sense) its effects, correct?
You can experience it.
Post by
Adamsm
If the child exists, then his father would exist to him as the father created him
False, as the child never met the father. So the father does not exist to the child, merely knowledge of him.
Maybe to your narrow view of the word, but let's see what the widely held definition says shall we?
Exist:
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.
Post by
Jubilee
Yes.
What does it look like?
It is invisible, it doesn't look like anything.
invisible does not make it unobservable.
So what does observable mean? That you see (sense) its effects, correct?
You can experience it.
You're just trading one word with another.
What does experience mean? That you see (sense) its effects, correct?
Post by
Atik
Yes.
What does it look like?
It is invisible, it doesn't look like anything.
invisible does not make it unobservable.
So what does observable mean? That you see (sense) its effects, correct?
You can experience it.
You're just trading one word with another.
What does experience mean? That you see (sense) its effects, correct?
Once again, drop the book and watch it fall. You experianced gravity. It is a scientific test that just proved gravity to you. It now exists for you.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.