Dark Matter

[Guest GhostRanger]

I dont see whats wrong, people can strive for an unobtainable thing...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can never say something is true, because we dont know everything. If you believe some creator guy told you something, he didnt, he told someone else who told you, so it cant be true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think the truth exists, we can get close, we can try to get close to it, try to understand the universe which we live in, but we can never truly understand the meaning of life or the laws of the universe, or whatever...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're saying two different things. First you're saying truth doesn't exist - then you're saying it's unobtainable. If it IS unobtainable - it means it exists and we will just never understand it. That is a possiblity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it doesn't exist at all, we can't strive for it because it doesn't exist. Let me put it to you this way: What if I told you to go climb the mountain in my backyard? Since there is no mountain in my backyard, you could never climb it. How would you even strive towards the mountain if it doesn't exist? That's absurd!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between saying we will never understand truth, and saying truth doesn't exist. Truth in some form has to exist.

[Astralinre]

I dont see whats wrong, people can strive for an unobtainable thing...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You didn't just say truth is unobtainable, but that it doesn't exist. In such a case, all striving for truth, including science, is absurd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can never say something is true, because we dont know everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say I am in a room, and I see a spider. Do I have to have knowledge of the entire room to claim that there is a spider in it? Or do I only have to know the part in which the spider is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe some creator guy told you something, he didnt, he told someone else who told you, so it cant be true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My grandfather told my father that he was born in Alabama, and my father told me. Since my grandfather didn't tell it directly to me, it can't be true. That's your reasoning; see any problems with it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think the truth exists, we can get close, we can try to get close to it, try to understand the universe which we live in, but we can never truly understand the meaning of life or the laws of the universe, or whatever...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine a game of darts. I throw a dart at the board. But wait, there isn't a board. There's not a dart board in the entire room. How is it possible for my dart to hit close to the bullseye if there is no dart board?

[masterdez]

I think youre starting to become overly critical, i have opinions, most of which are wrong according to both of you, so ill stop now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, i think some of the points i raised are worthwhile thinking about, and vice versa.

[Astralinre]

I think youre starting to become overly critical, i have opinions, most of which are wrong according to both of you, so ill stop now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, i think some of the points i raised are worthwhile thinking about, and vice versa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, "I can't defend my viewpoint at all, so I'm going to find an excuse to get out of here."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this a true assessment of your motives?

[masterdez]

 

I think youre starting to become overly critical, i have opinions, most of which are wrong according to both of you, so ill stop now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, i think some of the points i raised are worthwhile thinking about, and vice versa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, "I can't defend my viewpoint at all, so I'm going to find an excuse to get out of here."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this a true assessment of your motives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its 23.38, im tired, i have college in the morning, i have an interview at Oxford Uni this week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ive said what ive got to say, im no philospher or great arguer. I have my views, you think theyre wrong. End of story. Why do you suddenly think, "oh he cant come back with another argument, I WIN!!", thats not what a discussion is about.

[Astralinre]

 

 

I think youre starting to become overly critical, i have opinions, most of which are wrong according to both of you, so ill stop now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, i think some of the points i raised are worthwhile thinking about, and vice versa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, "I can't defend my viewpoint at all, so I'm going to find an excuse to get out of here."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this a true assessment of your motives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its 23.38, im tired, i have college in the morning, i have an interview at Oxford Uni this week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ive said what ive got to say, im no philospher or great arguer. I have my views, you think theyre wrong. End of story. Why do you suddenly think, "oh he cant come back with another argument, I WIN!!", thats not what a discussion is about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say I win. In fact, I haven't succeeded at all, I don't think. My goal is not to beat you or to humiliate you, but to make you question your beliefs and see that they do not stand up to logic. If you can't question your own beliefs the way you've been questioning other peoples', then you haven't learned anything from this discussion. All you've done is dodge questions and avoid logic. I haven't won at all, because you don't seem to be any closer to any form of truth than you were at the beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is what a discussion is about, not winning, but getting closer to truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(And remember, you were in the one who came in here criticizing and insulting others' beliefs. If you can't take it yourself, and if you can't handle people testing your beliefs, then you ought not to post on these threads.)

[darkmage099]

 

No,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But its not wrong either

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth = saying what is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Falsehood = saying what is not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it is not a true statement, then by definition, it is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time for a basic lesson in logic: the Law of Non-Contradiction. This is a fundamental principle of logic. Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example, if I say that my right shoe is on my foot and is also not on my foot at the same time, my statement contradicts itself. Therefore, it is false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there such a thing as truth?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because something is not A does not mean it is -A. It can be neither. I do not think he is saying it is both A and -A, but rather that is is not A nor -A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your right shoe is not on your right foot, and you say your right shoe is not on your left foot. That does not mean it his false. It can be on no foot at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you said your right shoe is on your foot and it is on no foot at all, you are contradicting yourself. Then, it is false. I guess it depends on the situation?

[Astralinre]

Just because something is not A does not mean it is -A. It can be neither. I do not think he is saying it is both A and -A, but rather that is is not A nor -A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your right shoe is not on your right foot, and you say your right shoe is not on your left foot. That does not mean it his false. It can be on no foot at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you said your right shoe is on your foot and it is on no foot at all, you are contradicting yourself. Then, it is false. I guess it depends on the situation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly there are situations where there are more than two options. If that were the case, my reasoning would be faulty. However, in the case of truth, there are only two options. Truth is saying what is. If I what I say matches reality, it is true. If what I say does not match reality, it is false. Where is the third option? Either a statement matches reality or it doesn't.

[darkmage099]

 

Just because something is not A does not mean it is -A. It can be neither. I do not think he is saying it is both A and -A, but rather that is is not A nor -A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your right shoe is not on your right foot, and you say your right shoe is not on your left foot. That does not mean it his false. It can be on no foot at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you said your right shoe is on your foot and it is on no foot at all, you are contradicting yourself. Then, it is false. I guess it depends on the situation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly there are situations where there are more than two options. If that were the case, my reasoning would be faulty. However, in the case of truth, there are only two options. Truth is saying what is. If I what I say matches reality, it is true. If what I say does not match reality, it is false. Where is the third option? Either a statement matches reality or it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if it cannot be proven either way, it is neither right nor wrong. This is a third choice, non? Although, I see what you are saying. What if you cannot see if it matches reality or not? So if you cannot prove it is right, then it is wrong. If you cannot prove it wrong, then it is right? If it does not match non-reality, must it be real?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand that Truth is saying what is. However, just because you cannot prove it to be true does not exactly have to be false. but...it cannot be true without proof? :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: If I sound stupid, I am just confusing myself. :|

[Astralinre]

But if it cannot be proven either way, it is neither right nor wrong. This is a third choice, non? Although, I see what you are saying. What if you cannot see if it matches reality or not? So if you cannot prove it is right, then it is wrong. If you cannot prove it wrong, then it is right? If it does not match non-reality, must it be real?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand that Truth is saying what is. However, just because you cannot prove it to be true does not exactly have to be false. but...it cannot be true without proof? :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans are finite. We don't know everything, so sometimes we lack sufficient knowledge to decide whether or not something is true. You're correct in this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, proving something to be untrue is different than lacking knowledge. If we know enough to prove that a statement is not true, then it is false - there is no other option. If we do NOT know enough to prove a statement true or false, then it is potentially true or false - we don't know enough to decide. Do you see the difference? I'm not sure how well I'm explaining this.

[darkmage099]

 

But if it cannot be proven either way, it is neither right nor wrong. This is a third choice, non? Although, I see what you are saying. What if you cannot see if it matches reality or not? So if you cannot prove it is right, then it is wrong. If you cannot prove it wrong, then it is right? If it does not match non-reality, must it be real?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand that Truth is saying what is. However, just because you cannot prove it to be true does not exactly have to be false. but...it cannot be true without proof? :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans are finite. We don't know everything, so sometimes we lack sufficient knowledge to decide whether or not something is true. You're correct in this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, proving something to be untrue is different than lacking knowledge. If we know enough to prove that a statement is not true, then it is false - there is no other option. If we do NOT know enough to prove a statement true or false, then it is potentially true or false - we don't know enough to decide. Do you see the difference? I'm not sure how well I'm explaining this.

 

 

 

I somewhat understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Darn, I have to go read some [bleep]ens....he is so incredibly boring.

[Astralinre]

 

 

But if it cannot be proven either way, it is neither right nor wrong. This is a third choice, non? Although, I see what you are saying. What if you cannot see if it matches reality or not? So if you cannot prove it is right, then it is wrong. If you cannot prove it wrong, then it is right? If it does not match non-reality, must it be real?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand that Truth is saying what is. However, just because you cannot prove it to be true does not exactly have to be false. but...it cannot be true without proof? :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans are finite. We don't know everything, so sometimes we lack sufficient knowledge to decide whether or not something is true. You're correct in this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, proving something to be untrue is different than lacking knowledge. If we know enough to prove that a statement is not true, then it is false - there is no other option. If we do NOT know enough to prove a statement true or false, then it is potentially true or false - we don't know enough to decide. Do you see the difference? I'm not sure how well I'm explaining this.

 

 

 

I somewhat understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Darn, I have to go read some [bleep]ens....he is so incredibly boring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hehe, that makes me glad that I only have to read a chapter about the American Civil War in my history book. I'll take that over [bleep]ens any day. :P

[Guest GhostRanger]

Darkmage - give me an example of something that neither exists (A) nor does not exist (-A).

[darkmage099]

Darkmage - give me an example of something that neither exists (A) nor does not exist (-A).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ima give a shot at some elaborate answer.Truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, I never said exists specifically.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Darkmage - give me an example of something that neither exists (A) nor does not exist (-A).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ima give a shot at some elaborate answer.Truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, I never said exists specifically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that's what we're talking about - whether or not truth exists. Now, if truth doesn't exist and doesn't NOT exist - what is it? I understand the point that we might not be able to know what is true - but the fact that we can't know it proves it exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, if truth doesn't exist and doesn't not exist - that means we don't know anything to be true or false. So this statement, "You are a female," is neither true or false - because truth doesn't exist nor does it not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This theory is completely nonsensical.

[warri0r45]

I was indoctrinated from birth, actually. And the other 1000's of religions are wrong, to put it simply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i want to know how you can assert this as truth, if you were indoctrinated from birth, then your looking at it objectively, not subjectively

[insane]

Maybe it's because I just wrote an exam where we get marked as right or wrong, but I find this entire truth conversation hilarious.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

I was indoctrinated from birth, actually. And the other 1000's of religions are wrong, to put it simply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i want to know how you can assert this as truth, if you were indoctrinated from birth, then your looking at it objectively, not subjectively

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that you switched the words objectively and subjectively. And I was indoctrinated - I don't need "reasons" to make my assertion.

[warri0r45]

you didnt even answer the question... and if you assert that its truth, it needs to be true

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit: i didnt mix the words, i was suggesting that someone who isnt indoctrinated into a religion from birth can look more subjectively at the subject i.e. without bias.

[Death_By_Pod]

There is no single definition of the word 'truth'. It's pretty silly to argue for a truth (an objective fact) when there isn't an absolute frame of reference of in which to validate a truth. Of course this means that science can't attain the truth and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah this is a subject about Scientists making up the idea of Dark Matter, which has been refuted on the first page.

[insane]

which has been refuted on the first page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From your frame of reference ;)

[Death_By_Pod]

 

which has been refuted on the first page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From your frame of reference ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the available data, which could be wrong for all we know. And as history tells us, will be one wrong theory in a long line of wrong theories.

[Tigra00]

 

 

which has been refuted on the first page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From your frame of reference ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the available data, which could be wrong for all we know. And as history tells us, will be one wrong theory in a long line of wrong theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't even begin to "refute" a theory yourself. You are not a scientist, and they are MUCH smarter than you. What you "think" virtually means *nothing*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen nothing here to even begin to refute Dark Matter. You're all going on and on about how you can't see it, or something. So? You can't see Black Holes, either, but we know them to be factual. You see them by looking at the radiation and whatnot that they emit. They are saying that Dark Matter apparently emits nothing to view, so it's a theory on why some things have more mass than they should.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it wrong because it makes no sense to you? =;

[insane]

which could be wrong for all we know

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you just implied right and wrong don't exist. Why are you using that word now?

[warri0r45]

Quote:

 

 

 

which has been refuted on the first page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From your frame of reference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this aregument on truth and frames of reference/ whatever reminds me of lyrics from the song parabola by tool -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

overthinking, overanalyzing separates the body from the mind..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

very off-topic i know, but o well. :boohoo: