Well part of it is theoretical, part of it is practical and to me some of it is a mere catch 22. And it primarily all goes back to recognition of time and space. There's a fine line and a grey area and I don't know where or how, but at some point, if there's no actual way to monitor, track or even acknowledge it in some manner (not just in human terms), how do we know it categorize it or even know it really happened? How can you know something specific happened when you can't formulate in it place, area, time and space? It's like the formation of solar system, we now have some form of measurements and determinations to track and figure out how it occurred.. whether through time, distance, age, etc.. but if life forms (big or small) can't recognize, comprehend or understand how something occurred or exists, it is merely an unknown. Some of these unknowns may be solved, many will not. And like the tree in the forest example, both sides of the argument in some manner have to rely on the opposite side to confirm or legitimize. It's like the chicken and egg question. It's just an unknown for which we'll never have a definite answer. So to me, this equates to the unknown and not being able to know something beyond our comprehension, just like a tree falling in the woods with no one there.
So if you asked me, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, I would say no...
Sorry to back-track but... You would say no?? How's that?
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
im just saying that without us there is no concept of maths. there is no one around to count the impala therefore counting does not exist.
and yes death is an absolute. however none of us can even be sure of that cause none of us has died and come back to speak of it. i think of death as a transition from one form to another. when we die we are returned to the earth. i guess it depends of your concept of death.
...
The point I am trying to make is the answer to the question, 'Are there absolute truths?'
My answer is 'Yes... absolute truths can be found and proven in the field of mathematics, using the equation, 1+1=2 as my example'. Mathematical equations are Universal. If there are 9 planets circling a star and one planet gets obliterated in a cosmic collision... there are 8 planets remaining and one debris field that is no longer a planet orbiting that star. The math involved is true, even if there are no witnesses to the event.
...
On the question of death... to be more specific... every living creature on the planet Earth will pass through the portal we call, 'Death'. No one escapes death... not you or me... or my cat or the fleas on my cat. We will all die.
Now... what is on the other side of death? We acknowledge this plane of consciousness as the living reality of our lives... and we have no idea what is on the other side. Is there a heaven or hell? Or is there a reanimation of our soul into another lifeform as reincarnation states... or is death a passage into a void? We don't know. Religions will offer us interpretations of an afterlife, in order to comfort us and to ease the pains of losing someone close to us in death. Religious people will tell us in no uncertain terms that they 'know' there God exiast and there is a Heaven. That is not truth... that is faith, belief and hope. Wonderful human traits... but, not the truth. The reality is this... we ALL will die and none of us know what is on the other side of death's door. Death is a certainty.. therefore, an absolute truth in regard to our lives.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Well part of it is theoretical, part of it is practical and to me some of it is a mere catch 22. And it primarily all goes back to recognition of time and space. There's a fine line and a grey area and I don't know where or how, but at some point, if there's no actual way to monitor, track or even acknowledge it in some manner (not just in human terms), how do we know it categorize it or even know it really happened? How can you know something specific happened when you can't formulate in it place, area, time and space? It's like the formation of solar system, we now have some form of measurements and determinations to track and figure out how it occurred.. whether through time, distance, age, etc.. but if life forms (big or small) can't recognize, comprehend or understand how something occurred or exists, it is merely an unknown. Some of these unknowns may be solved, many will not. And like the tree in the forest example, both sides of the argument in some manner have to rely on the opposite side to confirm or legitimize. It's like the chicken and egg question. It's just an unknown for which we'll never have a definite answer. So to me, this equates to the unknown and not being able to know something beyond our comprehension, just like a tree falling in the woods with no one there.
...
Regarding the tree in the forrest... the basic premise if the involvement of Man. If man is not there to witness it, does it occur? We can know it to be true.. the tree... by observation. Like, the place i go camping/fishing in the sierras... I see the tree near the lake one year... the next year it has been felled. The reality is, a once standing tree is now, one the ground. Did it make a sound as it fell, even if I wasn't there to hear it? Yes... because I am not that important. Things happen in this world that does not revolve around me.
I believe Man places too much emphasis on himself... and not enough in the natural world he lives in. If we did, we would probably be the shepperds that God* wanted us to be in the world of His creation... rather than merely the great ape that sits atop the food chain, turning His Gulf Waters into a pool of death.
...
*NOTE: By God... I do not mean the God that Man has selfishly plunged the staff of the Mankind Flag into... more like God/Nature/Natural Forces... something greater than ourselves.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Well part of it is theoretical, part of it is practical and to me some of it is a mere catch 22. And it primarily all goes back to recognition of time and space. There's a fine line and a grey area and I don't know where or how, but at some point, if there's no actual way to monitor, track or even acknowledge it in some manner (not just in human terms), how do we know it categorize it or even know it really happened? How can you know something specific happened when you can't formulate in it place, area, time and space? It's like the formation of solar system, we now have some form of measurements and determinations to track and figure out how it occurred.. whether through time, distance, age, etc.. but if life forms (big or small) can't recognize, comprehend or understand how something occurred or exists, it is merely an unknown. Some of these unknowns may be solved, many will not. And like the tree in the forest example, both sides of the argument in some manner have to rely on the opposite side to confirm or legitimize. It's like the chicken and egg question. It's just an unknown for which we'll never have a definite answer. So to me, this equates to the unknown and not being able to know something beyond our comprehension, just like a tree falling in the woods with no one there.
Sound travels in waves, now if no one is around no one will hear it, but the tree does produce the waves of sound weather there is a receiver or not.
I believe Man places too much emphasis on himself... and not enough in the natural world he lives in. If we did, we would probably be the shepperds that God* wanted us to be in the world of His creation... rather than merely the great ape that sits atop the food chain, turning His Gulf Waters into a pool of death.
...
*NOTE: By God... I do not mean the God that Man has selfishly plunged the staff of the Mankind Flag into... more like God/Nature/Natural Forces... something greater than ourselves.
Why do you assume man is not part of nature??? Why do you think what we are doing is not part of this natural world??? I think man places to much emhasis on some supernatural being in the sky tell him how to live.
Time doesn't exist, it's a unit of measurement between now... and now, Thats all. it' cannot be manipulated because it does not exist. Sceintists are slowly comming to accept this. Most refer to it as Spacetime, because there stubborn and narrow minded. :ugeek:
Well part of it is theoretical, part of it is practical and to me some of it is a mere catch 22. And it primarily all goes back to recognition of time and space. There's a fine line and a grey area and I don't know where or how, but at some point, if there's no actual way to monitor, track or even acknowledge it in some manner (not just in human terms), how do we know it categorize it or even know it really happened? How can you know something specific happened when you can't formulate in it place, area, time and space? It's like the formation of solar system, we now have some form of measurements and determinations to track and figure out how it occurred.. whether through time, distance, age, etc.. but if life forms (big or small) can't recognize, comprehend or understand how something occurred or exists, it is merely an unknown. Some of these unknowns may be solved, many will not. And like the tree in the forest example, both sides of the argument in some manner have to rely on the opposite side to confirm or legitimize. It's like the chicken and egg question. It's just an unknown for which we'll never have a definite answer. So to me, this equates to the unknown and not being able to know something beyond our comprehension, just like a tree falling in the woods with no one there.
So if you asked me, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, I would say no...
Sorry to back-track but... You would say no?? How's that?
So are you saying we don't know that the tree really fell? Or that we don't know that every tree that falls makes a sound? Or that we can have different concepts of what it means to make a sound? Or...? I'm not sure I'm following you. :?
Religious people will tell us in no uncertain terms that they 'know' there God exiast and there is a Heaven. That is not truth... that is faith, belief and hope. Wonderful human traits... but, not the truth.
Doesn't this contradict your point though? You seem to be saying here that because we don't have (scientific) knowledge of it, it's not true. But isn't your whole original point that truth exists independent of our knowledge of it? So it could be true - we just don't know.
nature uses numbers
it just may not be able to find a system that our brain found to understand them
the number phi
it's amazing
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Sound travels in waves, now if no one is around no one will hear it, but the tree does produce the waves of sound weather there is a receiver or not.
i agree... sort of.
the fact that no one is around to hear the sound a tree makes when it falls does not negate the fact that it makes a sound when it does. however it does matter if there is a receiver to translate them to sound... cause without that reciever, sound doesnt exists.
to think a tree makes no sound purely because a human isnt around to hear it is in my opnion arrogance beyond words. the last time i checked there were many many creatures whos sense of hearing is way more acute than a humans.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Religious people will tell us in no uncertain terms that they 'know' there God exiast and there is a Heaven. That is not truth... that is faith, belief and hope. Wonderful human traits... but, not the truth.
Doesn't this contradict your point though? You seem to be saying here that because we don't have (scientific) knowledge of it, it's not true. But isn't your whole original point that truth exists independent of our knowledge of it? So it could be true - we just don't know.
...
No... it doesn't condtradict my point.
We can argue the question, 'Is there a God?', because no one knows. People will tell you they 'know', but we all know... they don't know. They may 'believe' with all their heart... of have 'faith' in that belief... but, the truth of the matter is... no one knows. And it's not a rap against religion. Religion is faith in a belief... a truth that is relative to the believer. i'm not saying it is a bad thing... just a relative truth that may apply to the believer, but not to me.
In the statement, '1+1=2'... there is no arguement. There are ways we can spin it to say 1+1 does not equal 2, but spinning it with words or interpretations are not valid arguements
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I believe Man places too much emphasis on himself... and not enough in the natural world he lives in. If we did, we would probably be the shepperds that God* wanted us to be in the world of His creation... rather than merely the great ape that sits atop the food chain, turning His Gulf Waters into a pool of death.
...
*NOTE: By God... I do not mean the God that Man has selfishly plunged the staff of the Mankind Flag into... more like God/Nature/Natural Forces... something greater than ourselves.
Why do you assume man is not part of nature??? Why do you think what we are doing is not part of this natural world??? I think man places to much emhasis on some supernatural being in the sky tell him how to live.
...
I never made a statement that Man is not a part of Nature, that is your assumption. I said Man places too much emphasis on himself (Man) and maybe should assume a closer role in his place in the Natural world. If he did, we would not make such a mess of this place.
And yes... Man places too much emphasis on God... the God created in Man's image so Man can claim Him to ourselves. And if God tells us what to do... why did we create a giant garbage ball in the Pacific? Why do we have mountains of disposable electronic consumer goods? Where in the Holy Scriptures does God tell us to fuck up our home?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Time doesn't exist, it's a unit of measurement between now... and now, Thats all. it' cannot be manipulated because it does not exist. Sceintists are slowly comming to accept this. Most refer to it as Spacetime, because there stubborn and narrow minded. :ugeek:
...
But.. that space, between now and...
...
...
now does exist... doesn't it? even if there were no measurements, it would still exist, right?
Time and math are measurements... but, the basis they represent exist... even if we are not here to represent or measure them.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
To give a very simplistic example, it's all about perspective, recognition and relativity in comparison to the receiver of the action (whatever the species). So let's say a tree falls in the forest, but no life form is recognizes it in some fashion, how do we know it? This is equivalent to track time but not having a system to count...which basically sums up my believe in the tree scenario. Yes things occur, and they are real, but with no method of designation how can we put it into any type of substantive terms? As KO mentioned in his post about space time. Another silly example would be like saying we have a cd - the cd exists, the music on it exists, but without something to play it or listen to it, how can we recognize that? It's recognition of Part A, and Part Z, but projection and assumption of the middle.
So if you asked me, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, I would say no...
Sorry to back-track but... You would say no?? How's that?
So are you saying we don't know that the tree really fell? Or that we don't know that every tree that falls makes a sound? Or that we can have different concepts of what it means to make a sound? Or...? I'm not sure I'm following you. :?[/quote]
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Religious people will tell us in no uncertain terms that they 'know' there God exiast and there is a Heaven. That is not truth... that is faith, belief and hope. Wonderful human traits... but, not the truth.
Doesn't this contradict your point though? You seem to be saying here that because we don't have (scientific) knowledge of it, it's not true. But isn't your whole original point that truth exists independent of our knowledge of it? So it could be true - we just don't know.
...
No... it doesn't condtradict my point.
We can argue the question, 'Is there a God?', because no one knows. People will tell you they 'know', but we all know... they don't know. They may 'believe' with all their heart... of have 'faith' in that belief... but, the truth of the matter is... no one knows. And it's not a rap against religion. Religion is faith in a belief... a truth that is relative to the believer. i'm not saying it is a bad thing... just a relative truth that may apply to the believer, but not to me.
In the statement, '1+1=2'... there is no arguement. There are ways we can spin it to say 1+1 does not equal 2, but spinning it with words or interpretations are not valid arguements
I don't know, Cosmo. I was basically agreeing with you up until this point. And I still agree that we (collectively) don't "know" that God & Heaven exist and that we don't all agree about it. But I think the definition of absolute truth is that it's something that exists independent of human knowledge of it or agreement about it. If we must have knowledge of something and/or agreement about it for it to be true, then that means the Earth was actually flat and the center of the universe until humans learned (and agreed?) that it wasn't. Though I'm pretty sure you would disagree with these statements.
Are you saying it's not possible that God and Heaven exist? And, if it is possible, then maybe they do exist. And, if they do exist, isn't this an absolute truth?
If no one believed that you exist, would you not still exist?
To give a very simplistic example, it's all about perspective, recognition and relativity in comparison to the receiver of the action (whatever the species). So let's say a tree falls in the forest, but no life form is recognizes it in some fashion, how do we know it? This is equivalent to track time but not having a system to count...which basically sums up my believe in the tree scenario. Yes things occur, and they are real, but with no method of designation how can we put it into any type of substantive terms? As KO mentioned in his post about space time. Another silly example would be like saying we have a cd - the cd exists, the music on it exists, but without something to play it or listen to it, how can we recognize that? It's recognition of Part A, and Part Z, but projection and assumption of the middle.
Sorry to back-track but... You would say no?? How's that?
So are you saying we don't know that the tree really fell? Or that we don't know that every tree that falls makes a sound? Or that we can have different concepts of what it means to make a sound? Or...? I'm not sure I'm following you. :?
[/quote]
So, it didn't make a sound? Or we don't KNOW that it made a sound?
To me, the recognition and understanding from the effect is just as important. How can we make such formidable conclusions about things we can't see, feel, hear, and most importantly comprehend? It's like asking an ant to grasp/acknowledge the idea of a planet it can not see and very likely will not be in contact with or understand it's direct correlation too.
So, it didn't make a sound? Or we don't KNOW that it made a sound?
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
To me, the recognition and understanding from the effect is just as important. How can we make such formidable conclusions about things we can't see, feel, hear, and most importantly comprehend? It's like asking an ant to grasp/acknowledge the idea of a planet it can not see and very likely will not be in contact with or understand it's direct correlation too.
youre very confusing sometimes.
how can we make such formidable conclusions...???? its not a difficult question and hardy a formidable one. either you think a tree makes a sound when it falls or it doesnt. it doesnt matter if no oneis around to hear it.
of course my argument is predicated on the fact that when we say no one what we mean is a human.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't solely mean humans. If a tree falls in the woods it could effect other species and therefore have not just a theoretical but practical result, which is why I gave the example of the ant.
To me, the recognition and understanding from the effect is just as important. How can we make such formidable conclusions about things we can't see, feel, hear, and most importantly comprehend? It's like asking an ant to grasp/acknowledge the idea of a planet it can not see and very likely will not be in contact with or understand it's direct correlation too.
youre very confusing sometimes.
how can we make such formidable conclusions...???? its not a difficult question and hardy a formidable one. either you think a tree makes a sound when it falls or it doesnt. it doesnt matter if no oneis around to hear it.
of course my argument is predicated on the fact that when we say no one what we mean is a human.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
To me, the recognition and understanding from the effect is just as important. How can we make such formidable conclusions about things we can't see, feel, hear, and most importantly comprehend? It's like asking an ant to grasp/acknowledge the idea of a planet it can not see and very likely will not be in contact with or understand it's direct correlation too.
To me, the recognition and understanding from the effect is just as important. How can we make such formidable conclusions about things we can't see, feel, hear, and most importantly comprehend? It's like asking an ant to grasp/acknowledge the idea of a planet it can not see and very likely will not be in contact with or understand it's direct correlation too.
So, it didn't make a sound? Or we don't KNOW that it made a sound?
I think I need to stop trying to have this conversation with you when I'm every-so-slightly drunk.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The point I am trying to make is the answer to the question, 'Are there absolute truths?'
My answer is 'Yes... absolute truths can be found and proven in the field of mathematics, using the equation, 1+1=2 as my example'. Mathematical equations are Universal. If there are 9 planets circling a star and one planet gets obliterated in a cosmic collision... there are 8 planets remaining and one debris field that is no longer a planet orbiting that star. The math involved is true, even if there are no witnesses to the event.
...
On the question of death... to be more specific... every living creature on the planet Earth will pass through the portal we call, 'Death'. No one escapes death... not you or me... or my cat or the fleas on my cat. We will all die.
Now... what is on the other side of death? We acknowledge this plane of consciousness as the living reality of our lives... and we have no idea what is on the other side. Is there a heaven or hell? Or is there a reanimation of our soul into another lifeform as reincarnation states... or is death a passage into a void? We don't know. Religions will offer us interpretations of an afterlife, in order to comfort us and to ease the pains of losing someone close to us in death. Religious people will tell us in no uncertain terms that they 'know' there God exiast and there is a Heaven. That is not truth... that is faith, belief and hope. Wonderful human traits... but, not the truth. The reality is this... we ALL will die and none of us know what is on the other side of death's door. Death is a certainty.. therefore, an absolute truth in regard to our lives.
Hail, Hail!!!
Regarding the tree in the forrest... the basic premise if the involvement of Man. If man is not there to witness it, does it occur? We can know it to be true.. the tree... by observation. Like, the place i go camping/fishing in the sierras... I see the tree near the lake one year... the next year it has been felled. The reality is, a once standing tree is now, one the ground. Did it make a sound as it fell, even if I wasn't there to hear it? Yes... because I am not that important. Things happen in this world that does not revolve around me.
I believe Man places too much emphasis on himself... and not enough in the natural world he lives in. If we did, we would probably be the shepperds that God* wanted us to be in the world of His creation... rather than merely the great ape that sits atop the food chain, turning His Gulf Waters into a pool of death.
...
*NOTE: By God... I do not mean the God that Man has selfishly plunged the staff of the Mankind Flag into... more like God/Nature/Natural Forces... something greater than ourselves.
Hail, Hail!!!
So are you saying we don't know that the tree really fell? Or that we don't know that every tree that falls makes a sound? Or that we can have different concepts of what it means to make a sound? Or...? I'm not sure I'm following you. :?
Doesn't this contradict your point though? You seem to be saying here that because we don't have (scientific) knowledge of it, it's not true. But isn't your whole original point that truth exists independent of our knowledge of it? So it could be true - we just don't know.
it just may not be able to find a system that our brain found to understand them
the number phi
it's amazing
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
i agree... sort of.
the fact that no one is around to hear the sound a tree makes when it falls does not negate the fact that it makes a sound when it does. however it does matter if there is a receiver to translate them to sound... cause without that reciever, sound doesnt exists.
to think a tree makes no sound purely because a human isnt around to hear it is in my opnion arrogance beyond words. the last time i checked there were many many creatures whos sense of hearing is way more acute than a humans.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No... it doesn't condtradict my point.
We can argue the question, 'Is there a God?', because no one knows. People will tell you they 'know', but we all know... they don't know. They may 'believe' with all their heart... of have 'faith' in that belief... but, the truth of the matter is... no one knows. And it's not a rap against religion. Religion is faith in a belief... a truth that is relative to the believer. i'm not saying it is a bad thing... just a relative truth that may apply to the believer, but not to me.
In the statement, '1+1=2'... there is no arguement. There are ways we can spin it to say 1+1 does not equal 2, but spinning it with words or interpretations are not valid arguements
Hail, Hail!!!
I never made a statement that Man is not a part of Nature, that is your assumption. I said Man places too much emphasis on himself (Man) and maybe should assume a closer role in his place in the Natural world. If he did, we would not make such a mess of this place.
And yes... Man places too much emphasis on God... the God created in Man's image so Man can claim Him to ourselves. And if God tells us what to do... why did we create a giant garbage ball in the Pacific? Why do we have mountains of disposable electronic consumer goods? Where in the Holy Scriptures does God tell us to fuck up our home?
Hail, Hail!!!
But.. that space, between now and...
...
...
now does exist... doesn't it? even if there were no measurements, it would still exist, right?
Time and math are measurements... but, the basis they represent exist... even if we are not here to represent or measure them.
Hail, Hail!!!
So are you saying we don't know that the tree really fell? Or that we don't know that every tree that falls makes a sound? Or that we can have different concepts of what it means to make a sound? Or...? I'm not sure I'm following you. :?[/quote]
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I don't know, Cosmo. I was basically agreeing with you up until this point. And I still agree that we (collectively) don't "know" that God & Heaven exist and that we don't all agree about it. But I think the definition of absolute truth is that it's something that exists independent of human knowledge of it or agreement about it. If we must have knowledge of something and/or agreement about it for it to be true, then that means the Earth was actually flat and the center of the universe until humans learned (and agreed?) that it wasn't. Though I'm pretty sure you would disagree with these statements.
Are you saying it's not possible that God and Heaven exist? And, if it is possible, then maybe they do exist. And, if they do exist, isn't this an absolute truth?
If no one believed that you exist, would you not still exist?
So, it didn't make a sound? Or we don't KNOW that it made a sound?
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
youre very confusing sometimes.
how can we make such formidable conclusions...???? its not a difficult question and hardy a formidable one. either you think a tree makes a sound when it falls or it doesnt. it doesnt matter if no oneis around to hear it.
of course my argument is predicated on the fact that when we say no one what we mean is a human.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't solely mean humans. If a tree falls in the woods it could effect other species and therefore have not just a theoretical but practical result, which is why I gave the example of the ant.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I think I need to stop trying to have this conversation with you when I'm every-so-slightly
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Hail, Hail!!!