The Universe has always existed

“I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive; and it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once. “ Rene Descartes Recognition vs reality One of the popular mistakes that we make is that we often confuse what recognize for being the reality and also the reality being only what we recognize. As Descartes points out, our senses make mistakes often. That since all scientific observation is supposedly based of sense information; we never get absolute certainty, nor are most physical theories meant to be at all, quantum mechanics being one of the must uncertain theories of them all. That is, because of its statistical nature it can’t by definition give certainty of anything. This is not to be confused with anything physical being uncertain. Scientist are people, and like anybody they make mistakes typically philosophical ones. But science is of what we recognize with the sense, but not the absolute of reality. So logic takes priority in the sense that if are findings are not logical its mean our scientific theory is flawed, thus the theory is due for and upgrade. Beware! dark clouds are heading towards the hill! As with most arguments of this kind there is certain point where people get desperate and their integrity starts to flail. With that there becomes a shift in the argument style usually in the sense that it becomes darker. That is, more insulting, more deceitful, they may copy their opponents and become more fallacious. This is always something to look out for in these types of debates. The Sophist revenge! ;( The Sophist: I will fix that fool and his conceitedness. I'll fool him this time. Take a look at this proof. P1. Science an explanation of how and why things are/work. P2. A Philosophy is ones own explanation of how and why things are/work P3. Physicalism is a philosophy, P4. physicalism is based on science, C. ergo science is a philosophy. QED!!???????? And that is straight from my house!! The Sophist: That felt great, I feel, feel so alive now! I will say it again. And that’s straight from my house! Wooo hoo!. A Foolish reservation The Fool: Very wise, so what you are saying is that science is ones own personal explanation of why things are/work. ;) The Sophist: look at my proof. The Fool: Secondly it also follows that since Physicalism is a philosophy and is based on science that science is a philosophy. The Sophist: yes. The Fool: There is only one problem it’s trivial so I won’t bother. ;( The Sophist: What is that? The Fool: well it’s so small it’s not worth mentioning. It’s just I was under I guess the false impression that The Philosophy of Science was The Philosophy of Science. ;) The Sophist: No its Physicalism! The Fool: And I thought cognitive science was science of the mind. I guess I was studying something else. Err other never mind, then. ; http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... The Fool: ;) Foolish is as foolish does The Fool Fan’s know their fool, by the integrity of style which always maintains faithful to the argument of the opponent. For the fools adheres to the chivalries of reason, in this case the Principle of Charity. I always use direct quotation, unless it joke that is not actually related to the argument at hand. http://en.wikipedia.org... While the Fooler aka The Sophist, misconstrues their opponent’s positions by any means necessary for the sake of appearing to make sense rather than a clear and open demonstration of justification. Such morals are unknown to the Sophist. Note: He is not copying me in the same way, because he is actually writing in arguments that I don’t hold. Time to deal with the darkness I am only going to bother with what is related. It’s too bad the debates become like this, I feel an eerie feeling in my stomach when I see the dark side of people. I am voiding all positions I didn’t position that I didn’t hold. Note: the argument is about the universe. The Rest of his argument is fabrication and he should be flat out disqualified for that. The mind and madness! But again let just for fun, pretend I really held the position he made up! (JUST FOR FUN!) Evil Sophist: based of my awesome physicalism argument consciousness must be proven to know the universe exist. Rene Descartes: !!!!!??? Evil Sophist: The mind the mind! How do you prove consciousness? Rene Descartes: You got to be kidding me. Evil Sophist: As pro burden of proof rests with you. As con i need not present a case as to why it is not true, unless you give evidence suggesting that it is. Rene Descartes: Oh you mean The Fool? Yeah he is a pro and we should all vote for him! Evil Sophist: yeah vote pro! The Fool: woo hoo! Vote pro! Evil Sophist: If you do not all that I must do is say you have no proof, therefore it is not true. Besides, consciousness or the mind is merely a physical aspect of our brains. Rene Descartes: WTF are you talking about! Evil Sophist: There is a multitude of evidence to support this, but again, I need not even present this evidence until you present evidence yourself. Rene Descartes: My name doesn’t ring a bell. Evil Sophist: Until that point the immateriality of the mind is a null point. The Fool: But the immateriality of the mind cannot be proven! ;( Evil Sophist: Exactly, next point please. Rene Descartes: I think therefor I am! The Fool: woo hoo! Cartesian High Five! Smack! Rene Descartes: and that’s straight from the tomb! Evil Sophist: Noooooooo. I hate you Fooooooooooooooooooool! At the speed of light! The Fool: The extent of the universe can't be measured with certianty. I thought that skit would be faster! Sophist: logically, true things are proven false all the time. The Fool: ;) Rene Descartes: ;) Sophist: Such as the principle of sufficient reasoning. Anaximander: what an idiot! Rene Descartes: :o ! The Fool: ;O ! Sophist: hey that was rude. Ahh! (rolling on the ground in pain) Audience, look what they did to me!!! The Fool throws up a green flag. Rene Descartes: he didn’t even touch you it’s not soccer. The Fool: I didn’t say anything! I didn’t know he was still here. He was my last round philosopher. Anaximander: but I didn’t get to talk as much as Descartes. The Fool: he is not an idiot okay! He is buddamoose. Anaximander: I have never heard of this kind of Moose. Rene Descartes: I could use some Mousse Sophist: not that kind of moose! The Fool: who gives a moose! Anaximander: Budda I do! Rene Descartes: Budda don’t The Fool: budda boom badda bing! Sophist: WTF is going on here. The Fool: Exactly how things would be if logic was breakable. For it would not be logic at all now would it. Well I was way off!!! I don't think he is grasping the reality of debate. Principle of sufficient reason is not even the one he needs to pick on. Olbers Paradox blew, it’s not any stronger because he says it again. He just deleted the CAN. But an argument based on science can't follow by necessity. He only took shotes at Untimely Fool with an appeal to authority. But its a live logical proof! Fresh from a hill top. I don't think the reality has sunk in. Review of key points 1. Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (Law of conservation, and by logic) 2. Energy is, unstabilization (definition of energy) 3. The universe is always changing. (unstabiliztion is change) 4. New things are forming and unforming. (unstabilized change of relations of matter and mind) C Therefore the universe is eternal and change is happening, no creation needed. These following need to individually be proven wrong. 1. What universe what IS and so it could never be what IS NOT because it would be a contradiction to is-ness. 2. The universe is the whole that is all. (via explaintion of elementary fallacy) 3. Time is not a part of the universe. (via untimely fool) The Sophist may have his days but not this one. Come on now, it would just be plainly cruel, if you didn't vote Fool! Rene Decartes: vote Fool! ;) Anaximander: vote Fool! ;0The Fool: Woo Hoo! Vote for me! ;)