Whats the point of life?

[Lannister the Rich]

The past is an absolute

Options don’t negate absolutes. Without absolutes you’d have no predictability in options

Not necessarily. For starters, there is inaccuracy to how we view the past. No one on earth is all knowledgeable, therefore there is always uncertainty in what has happened to an nth degree (no matter how small).

There is also a degree of inaccuracy in the laws of nature. Does that mean we can’t use them to help us predict things? It does not. For example, Newton’s law of gravitation becomes completely different on a micro-scale and no longer applies. Does that mean it is absolutely wrong? No, it means it is inaccurate relative to objects that are not on a massive scale.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not necessarily. For starters, there is inaccuracy to how we view the past. No one on earth is all knowledgeable, therefore there is always uncertainty in what has happened to an nth degree (no matter how small).

Now you're just being ridiculous. What has happened in the past has absolutely happened. Whether you perceive it correctly or not is irrelevant to that fact.

There is also a degree of inaccuracy in the laws of nature. Does that mean we can’t use them to help us predict things? It does not. For example, Newton’s law of gravitation becomes completely different on a micro-scale and no longer applies. Does that mean it is absolutely wrong? No, it means it is inaccurate relative to objects that are not on a massive scale.

Now you're mistaking our perceptions of the "laws of nature" for the actual working mechanisms of the universe. Under the same circumstances and conditions, the universe's mechanisms will work the same way every time. The fact that we are not sufficiently aware of the specifics of those mechanisms does not mean they are not absolute, it just means that our understanding of them is incomplete or inaccurate.

I'll restate the obvious: The problem here is not that we don't understand what you're saying, the problem (from your viewpoint, not mine) is that we disagree with you. I say it's your problem, not mine, because it is not a problem for me that you're wrong. It would only be a problem for me if I were wrong...which I'm not.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Not necessarily. For starters, there is inaccuracy to how we view the past. No one on earth is all knowledgeable, therefore there is always uncertainty in what has happened to an nth degree (no matter how small).

There is also a degree of inaccuracy in the laws of nature. Does that mean we can’t use them to help us predict things? It does not. For example, Newton’s law of gravitation becomes completely different on a micro-scale and no longer applies. Does that mean it is absolutely wrong? No, it means it is inaccurate relative to objects that are not on a massive scale.

I understand what you are expressing, but you are adding incalculable variables. The past is absolute, because no matter how it is viewed, it has occurred and cannot be changed.

We can add opinions, options and perceptions as incalculable variables in how we may allow our view of the past to influence our present or future ... But that still doesn’t change the past.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Now you're just being ridiculous. What has happened in the past has absolutely happened. Whether you perceive it correctly or not is irrelevant to that fact.

Perception is not irrelevant to any of this. Keep reading.

Now you're mistaking our perceptions of the "laws of nature" for the actual working mechanisms of the universe. Under the same circumstances and conditions, the universe's mechanisms will work the same way every time. The fact that we are not sufficiently aware of the specifics of those mechanisms does not mean they are not absolute, it just means that our understanding of them is incomplete or inaccurate.

You are being very vague. Works the same how? If you are arguing that repetition occurs in the universe, you’ll get no argument from me. However, nearly nothing ever occurs under the exact same circumstances and conditions because the universe is not stagnant. Your example has not been observed, yet. It may have been a while since you’ve upped your knowledge of science. That’s okay, just understand you are not accurate with that statement.

I'll restate the obvious: The problem here is not that we don't understand what you're saying, the problem (from your viewpoint, not mine) is that we disagree with you. I say it's your problem, not mine, because it is not a problem for me that you're wrong. It would only be a problem for me if I were wrong...which I'm not.

Yes, we disagree. I’ve understood that from the beginning. I am not wrong, I am inaccurate. We both are. However, you seem to think that what is going on is that I am 100% wrong and you are 100% right. Neither of us are either of these things because we cannot perceive all knowledge.

Understand this: the very statement “There are no absolutes in the universe” is itself a contradictory statement. What does that mean? Well, to me, it means that really there is an exception to everything, even given that something may not have an exception, much like death.

Now, understand this: the entire statement is based in our perception of reality, not reality itself. That was literally the entire point of this. I said in the beginning that we perceive the universe in binary because it helps us understand it better. However there is always a degree of inaccuracy, except that in “You will die”. We have not observed an exception to this.

“You will die”, as far as we know, is an absolutely true statement. There is nothing you can add to that statement to make it false. There is nothing you can add to that statement which makes it more true.

You will die...if you stop eating.
You will die...if you walk in front of a bus.
You will die...if you eat an onion.
You will die...and there’s nothing you can do about it.

However, you’ve proven yourself to be rather argumentative. So, I’m sure you will continue to debate that you are right and I am wrong, when that was never the argument to begin with.

 

[DeletedUser]

It may have been a while since you’ve upped your knowledge of science.

Again with the "I know more than you" crap? Get over yourself.

Yes, we disagree. I’ve understood that from the beginning. I am not wrong, I am inaccurate. We both are. However, you seem to think that what is going on is that I am 100% wrong and you are 100% right. Neither of us are either of these things because we cannot perceive all knowledge.

What we are disagreeing on is your statement that there are no absolutes in the universe. And in that you are not only inaccurate, you are incorrect. And I've proven it over and over in this thread. You just won't admit it. And ironically, that's another absolute.

Well, to me, it means that really there is an exception to everything, even given that something may not have an exception, much like death.

If you are being serious here, there's no point in even responding to you any more. Let me break this down for the audience: He's saying that even given that there are absolutes, he still believes that there are no absolutes. Priceless.

Spoiler: Snark

You will die...if you stop eating.

Since you seem to have problems understanding what I've been saying on this particular example, I'll break it down so that even you can understand it. Most people would understand that when I say, "If you stop eating, you will die" contains an unspoken but understood component. That component is the phrase, "as a result of that." "If you stop eating, you will die as a result of that." You ignore that because it is inconvenient to your mistaken viewpoint. You try to turn it around and characterize what I'm saying as just a variation of your "death is certain" statement, which is a backwards way of viewing the statement. In terms you may understand, it may have been a while since you upped your knowledge of English language skills.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Again with the "I know more than you" crap? Get over yourself.

What we are disagreeing on is your statement that there are no absolutes in the universe. And in that you are not only inaccurate, you are incorrect. And I've proven it over and over in this thread. You just won't admit it. And ironically, that's another absolute.

If you are being serious here, there's no point in even responding to you any more. Let me break this down for the audience: He's saying that even given that there are absolutes, he still believes that there are no absolutes. Priceless.

Spoiler: Snark

Since you seem to have problems understanding what I've been saying on this particular example, I'll break it down so that even you can understand it. Most people would understand that when I say, "If you stop eating, you will die" contains an unspoken but understood component. That component is the phrase, "as a result of that." "If you stop eating, you will die as a result of that." You ignore that because it is inconvenient to your mistaken viewpoint. You try to turn it around and characterize what I'm saying as just a variation of your "death is certain" statement, which is a backwards way of viewing the statement. In terms you may understand, it may have been a while since you upped your knowledge of English language skills.

Do you know what a dependent clause is or a prepositional phrase? Way to bulldoze over everything else I said, too. This is why I knew it would be pointless to continue arguing with you. Can we agree to disagree? Yeesh.

I’d also like to address the “I know more than you” comment. I’m not saying that either in a general sense. I know that you are older than me and therefore most likely wiser. Understand that I am talking about this matter specifically and not even by that much. What if I said “no one knows everything” (Egad! Another absolute?), which I already have. Have I given you an inch, yet? You want to do the same for me? We both have a valid argument, man. I’m not trying to hurt your feelings, and I hope the same from you.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

@lannister the rich, you appear to be very young and a product of our current indoctrination system. There are absolutes. Absolutely.

Here's just a few:

Any human born with XY chromosomes is a boy/man, with XX, a girl/woman. Water is always composed of H2O. The atomic weight of Gold is always 196.966543. I absolutely live in New Mexico. 4 weeks ago, I absolutely lived in California.

I absolutely think any arguments you may try to make to the contrary, would show you to meet the definition of an idiot, an utterly foolish or senseless person.

 

[Emberguard]

Not necessarily. For starters, there is inaccuracy to how we view the past.

The past is absolute because we can’t change it.

If I move the desk and then deny it was ever moved the past hasn’t changed, I’ve just lied about it. It’d be an absolute it moved, it’s not an absolute anyone would be aware of it

If this isn’t true then there’s no justification in a court of law condemning a man for a crime even if caught in the action both with live witnesses and cameras and a bunch of critical evidence

 

[Emberguard]

You are being very vague. Works the same how?

It means what we do has no effect on changing the laws that the universe runs by. We can use those laws to get a result. We can even improve our understanding of what the conditions are but the laws didn’t change, we did.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

If this isn’t true then there’s no justification in a court of law condemning a man for a crime even if caught in the action both with live witnesses and cameras and a bunch of critical evidence

As we will soon see, they'll claim it's all made up and the video evidence are a result of 'deep fakes'.

 

[DeletedUser]

We both have a valid argument, man.

This is where you're wrong. It is not a valid argument to state that there are no absolutes in the universe. Period. You can argue it until you're blue in the face and it won't change the facts. And that's what our disagreement here is about. Facts. Not opinions. And in the facts of this discussion, you are incorrect. Either there are absolutes or there aren't. Not maybe there are, maybe there aren't. Not "depending on your viewpoint". And both you, I and @RazorbackPirate have listed multiple absolutes that exist. So you're wrong, plain and simple. Just admit it and move on.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

This is where you're wrong. It is not a valid argument to state that there are no absolutes in the universe. Period. You can argue it until you're blue in the face and it won't change the facts. And that's what our disagreement here is about. Facts. Not opinions. And in the facts of this discussion, you are incorrect. Either there are absolutes or there aren't. Not maybe there are, maybe there aren't. Not "depending on your viewpoint". And both you, I and @RazorbackPirate have listed multiple absolutes that exist. So you're wrong, plain and simple. Just admit it and move on.

I literally have. You must not have read that part or anything else you haven’t already quoted. Just admit you don’t understand my view point, and move on. Oh wait, that would mean you’d have to admit something contrary to what you’ve been posting, which you simply won’t do due to your own narcissistic view. You must think you’re always right. I’ve already given in to your argument, but you didn’t see that just like you never saw that my point is still valid. Your thoughts are too old school, and you need to think more contemporary to understand it, but I bet you won’t. I’m officially done with this. You can have the last word. I don’t care anymore if you don’t understand it. You win. Congratulations.

 

[Emberguard]

We get what you’re saying. However if your position is not absolute then there’s nothing to agree on. Can’t define something if there’s no absolutes involved

 

[DeletedUser]

I literally have. You must not have read that part or anything else you haven’t already quoted. Just admit you don’t understand my view point, and move on. Oh wait, that would mean you’d have to admit something contrary to what you’ve been posting, which you simply won’t do due to your own narcissistic view. You must think you’re always right. I’ve already given in to your argument, but you didn’t see that just like you never saw that my point is still valid.

See, here's the issue. You can't say, "I've admitted I'm wrong", and then 5 sentences later claim to still be right. It doesn't work that way. And I completely understand your viewpoint because I have a stepson who has the same one.

Your thoughts are too old school, and you need to think more contemporary to understand it, but I bet you won’t.

Yep, my stepson tried this crap with us, too. Didn't work for him, doesn't work for you.

I’m officially done with this. You can have the last word. I don’t care anymore if you don’t understand it. You win. Congratulations.

Nobody "won" this discussion, that's not the point of a discussion. The point of a discussion is to find truth in whatever the subject of the discussion is. I already knew the truth that this discussion was seeking, and you reject the truth that this discussion uncovered. And truth doesn't depend on how you feel or think about it, truth is truth. Absolutely.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

We get what you’re saying. However if your position is not absolute then there’s nothing to agree on. Can’t define something if there’s no absolutes involved

My favorite absolute ...

No matter how much someone believes something, nor the amount of consensus they can gather from others ... Neither has any bearing whatsoever over whether or not what they believe, or agree upon, is true.

 

[Emberguard]

I love that one too @BlackSand the Sly


@lannister the rich have you ever tried coding something? Everything no matter how simple has to be broken down into an absolute or the code won’t compile

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Your thoughts are too old school, and you need to think more contemporary to understand it, but I bet you won’t.

No, we understand the contemporary thoughts just fine. We just think they're bovine excrement.

No matter how much someone believes something, nor the amount of consensus they can gather from others ... Neither has any bearing whatsoever over whether or not what they believe, or agree upon, is true.

Funny that you liked this. Still believing that when we don't agree with you, you're the one with the truth. Indoctrination as it's finest. Borderline insane.

Reminds me of Romans 1:22 - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools". Indeed, "there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

 

[DeletedUser36572]

No, we understand the contemporary thoughts just fine. We just think they're bovine excrement.

Funny that you liked this. Still believing that when we don't agree with you, you're the one with the truth. Indoctrination as it's finest. Borderline insane.

Reminds me of Romans 1:22 - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Indeed, "there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

Read it again silly ... It specifically states that whether or not I (or anyone for that matter) believes something is true has no bearing on whether or not it is true.

You cannot make it mean something it doesn’t ... No matter what you desire to believe.

 

[DeletedUser]

Read it again silly ... It specifically states that whether or not I (or anyone for that matter) believes something is true has no bearing on whether or not it is true.

You cannot make it mean something it doesn’t ... No matter what you desire to believe.

Yes, and that's exactly the point @RazorbackPirate and I have been making.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Read it again silly ... It specifically states that whether or not I (or anyone for that matter) believes something is true has no bearing on whether or not it is true.

You cannot make it mean something it doesn’t ... No matter what you desire to believe.

I understand. The Truth is true regardless of anyone's belief or disbelief. A statement I happen to agree with, which has no bearing on it being true or not.