|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:10 pm
Crazy Bananna Nothing can be proved. That's just how life is. i wonder if that's provable... >.>
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:45 pm
Recently I've heard different stories on proving and disproving the exsitence of any higher being.
My Drawing professor was rambling on about scietific laws/theories that outright disproved the existence of God or any higher being and then my Art History professor (and I'd like to take note that ZB is a very eccentric prof. from Prague) said that someone proved God existed by using the banana.
Has anyone else heard of this banana theory?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:22 am
Crazy Bananna Nothing can be proved. That's just how life is. As a mathematician and a philosopher I have to disagree with you. Logic can be used to prove all sorts of things. Proving the existence or non-existence of God is another matter. I'm a Christian and I have yet to see a proof one way or the other that didn't fall into some sort of logical fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:22 pm
To TRY to prove the existance of existance you would probably need to ask "if humans wherent around to percieve things to exist would they still exist?" If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear it does it still make a noise? I think it does. If noone is there to hear it sound waves are still present. Humans percieve thigs to exist and try to expain how they came to be. I dont think that things exist only to us as humans. Everything around us cant be all an illusion.
If its not real its illusion. So everything that exists is either real or an illusion. Animals exist and see things just like we do. They dont ask if it really exist or what made it exist it just does. There are some questions that no answer will satisfy everyone, however I believe that the things around us DO exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:51 pm
Stallin To TRY to prove the existance of existance you would probably need to ask "if humans wherent around to percieve things to exist would they still exist?" If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear it does it still make a noise? I think it does. If noone is there to hear it sound waves are still present. Humans percieve thigs to exist and try to expain how they came to be. I dont think that things exist only to us as humans. Everything around us cant be all an illusion. If its not real its illusion. So everything that exists is either real or an illusion. Animals exist and see things just like we do. They dont ask if it really exist or what made it exist it just does. There are some questions that no answer will satisfy everyone, however I believe that the things around us DO exist. people still argue that a tree falling in the woods creates vibrations in the air, but without an actual eardrum to interpret those vibrations, you have no sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:41 pm
nightlight Stallin To TRY to prove the existance of existance you would probably need to ask "if humans wherent around to percieve things to exist would they still exist?" If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear it does it still make a noise? I think it does. If noone is there to hear it sound waves are still present. Humans percieve thigs to exist and try to expain how they came to be. I dont think that things exist only to us as humans. Everything around us cant be all an illusion. If its not real its illusion. So everything that exists is either real or an illusion. Animals exist and see things just like we do. They dont ask if it really exist or what made it exist it just does. There are some questions that no answer will satisfy everyone, however I believe that the things around us DO exist. people still argue that a tree falling in the woods creates vibrations in the air, but without an actual eardrum to interpret those vibrations, you have no sound. Most things that vibrate produce sound waves. There hasnt been an explanation to satisfy everyone but if the waves where not percieved as sound they are still sound waves. The debate is if the waves arent interpreted as sound are they just waves or are they still a sound. Obviously i cant prove it, but think if the vibrations can be interpreted as sound they are still sound if they arent picked up. Just an oppinion tho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:39 pm
Quote: Nothing can be proved. That's just how life is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:08 pm
I have to agree.
As for proving god, I think that "God" is truly the energy essense of the universe, so if the universe exists, than "God" exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:10 pm
I think that god was created when te universe was created. I also think that somthing only exists if you think it exists the mind can be easily fooled the only way we know that something tis there is if we use our senses to tell us it's there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:17 pm
new here, havent had time to read all these posts.
but basically what i want to say is that NOTHING can be proven. there are even people who think that descartes' "cogito ergo sum" is mistaken, though i have not read in depth their arguments against it.
but basically, i think everything is a matter of opinion. if you believe descartes, the only thing you can prove is that you yourself exist. if you dont believe descartes, you cant really even prove that you exist to yourself.
thats why philosophy is so much fun smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:57 am
zargap I've decided it is futile to prove that God exists. First off, you can't prove that you are reading this. You can't prove that this text exists, that I exist or that you exist. The mind can be easily tricked by electrical impulses and wahtnot. Therfore, you cannot prove that we were actually created. (Atheist BTW) Thoughts? being one who nearly believes in god, i would have to agree. there is no benefit to trying to prove god, just as there is no benefit in trying to prove an afterlife. the way i see it, the current idea of god is a huge misunderstanding that has gotten worse over the millennium. long ago men understood things about life and the world which men now do not know, they spoke of forces that lie hidden beneath and behind what we can see easily. they give these forces names and personalities so that they can talk about them, though they know that what they say is only a construction of words and what is can only be experienced. yet the ignorant love to think that they understand so you give them a book and suddenly they know, without experience what god is. and as for proving the events of the bible, which is tied in with proving god, that too is ridiculous. it is like proving the events of dantes inferno or alice in wonderland. its a book! good day all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:00 am
PhilosophyMind Recently I've heard different stories on proving and disproving the exsitence of any higher being. My Drawing professor was rambling on about scietific laws/theories that outright disproved the existence of God or any higher being and then my Art History professor (and I'd like to take note that ZB is a very eccentric prof. from Prague) said that someone proved God existed by using the banana. Has anyone else heard of this banana theory? yes i have heard that and you will have to see it, it is hilarious. makes me laugh everytime i think of it. the banana theory: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4472004596147265716good day all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:19 am
nightlight Crazy Bananna Nothing can be proved. That's just how life is. i wonder if that's provable... >.> Nah..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:38 pm
On responses to Descartes: I'm kinda of fond of Nietzsche's reply. He basically said that it didn't prove the existence of the self because the thinking could be somehow separate, like little thoughts floating around unattached to consciousness. There is also the Buddhist conception of the world, which rejects the self as an illusion, basically saying that we only exist because we are deluded about the world, but we don't really exist. Sum nefas ergo sum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:12 am
to be truthful to ourselves perhaps we should consider the balance between our equality with 'god' and also each and every human, thus inexistance and our unique and undeniable existance, which can be seen and felt everyday.
illusion or not... it is here that we are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
