Existence

[boedicca]

All states of being have cause.

What caused the initial state of existence?

The question implies the answer. that is: there wasn't a "beginning". I think it's that simple.

It's turtles all the way down, hun.

 

[ding]

The Laws of Physics are descriptive, not prescriptive.

The Laws of Physics are descriptive of the prescriptive Laws of Nature which is the actual physical phenomenon and not a numerical representation of it. The Laws of Nature prescribe what you can and cannot do do. For instance, the Laws of Nature prescribe that you, GT, cannot travel faster than the speed of light no matter what you do.

Thats not a rational proof that they dont *describe the natural phenomena that I cannot travel that speed

A prescription requires a prescribor ~ and it's a fact that no such being has been proven.

Assertions are not logical proof, assertions are not reaaoned arguments.

Let me know when you break the speed of light.

 

[ding]

One last time, though, description vs. prescription does not speak to something remaining a constant. You misunderstand what words even mean ~ how the **** can you then have a discussion on which is the state of existence....

Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.

 

[ding]

The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.

 

[ding]

One last time, though, description vs. prescription does not speak to something remaining a constant. You misunderstand what words even mean ~ how the **** can you then have a discussion on which is the state of existence....

Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.

Or, describes limitations that simply exist.

Invoking them as constant, i.e. asking me about the speed of light....doesnt speak to prescriptive vs. descriptive...

and you just proved that your damn self


What a waste of time!

The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.

The Laws of Physics are used to estimate the numerical representation of the physical phenomenon that exists.

 

[Hollie]

The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.

You have made no case that any natural phenomenon are prescriptive. That’s mere assertion on your part, totally unsupported and basically, nothing more than a retreat to religious dogma.

 

[ding]

The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.

You have made no case that any natural phenomenon are prescriptive. That’s mere assertion on your part, totally unsupported and basically, nothing more than a retreat to religious dogma.

Actually it has nothing to do with religious dogma, but militant atheists see dogma hiding behind every bush.

The case has been made. I wouldn't expect you to agree with it.

 

[ding]

One last time, though, description vs. prescription does not speak to something remaining a constant. You misunderstand what words even mean ~ how the **** can you then have a discussion on which is the state of existence....

Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.

Or, describes limitations that simply exist.

Invoking them as constant, i.e. asking me about the speed of light....doesnt speak to prescriptive vs. descriptive...

and you just proved that your damn self


What a waste of time!

The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.

The Laws of Physics are used to estimate the numerical representation of the physical phenomenon that exists.

The limitation being a limitation can have 100 differing reasons......them being 'pre' scribed, i.e. provided by a being ~ being merely an assertion..... shy of proving said prescribor exists.


I know its really hard to grasp, cuz youre ding.

You're going in circles, dude. No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.

 

[MaryL]

The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.

The first and second sentence dont have any rational connection whatsoever.

The 1st is an assertion, the second is an observation.

I don't think existence can be boiled down to such a simple question. This is a two part thread, we EXIST (part 1) How did we come to exist? (part 2).
We exist, things evolve, things change and I don't believe there was an "origin" of the universe. It's an ever on going process that is eternal. And beyond our understanding.

 

[ding]

The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.

You have made no case that any natural phenomenon are prescriptive. That’s mere assertion on your part, totally unsupported and basically, nothing more than a retreat to religious dogma.

Actually it has nothing to do with religious dogma, but militant atheists see dogma hiding behind every bush.

The case has been made. I wouldn't expect you to agree with it.

No, the assertion was made. Certainly not the case.

That's your opinion. I can state my opinion succinctly with every post. You have no opinion. So you can't.

No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.

 

[ding]

The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.

The first and second sentence dont have any rational connection whatsoever.

The 1st is an assertion, the second is an observation.

I don't think existence can be boiled down to such a simple question. This is a two part thread, we EXIST (part 1) How did we come to exist? (part 2).
We exist, things evolve, things change and I don't believe there was an "origin" of the universe. There ever going process that is eternal. And beyond our understanding.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that is not possible.

 

[ding]

Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.

Or, describes limitations that simply exist.

Invoking them as constant, i.e. asking me about the speed of light....doesnt speak to prescriptive vs. descriptive...

and you just proved that your damn self


What a waste of time!

The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.

The Laws of Physics are used to estimate the numerical representation of the physical phenomenon that exists.

The limitation being a limitation can have 100 differing reasons......them being 'pre' scribed, i.e. provided by a being ~ being merely an assertion..... shy of proving said prescribor exists.


I know its really hard to grasp, cuz youre ding.

You're going in circles, dude. No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.

Placed?

No, thats an assertion and implies cognition.

Its not word games, its that your ideas are malformed.

And the limitations arent hinging on whether or not theyre prescribed, or descriptions of what simply is ~ but for some odd reason you assume thats a logical argument.

You are quibbling with words, GT.

No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.