I think I might have heard something like this in the movie the pursuit of happyness:
I would like to think freedom is the right to pursue happiness in life so long as it doesn't infringe on other's right to do the same. I know it's not a rigorous definition, but it sounds nice.
"Creative thinking, invention, innovation etc. are not what you may think. The human mind cannot actually create an idea from scratch. In order to "create" you must combine or alter known concepts and elements. Human "creativity" works by making connections between things which are impressed upon the brain through our senses, in other words the brain needs input before it can make new neural connections and form ideas. Thought works through pattern recognition, you cannot create a new idea in a literal sense because all ideas come from external input."
Well yeah, that's what creativity/originality is. Putting things/ideas together in a way not previously thought of. You can create a new idea by putting things together in your mind just as an artist can create a new painting by putting paint on the canvas. Something can still be new even if its parts are old.
"what is constantly moving forward, constantly passing itself, and speeds up whenever you slow down?"
I don't think time fits that description. How does it "pass itself," and how does it speed up when you slow down (because I don't think that's what relativity states if that's how you meant it).
"Damn, haven't you heard of general relativity you scientifically illiterate block head?"
Are you hinting it's something to do with relativity?
You said darkness was close, it's not something to do with black holes is it? I don't see how that would fit.
It's not something like information is it? I'm still not sure how to define information, and I don't think it can travel faster than light. I'm guessing people are wrong to interpret this as a physics question?
Edit: In some ways information can travel faster than light, but I feel like it's not what you're getting at.
Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex.
One's gender is not the same thing as one's sex, so if gender is a social construct, biological sex would still not be, so homosexuality could exist.
I don't see a contradiction in these two ideas. Whether either is true, I don't really know or care.
Somehow I don't think this is the place to be asking complex physics questions.
Any answer you get here will be bullshit, or the result of a quick google search (probably still bullshit). It's hardly likely that someone will give an answer worthy of a Nobel prize on createdebate.com.
"It's funny you say that, because I think that literally everything is a paradox and every truth comes with it's polar opposite."
Google defines a paradox as: "a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true."
The way I normally think of a paradox is the situation that arises when two (or more) premises that seem obviously true seem to obviously contradict each other.
In that sense, yes, as you put forward in your first argument (the clarification I requested), the very existence of existence itself is a paradox. I will grant that.
This doesn't imply that the paradox can't be resolved. We live in the real world, and I think this means there must be a resolution to every paradox, otherwise the world would be logically inconsistent. Is that what you believe, that the world is inconsistent?
A paradox would be resolved if at least one of the premises is actually false, or if it is actually possible for the premises to be true without contradiction.
"That makes no sense, especially as an argument for God...."
I agree with you about God, so I won't argue.
"The way I see it nature (i.e reality) is what defines what is "logical". And mother nature is telling me that she doesn't make any bloody sense and that true logic is the opposite of logic. Logic is illogical."
I think this relates to the idea of necessary and contingent truths. A statement like "all bachelors are unmarried" (given appropriate definitions of the words) is necessarily true (couldn't have been otherwise), while one like "the Earth exists" is a contingent truth (could have been otherwise). Similarly I think there are logical truths and natural truths. Statements like "all bachelors are unmarried" would seemingly be true regardless of nature (or rather, it would be impossible for nature to defy this), while some thing like "the Earth exists" would be determined by nature. I don't see how logic is dependent on nature or defined by nature.
"We have a fabric underlying everything we see made of microscopic paradox balls (particles) that pop in and out of existence randomly and only take specific trajectories when they are observed."
Skipping ahead to your last line, these quantum things are paradoxical, but we search for a resolution to this paradox. We haven't found one, but to assume that we never will is not a justified assumption to make, if that is what you are implying.
