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.
Thank you for clarifying, I just thought you could mean there was a paradox in some other way.
With regards to your argument I will say this:
Firstly, there must be some loophole in what you've said, because of course the universe does somehow exist (at least it seems reasonable to believe the universe does exist, though some might disagree). I don't think paradoxes (at least of this sort) can actually exist in reality, by their very definition. The task is now to find the loophole.
Well there are some possible answers:
-Many people believe in some sort of un-caused first cause, like a God (I never know when I should use a capital 'G,' but certain members of this site will freak if I don't). This would be a supernatural being, so they wouldn't necessarily be bound by natural laws like cause and effect (which I think seems to be a natural law rather than a logical law).
-Physics around the Big Bang gets really weird, and we simply can't trust our intuition about the nature of cause and effect and time and all those things when it comes to that. For example, I don't think it makes sense to say "before existence." Given the weirdness it makes sense to withhold judgment, even if you're an expert in the subject.
-Closed time loops are another idea, but I think they seem a bit 'ad hoc,' i.e. goofy and just made up to get out of a tight spot.
-I think there are other explanations, but I don't recall them at the moment.
Alright, I'm a first year physics student at university, and if there's one things I've learned it is that people who don't REALLY understand physics (myself included) shouldn't be arguing about things like this. Maybe you actually have a PhD in physics or something, in which case, you can dismiss what I am saying.
Either way, you're in the wrong place. The website 'Physics stack exchange' is where you want to go if you really want a serious answer to a question like this.
Alright, I'm a first year physics student at university, and if there's one things I've learned it is that people who don't REALLY understand physics (myself included) shouldn't be arguing about things like this. Maybe you actually have a PhD in physics or something, in which case, you can dismiss what I am saying.
Either way, you're in the wrong place. The website 'Physics stack exchange' is where you want to go if you really want a serious answer to a question like this, though I suspect you won't.
To answer your question, I can't prove anything other than entropy exists because I lack sufficient understanding of physics.
I think maybe the reason that you have to take math in school, even stuff that you don't use in everyday life, is that they don't want people who will do jobs that require math to slip through the cracks. In other words; if you didn't have to do math then lots of people who would become physicists or engineers or whatever would never become those things since they opted out of math at an early age. Sucks for you, I know, but it's better for society as a whole if we don't miss the people with those skills.
All it means is that it could have been possible for life to form on mars, especially in the past, because the right ingredients are there. NOT that there is or ever was life on mars. We don't know if there is or especially if there was because we haven't really looked enough.
But it's not like there are thousands of white Einsteins, and I see you've completely ignored the rest of my last argument explaining why it might be the case that there are other factors than intelligence at play.
Your three truths thing is just a joke.
In no particular order:
1. Star wars, episodes IV & V (Films)
2. Splinter cell, specifically Chaos theory. (Games)
3. Catch 22 (book)
4. Lord of the rings + the Hobbit (Books & Films)
5. Battlefield 3 & 4 (Games)
6. Peep Show (Sitcom)
7. The X-Files (the old TV series (those recent ones mostly sucked))
8. The Terminator (only the original film)
9. The original Mad Max (film)
10. My sex life (fantasy)
It's really your decision, but here's an idea nobody ever mentions:
If you feel guilty about your carnivorous habits leading to animals being killed, but you also don't want to stop eating meat, just eat less meat! You'll still be reducing the amount of meat consumption, and therefore animal slaughtering, just not by as much. It's a good compromise I think.
Why can't we just be nice for the sake of being nice? Suits me just fine. I hope you aren't being nice only because of what you think God says.
I don't believe things can be objectively morally right or wrong.
A question for you: are things (a) right/wrong just because God says they are, or are they (b) right/wrong because of some objective morality that doesn't come from God? If (a), then your morality seems arbitrary. If (b), God isn't required for your morality to exist.
