|
I was strolling back from my class one night and realized something completely universally true.
The world of math, numbers and symbols represent things that are already there, only broken into pieces. For example, 2+2=4 is the idea of 4, broken into halves. So in that sense, two sets of 2 is the same thing as a single set of 4.
So, moving to more tangible matters, a single atom within a block of metal has equal properties to all the block of metal that make up the block. Therefore, it is equally valid to represent that block with either the atom or the block of the material.
But wait, what about the complex interactions between each of the atoms and so forth? Each interaction between itself as well as with other atoms is an inherent property of that specific atom. Therefore, the properties in a macro scale can be deduced from the properties in a micro scale.
More applicable examples are found in starcraft 2. Let's suppose a zerg and protoss are playing each other on lost temple. We have defined our universe, starcraft 2 in lost temple, as well as our variables, protoss and zerg. We start the game and our protoss friend goes to scout the zerg. From timings we inherently know to be true, the overlord from the zerg will come to the protoss base at exactly the time our 9 pylon scout will almost get to the closest positions. If we see the overlord, the zerg must be at close positions with ramps away from each other. If not, then either the zerg is stupid(must give credit to day9: underestimate the stupidity of players), or the zerg is in the far position or the closest positions. If he is not in the closest position, he must be in the farthest position. From our knowledge of the game and that we know specifics of our situations, we could deduce something that we have not seen, that the zerg must be at the far position.
Now we get into the question, "what is the meaning of life?". The answer to this cliche is pretty obvious of we consider "life" as a sum of its components. "Life" itself cannot be well visualized by simply stating what is. Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other. Visualized this way, life is as simple as math in that their sums are equal to the final product.
If we know for certain, parts of life, deduction of the entirety is simply realizing how to put those pieces together. Therefore, the 'meaning' of the sun rising tomorrow, IS tomorrow's day which is your getting up in the morning which is you eating breakfast etc.
Then to ask, what is the meaning of life, is questioning is life = life which of course, is true in all cases. Life is the cause of itself, which isn't hard to see if you consider the mechanisms of reproduction. What do you have when you have life? You have more life. We can even see this with our expeditions into space. The limit for life on this planet is boarding on the plateau. Life is finding its way out of its limits for further propagate itself.
However, if these properties of life are true, then it should be true as well for the universe. With the mathematical evidence that the universe is in fact expanding which furthers this conclusion that deductions can be made with micro or macro level observations.
Where do we look for these observations? As with the sun rising example, signs can be found everywhere. From the movement of the smallest particle to the evidence of the ever expanding universe, our world in its entirety can be understood by putting these pieces together.
On October 28 2010 14:28 cz wrote:
So what is the meaning of life? You said the answer was obvious...
As in why does it exist? But cause it started itself. 
-Part II-
Edit- 10-28-2010 1:34pm
So, I've reviewed the third page of this thread and apparently the above text is utter chaos. I admit, I probably wasn't in the best state to be writing sentences at the time...I just came back from a two-hour midterm @_@.
Okay, so....
Life
wiki:
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]
I tend to look at life as a giant machine. A self-propagating one at that. This machine called "Life" operates with the fuel that comes from the universe, which is not alive, but has all the essentials for life.
People are quoting the above "Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other". "Life" cannot exist without its functioning parts. At least in my view, you need multiple organisms to have a working ecosystem(Life). A "life" cannot exist in its individual parts. You might say that, well stick a person on a space ship+food and that's life that's independent of other lives. True, for a short period of time, where the organism has food, it will survive. But it is impossible to sustain that state forever. Reproduction and sustenance must occur which, IMO, is an essential property of life. Both take interactions with other pieces of "life".
So a machine that reproduces itself and is sustained by other mechanisms within itself. These properties are not unique to life. The sun for example has sustained itself for billions of years. Black holes constantly grow because of their properties. The water supply on earth is constantly refreshing itself. Rocks in the earth are constantly being remade and destroyed by their own material.
Then what makes life unique to any other universal process out there? Because it happens within a time frame that we consider "fast enough"? Or perhaps "life" is solely defined as organic?
Time is no significance if you consider the vastness of the universe. It takes 9 months for a baby to be born from conception to delivery. It takes a few million years for a planet to form out of stardust. The universe was created 14 billion years ago. And before that, did time exist? It is entirely possible that time is independent from the creation of the universe, and that our universe is within another container as we are in our universe's container. So the total "time" that has ever existed maybe be infinite. Therefore, any time interval is seemingly insignificant to the total time. To the scale of the universe, the time it takes for a baby to be born on earth and a planet to be born takes relatively the same time.
Organic or not, it's not a necessity for life to have carbon or oxygen. We see the processes of life happening everywhere, but not with these elements. For example, the properties of your blood vessels are are found in electrical wiring. E = voltage * current. The simple mechanics of a body, the simple machines, are found all around inorganic nature. Every organic organism is basically a bag of chemicals that follow the processes of the universe and are not unique to life.
I'm getting tired for the time being and will continue describing my shit in a bit.
 
|
|
|
So what is the meaning of life? You said the answer was obvious...
|
|
|
Meaning of life != Why life began.
Also, life did not start itself.
|
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself?
|
On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself?
Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.
|
On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself? Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.
It's the universe reacting to itself that propagated life. So in that sense, it did make itself; it was just in a parts. X already existed. Life is just a byproduct of the universe.
|
On October 28 2010 14:39 Tossup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself? Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself. It's the universe reacting to itself that propagated life. So in that sense, it did make itself; it was just in a parts. X already existed. Life is just a byproduct of the universe.
I gave an argument that was valid. If you want to counter the argument you have to a) demonstrate that it is invalid (ie if all the premises are true the conclusion is not necessarily true) or b) demonstrate that one of the premises is false (or just question one of the premises).
I'm not sure how your response fits into it.
|
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?
|
On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?
By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.
|
On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.
How do you define life?
|
On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend. How do you define life?
As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other.
|
On October 28 2010 14:48 Tossup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend. How do you define life? As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other.
That's not how others commonly use the term "life." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.
Actually, by using your definition of life you've reduced your argument to something that is true by definition. Which is worthless. It's like me saying "God exists," then defining God as "the apple on my desk." By that definition, God does indeed exist, but my argument is misleading.
|
On October 28 2010 14:48 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:48 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend. How do you define life? As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other. That's not how others commonly use the term "life." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.
That's not how Newton commonly use the term "gravity." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.
e.g. Einstein
|
On October 28 2010 14:50 Tossup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:48 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:48 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend. How do you define life? As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other. That's not how others commonly use the term "life." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true. That's not how Newton commonly use the term "gravity." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true. e.g. Einstein
You are missing the point. I'm not trying to insult you but explain that by using separate definitions you are not coming to the conclusion you think you are.
You are arguing that life started itself: then you are defining life as something that starts itself, along with a few other properties. Don't you see how you haven't actually done anything? It's also extremely misleading when others read your use of the word "life" and apply their definition of it (the common one) while you are using your own custom definition.
|
How is defining life by components of the universe a useless definition? How the formation of DNA => something alive wrong?
btw, you're editting faster than I can respond X_X.
|
Here, let me explain your argument via quoting you and substituting your definitions in for the words they define (that shouldn't affect anything as the word is a placeholder for the definition):
"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life."
Now let's take your definition of "life" and replace the word life with the definition:
"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other."
That sentence, if I can understand it, is basically obviously true. Which is good except that it hasn't added any new information.
|
atoms have very different properties than blocks of metal. At the atomic level there are all sorts of things that you have to consider that aren't applicable at the block level. For example, the force of gravity on the atom is insignificant compared to the coulomb (electric) forces between other atoms, whereas gravity plays a very important role with a block of metal.
Also, you could see every rational number as every other rational number in your view, kind of redundant, no?
|
On October 28 2010 14:53 Tossup wrote:
How is defining life by components of the universe a useless definition? How the formation of DNA => something alive wrong?
btw, you're editting faster than I can respond X_X.
Because it's your conclusion. Instead of demonstrating how life (as commonly defined) is something that has always existed and a component of the universe you are redefining the term to become your conclusion.
It's like arguing that "god exists" by defining God as "something that exists." It makes the conclusion ("God exists") true but it hasn't added new information.
|
To be honest I have no idea what you are talking about, really, and I'd need you to define a lot of terms for this to continue. Actually I don't even know what I'm talking about at this point as I jumped in and started talking without asking for clear definitions.
|
On October 28 2010 14:55 cz wrote:
Here, let me explain your argument via quoting you and substituting your definitions in for the words they define (that shouldn't affect anything as the word is a placeholder for the definition):
"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life."
Now let's take your definition of "life" and replace the word life with the definition:
"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other."
That sentence, if I can understand it, is basically obviously true. Which is good except that it hasn't added any new information.
Okay, What is the common definition for life?
On October 28 2010 14:55 Kwidowmaker wrote:
atoms have very different properties than blocks of metal. At the atomic level there are all sorts of things that you have to consider that aren't applicable at the block level. For example, the force of gravity on the atom is insignificant compared to the coulomb (electric) forces between other atoms, whereas gravity plays a very important role with a block of metal.
Also, you could see every rational number as every other rational number in your view, kind of
redundant, no?
Aren't we still searching for the universal force? From what I've read, there are 4 forces, gravity, magnetism, and two atomic forces.
@ your number statement
Yes! That is what math is.
|
You should read Soren Kierkegaard's
Concept of Anxiety The first part deals with your same problem but applied to Man and History.
|
|
|
I have read your OP at least four times at this point, and I still have no idea what you're saying. Could you perhaps try to put your thesis statement into plan English? That would probably facilitate discussion.
|
On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:
Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.
As far as this argument goes, I believe we're all on the same page, unless you advocate ID. Life is not eternal, so it had to start at some point. It cannot start itself, so something that is not life had to start it. I take for granted that we don't consider the universe alive, so the universe is a pretty good candidate for starting life. That's why abiogenesis is our best bet so far when it comes to the origin of life.
Good blog entry, by the way, even though I don't agree with it.
|
I am a big Kurt Vonnegut fan and he stated on many occasions that the meaning of life is "to help each other through this thing, whatever it is".
Now that may seem silly in some ways and in some ways recursive as well, but to a humanist, it actually makes perfect sense. These questions of meaning, a priori ideas, and theology/God mean nothing. They are just fodder for conversation and work well in songs, poems, and plays. I see it as we are asking the wrong questions sometimes. William of Ockham once stated not to multiply needlessly. The more complications you add that do not really matter, the further and further away from the truth you will get. Reality works, science and other epistemological philosophies work in conjunction with fact and evidence and therefore we have been able to deduce a model of the universe that does not need meaning, just causality.
I am not saying that there is not meaning or God or any other abstract human idea. Just to me, until reality requires the question, then it is the realm of myth and legend. Fun to think about and play with, but far from any truth. Meaning may be out there, but until it manifests itself in a real and measurable way, it may as well not exist.
I know this is a little off topic, but it is always my point of view when talking about the meaning of life.
|
Ridiculous amount of fluff.
Nevertheless...
You assume life started itself. Is this given the assumption that the material necessary for life to manifest itself was already there?
Also...
The world of math, numbers and symbols represent things that are already there, only broken into pieces. For example, 2+2=4 is the idea of 4, broken into halves. So in that sense, two sets of 2 is the same thing as a single set of 4.
I would have to disagree with the broken into pieces part. Although it "works" in your analogy it is incorrect. A more aptly suited statement would be the constant discovery of what is unknown but once discovered and proved is a fact. Because we discover it in infinitesimally small pieces, I guess technically it's not even pieces, but could be considered in piece because it is infinitely decreasing pieces ( if processes are included ). Math is discovered constantly, not in pieces.
|
Our standard definition of life (cellular organisms) very clearly did not start itself. If you view life in a more general way, of patterns that propagate themselves, then life is probably inherent to our universe/reality.
|
"what is the meaning of life?"
define this sentence.
Okay, well here, aren't we limited to our own definitions of each word? Therefore, it is impossible to truly define life. It exists outside of language. By asking me to define this sentence, you're asking me to define language with language which as cz pointed out, is useless.
The best I can do is tell you examples of my own experiences and allow you to interpret as you will.
@ kineSiS
When I said life started itself, it's more like it was a the result of the universe. We both agree there is a starting point of what we 'commonly' call life. How it started is still a mystery but it started nonetheless. Then, it could have only started out of what was already there, the universe. What I'm trying to get at is that, this result of 'life' works in the same mechanisms as the whole of the universe. So, by understanding how life works, we can understand how our universe works as well.
I'm not quite sure what you mean with the second part after also..
So, I'm getting that you're saying math is too discrete to be in this analogy? Because 2 and 2 are pieces of 4, then the two of them combined is equal to 4. But you said that we discover our world to be in infinitesimally small pieces which does not apply to math. Basically, you're saying 4 is made up of 4 units which cannot be broken down and therefore, life cannot be like math.
Well, that's easy, 4 is just a convention that people use to tell how many measurable units, which ever they choose (apples to nanometers). In actuality, the number 4 is made up of infinitely smaller pieces, exactly how life is.
|
The world of math, numbers and symbols represent things that are already there, only broken into pieces. For example, 2+2=4 is the idea of 4, broken into halves. So in that sense, two sets of 2 is the same thing as a single set of 4.
So, moving to more tangible matters, a single atom within a block of metal has equal properties to all the block of metal that make up the block. Therefore, it is equally valid to represent that block with either the atom or the block of the material.
This is not true. You cannot make a block of 6 using only 4's. In the same way you cannot explain magnetism if you only use atoms instead of protons/neurons/electrons. The bigger block is a simplified model.
|
On October 28 2010 15:53 Redunzl wrote:You should read Soren Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety The first part deals with your same problem but applied to Man and History.
that was a hilarious read, thank you.
|
On October 28 2010 17:54 TheAmazombie wrote:
I am a big Kurt Vonnegut fan and he stated on many occasions that the meaning of life is "to help each other through this thing, whatever it is".
Now that may seem silly in some ways and in some ways recursive as well, but to a humanist, it actually makes perfect sense. These questions of meaning, a priori ideas, and theology/God mean nothing. They are just fodder for conversation and work well in songs, poems, and plays. I see it as we are asking the wrong questions sometimes. William of Ockham once stated not to multiply needlessly. The more complications you add that do not really matter, the further and further away from the truth you will get. Reality works, science and other epistemological philosophies work in conjunction with fact and evidence and therefore we have been able to deduce a model of the universe that does not need meaning, just causality.
I am not saying that there is not meaning or God or any other abstract human idea. Just to me, until reality requires the question, then it is the realm of myth and legend. Fun to think about and play with, but far from any truth. Meaning may be out there, but until it manifests itself in a real and measurable way, it may as well not exist.
I know this is a little off topic, but it is always my point of view when talking about the meaning of life.
That's all well and good except for ideas like science, fact, and reason are a priori ideas as well. They're abstract and human. You've simply traded a few outdated cultural myths for a few trendier ones.
|
On October 28 2010 18:43 Tossup wrote:
"what is the meaning of life?"
define this sentence.
Okay, well here, aren't we limited to our own definitions of each word? Therefore, it is impossible to truly define life. It exists outside of language. By asking me to define this sentence, you're asking me to define language with language which as cz pointed out, is useless.
The best I can do is tell you examples of my own experiences and allow you to interpret as you will.
@ kineSiS
When I said life started itself, it's more like it was a the result of the universe. We both agree there is a starting point of what we 'commonly' call life. How it started is still a mystery but it started nonetheless. Then, it could have only started out of what was already there, the universe. What I'm trying to get at is that, this result of 'life' works in the same mechanisms as the whole of the universe. So, by understanding how life works, we can understand how our universe works as well.
I'm not quite sure what you mean with the second part after also..
So, I'm getting that you're saying math is too discrete to be in this analogy? Because 2 and 2 are pieces of 4, then the two of them combined is equal to 4. But you said that we discover our world to be in infinitesimally small pieces which does not apply to math. Basically, you're saying 4 is made up of 4 units which cannot be broken down and therefore, life cannot be like math.
Well, that's easy, 4 is just a convention that people use to tell how many measurable units, which ever they choose (apples to nanometers). In actuality, the number 4 is made up of infinitely smaller pieces, exactly how life is.
Tossup, buddy, I'm doing my best, but I'm still not following you. Can we rewind for a second? I don't need any defenses of or justifications for your main idea. I just need your main idea in a comprehensible formulation.
|
That is why I specifically labeled them as epistemological philosophies. The point is that they work in reality without the need of meaning.
|
And of every thing We have created pairs Surah 51:49 .
i was just readin some Quran seeying as i am muslim and came across that intersting .
|
Tossup... Oh geez. I don't even understand.
|
You know I had a nice long response typed but the total denial or absence of some things and not having clear meanings for seemingly anything that is being talked about is making my head hurt. Please just define the the word life as you are using it.
Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.
Something like this please.
|
|
|
On October 28 2010 23:31 Scorcher2k wrote:You know I had a nice long response typed but the total denial or absence of some things and not having clear meanings for seemingly anything that is being talked about is making my head hurt. Please just define the the word life as you are using it. Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeLife (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. Something like this please.
Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other
taken from OP
|
On October 28 2010 23:58 metaphoR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 23:31 Scorcher2k wrote:You know I had a nice long response typed but the total denial or absence of some things and not having clear meanings for seemingly anything that is being talked about is making my head hurt. Please just define the the word life as you are using it. Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeLife (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. Something like this please. taken from OP
And I'm obviously asking for a better definition...
|
Could have just said:
Reductionism. Discuss.
|
On October 29 2010 00:08 Scorcher2k wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 23:58 metaphoR wrote:On October 28 2010 23:31 Scorcher2k wrote:You know I had a nice long response typed but the total denial or absence of some things and not having clear meanings for seemingly anything that is being talked about is making my head hurt. Please just define the the word life as you are using it. Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeLife (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. Something like this please. Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other taken from OP And I'm obviously asking for a better definition...
well that's how the OP defines life. Using a different definition would be pointless to this thread where the topic of discussion uses this definition to come to certain conclusions about life made by the OP. To ignore this definition is to ignore all the points made in the OP.
|
"This is what knowledge really is. It is finding out something for oneself with pain, with joy, with exultancy, with labor, and with all the little ticking, breathing moments of our lives." -- Thomas Wolfe
|
Ok... I thought I understood why I got confused but then I read the whole thing again and now I have no fucking clue what so ever what the OP is trying to say... Math... Starcraft.. which explains life... life explains more life... The fucking universe comes in and in the end I'm just left thinking about breakfast!
I'm not trying to troll but you are using two separate definitions for one word and throwing random shit together with seemingly no sense...
|
Austin10833 Posts
You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
What is what do, did you say did I say, what word is that word what, what do words the word what mean? Except that for having so decided make to use even go need to do look more like, you still haven’t going really want to do not a twice as much to use go wish for that. I disagree for when anyone really been far even as decided once to use even go want, that they have really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
|
Great now there are two walls of text in this thread that I can injure myself trying to decipher.
|
PM travis about this thread. He'll get it.
|
On October 29 2010 01:12 BroOd wrote:
You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
What is what do, did you say did I say, what word is that word what, what do words the word what mean? Except that for having so decided make to use even go need to do look more like, you still haven’t going really want to do not a twice as much to use go wish for that. I disagree for when anyone really been far even as decided once to use even go want, that they have really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
BroOd, this really speaks to me.
|
On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself? Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.
Okay Aquinas.
|
So i've updated with a part 2....trying to clarify some things. <3 for the discussions tho ^^
|
|
|
OP are you asian by any chance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
