- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,439
- 24,104
The question implies the answer. that is: there wasn't a "beginning". I think it's that simple.All states of being have cause.
What caused the initial state of existence?
It's turtles all the way down, hun.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The question implies the answer. that is: there wasn't a "beginning". I think it's that simple.All states of being have cause.
What caused the initial state of existence?
Thats not a rational proof that they dont *describe the natural phenomena that I cannot travel that speedThe 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.The Laws of Physics are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Let me know when you break the speed of light.Thats not a rational proof that they dont *describe the natural phenomena that I cannot travel that speedThe 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.The Laws of Physics are descriptive, not prescriptive.
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.
It is an irrelevant question.Let me know when you break the speed of light.Thats not a rational proof that they dont *describe the natural phenomena that I cannot travel that speedThe 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.The Laws of Physics are descriptive, not prescriptive.
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.![]()
Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.One last time, though, description vs. prescription does not speak to something remaining a constant. You misunderstand what words even mean ~ how the fuck can you then have a discussion on which is the state of existence....
Or, describes limitations that simply exist.Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.One last time, though, description vs. prescription does not speak to something remaining a constant. You misunderstand what words even mean ~ how the fuck can you then have a discussion on which is the state of existence....
The first and second sentence dont have any rational connection whatsoever.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.Or, describes limitations that simply exist.Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.One last time, though, description vs. prescription does not speak to something remaining a constant. You misunderstand what words even mean ~ how the fuck can you then have a discussion on which is the state of existence....
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 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.The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.Or, describes limitations that simply exist.Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.One last time, though, description vs. prescription does not speak to something remaining a constant. You misunderstand what words even mean ~ how the fuck can you then have a discussion on which is the state of existence....
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 Laws of Physics are used to estimate the numerical representation of the physical phenomenon that exists.
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.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
I was going to let you figure this one out on your own, and nice to see ya again holly!!!!!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.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
Actually it has nothing to do with religious dogma, but militant atheists see dogma hiding behind every bush.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.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
No, the assertion was made. Certainly not the case.Actually it has nothing to do with religious dogma, but militant atheists see dogma hiding behind every bush.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.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The case has been made. I wouldn't expect you to agree with it.
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.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.The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.Or, describes limitations that simply exist.Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.One last time, though, description vs. prescription does not speak to something remaining a constant. You misunderstand what words even mean ~ how the fuck can you then have a discussion on which is the state of existence....
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 Laws of Physics are used to estimate the numerical representation of the physical phenomenon that exists.
I know its really hard to grasp, cuz youre ding.
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).The first and second sentence dont have any rational connection whatsoever.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The 1st is an assertion, the second is an observation.
That's your opinion. I can state my opinion succinctly with every post. You have no opinion. So you can't.No, the assertion was made. Certainly not the case.Actually it has nothing to do with religious dogma, but militant atheists see dogma hiding behind every bush.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.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The case has been made. I wouldn't expect you to agree with it.
Placed?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.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.The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.Or, describes limitations that simply exist.Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.One last time, though, description vs. prescription does not speak to something remaining a constant. You misunderstand what words even mean ~ how the fuck can you then have a discussion on which is the state of existence....
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 Laws of Physics are used to estimate the numerical representation of the physical phenomenon that exists.
I know its really hard to grasp, cuz youre ding.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that is not possible.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).The first and second sentence dont have any rational connection whatsoever.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The 1st is an assertion, the second is an observation.
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.
You are quibbling with words, GT.Placed?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.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.The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.Or, describes limitations that simply exist.Never said anything about being a constant. I said it prescribes limitations upon you that you cannot break.
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 Laws of Physics are used to estimate the numerical representation of the physical phenomenon that exists.
I know its really hard to grasp, cuz youre ding.
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.