one step at a time

I know neither of those.1) By a scientific process, I can evaulate that the most likely explanation for your supposed text -- and my supposed response -- is that we (or at least I) exist. That is a theory, however, as there is always the uncertainty that neither of us exist; that this is only a biproduct of a computer simulation, among other things.
2) Again, I can only ascertain that as a theory for the same reason.However, for the purpose simplicity, I'm sure you'll be allowed to make those assumptions in a debate (unless you're arguing with the assumptions of a Christian, in which case that and a lot more is assumed). After all, any evaluation of collected scientific evidence only works with the premise of the latter "theory," and with each individual person believing the former "theory."Edit: Grammar errors.[This message has been edited by TheDanish, 11-23-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B][QUOTE] so where were we? ok, something exists... me and the universe (and whatever it contains)... now the question is, has something always existed or did it begin to exist? [snip]for 'something' to have always existed, what would have to be true? or false (that might be a better way to approach it)?[/B][/QUOTE]Neither way is answerable given current scientific evidence. To wit, we cannot say if something has always existed because there was neither anyone to observe it -- let alone its eternal existance -- nor any evidence to support its existance. However, if false, then there is the ultimate question "whodunit?" Again, scientifically, there is currently no evidence to support anything but the (supposed) age of the universe. At t=lim(t->0-) where t is the age of the universe, assuming there is such a time, there is no explanation for anything happening.We can only work with the evidence we have, and we cannot assume anything about before the beginning of the universe unless there is some property of universe creation defined by evidence found in the assumed universe's existance. In short, we can't test an environment unless we can change it -- play with its variables -- and so far, it doesn't look like there are any quick ways out of the universe to test it from the outside. It's the same reason we can't independantly test gravity or atoms for how/why it works -- there's nothing that we know of that doesn't have it. We can explain it very well, but we cannot ascertain its roots.Disclaimer: I'm neither in this debate nor a scientist. That's just how I feel.[This message has been edited by TheDanish, 11-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

​

a theory eh? you say there is always "uncertainty" about your existence.. you doubt your own existence... as descartes said (more or less), the very fact that you doubt is logically untenable for a non-existent entity... you have to think to doubt.. you can doubt other things if you want, but you must exist to doubt that you exist... we aren't allowed to contradict ourselves while retaining a semblance of rational discussion... if you don't exist, you can't doubt your existence... if you do exist, merely saying "i exist" proves that existence

---

But what if I don't exist? What if I'm not really doubting my existance, but merely a machine spitting back what has been fed to me earlier? But, anyway, for the purposes of this thread, (at least for me) we can make the assumption that we're all rational, that we all exist, because we have no reason to believe otherwise, except for what we don't know, and drawing straws from what we don't know is pretty stupid, wouldn't you agree?

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

​

i challenge the remark about christians... why can a christian not have rational leeway in a discussion? the statements "i exist" and "the universe exists" are true or not, what difference does it make who utters them? i'm assuming nothing so far... i'm moving slowly for a reason

---

Because Christians believe the Bible is the Truth, to deviate from that is not to be Christian -- many assumptions can be made based on what the Bible says, such as God exists; if you take Genesis 1:1 to be true, then God, the heaven and the earth all exist, for example. I could go into a deeper analysis, but again, I'm not really in this debate. Just kinda asking arbitrary questions, y'know? I know this is tangent to the thread, but you were the one that challenged my remark, and thus I submit my reasoning.Anyway, for the purposes of this thread (if I choose to continue), I shall assume that the universe exists -- I already conceded that in my first post, and I do it again here.[This message has been edited by TheDanish, 11-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheDanish:
We can only work with the evidence we have, and we cannot assume anything about before the beginning of the universe unless there is some property of universe creation defined by evidence found in the assumed universe's existance.

---

​

where do you get this? nobody's even come close to mentioning that, we're wayyyyy back to trying to determine if some thing has always existed or began to exist...

---

The answer is in the quotation you derived from my post; I would simply be reiterating it to answer your question. Replace "universe" with "some thing," as you put it, and there's your answer.Oh, I see. You're saying that began to exist doesn't necessarily mean that it was created. Fair enough, but whether or not I say "created" does not deviate from my main point -- there's no logical or other method with which we can say how long anything has been around, besides that for which there is evidence, whether it has been for an infinite or finite amount of time.Edit: More spelling/grammar errors[This message has been edited by TheDanish, 11-23-2002]