Does Matter Really Exist?

[PixyMisa]

Whether or not matter exists is actually irrelevant to the claims of science. Matter appears to exist; if you emphasize the "appears", you agree with hammegk, and if you emphasize the "exist", you agree with Tricky.

Or more simply, we define "exist" as "what matter does". The metaphysical basis of existence is irrelevant for all practical purposes, because what matter does is exist.

So the answer to the question, Does matter exist? is Yes.
And the answer to the question, Does matter really exist? is You're not paying attention, are you?

 

[Iacchus]

Isn't it kind of odd that our internal truth is hidden until someone else tells us what that internal truth is?

Isn't it kind of odd that so many truths are held from us until someone else comes along to tell us what they are?

 

[RandFan]

Isn't it kind of odd that so many truths are held from us until someone else comes along to tell us what they are?

But I don't claim that these truths are internal. You do. It would stand to reason that if the truth about god were internal more people would figure it out without help from others. It would also stand to reason that there would be far more consensus. And, BTW, identical discoveries have been made in different places and different parts of the world.

 

[Iacchus]

Or more simply, we define "exist" as "what matter does". The metaphysical basis of existence is irrelevant for all practical purposes, because what matter does is exist.

So the answer to the question, Does matter exist? is Yes.
And the answer to the question, Does matter really exist? is You're not paying attention, are you?

So, does matter exist as the basis for all there is? ... Or, could there be something else?

 

[Iacchus]

But I don't claim that these truths are internal. You do. It would stand to reason that if the truth about god were internal more people would figure it out without help from others. It would also stand to reason that there would be far more consensus. And, BTW, identical discoveries have been made in different places and different parts of the world.

The recognition of "any" truth is internal ... at least in terms of what we're speaking of here.

 

[RandFan]

But I don't claim that these truths are internal. You do. It would stand to reason that if the truth about god were internal more people would figure it out without help from others. It would also stand to reason that there would be far more consensus. And, BTW, identical discoveries have been made in different places and different parts of the world.

They just were never made about god.

 

[RandFan]

The recognition of "any" truth is internal ... at least in terms of what we're speaking of here.

This is one of those games. I didn't say "recognition". I said "discovery". And discoveries about the observable world have been made independently and they create consensus.

Discoveries about god differ from location to location and create chaos and disagreement.

 

[RandFan]

I would still like to know why, if truth is internal, people from different countries didn't discover Christ before Christian missionaries? Perhaps the truth isn't internal? Right?

 

[Iacchus]

I would still like to know why, if truth is internal, people from different countries didn't discover Christ before Christian missionaries? Perhaps the truth isn't internal? Right?

Just a variation of the same thing. People have always believed in God.

 

[Iacchus]

They just were never made about god.

How would you know it were true except by means of that which is internal? Is it possible that when you look at something on the outside that you're looking at something (similar) on the inside as well? And let's not forget who or what is doing the looking in the first place. What is it about the observer -- you -- which, exists on the other side of the these brain signals, that is not internal?

 

[Belz...]

It's all part of the same process. This is why some of us call it faith.

Oh, no. You're not sleazing your way out, this time. You said:

I know what I know. If you don't believe this, then how can you tell me otherwise?

You said KNOW. FAITH is not knowledge, Iacchus. If, for you, the two words mean the same thing, then language is meaningless and nothing you say can ever make sense.

...hummm... now that I think about it...

 

[Belz...]

Okay, it's all part of the "belief" process. So, what's the difference? I may in fack "know" something, when another person can only "believe" it.

What I know is not of this world. So, if you wish to understand, perhaps you should consider it from a different point of reference? As Mr. Planck seems to imply, this matrix, exists on the other side of matter, hence the other side of time and space.

And how do you propose "knowing" anything from this non-physical, non-testable universe ?

 

[Belz...]

And what if what I believed was based upon what I know?

Then it wouldn't be belief. Sheesh. Do you even know what these words mean ?

 

[Belz...]

Time exists in the perspective as the lack of absolute or constant.

Funny. And yet we can agree on how much time a second represents.

Matter as pertaining to the original post, can't be proven to exist in that it is a concept based on interpretation. In reality their is nothing in this universe, even the universe itself as a concept, that can absolutely proven as realistic or proven a a concept rather then a misinterpreted perspective of its' inhabitants.

Then I submit you don't know what "prove" means.

 

[Belz...]

Inside is subjective. Inside is subject to error. Intuition that is not supported by objective evidence is what's known as faith.

Ah, but the only thing that is real, and knows that it is real, is on the inside. This is how I know ... or, at the very least, know where to look.

How can you AGREE with what he said, and then say the exact opposite ?

 

[Belz...]

And if that were the case, then what you and everyone else on this forum has said would be completely unintelligible to me. Not to say that the vast majority of it wasn't unintelligible in the first place. But, the fact that I am able to respond, demonstrates that I'm not a living vegetable (if even that) and, am quite capable of "telling" the difference.

But those are OUTSIDE, Iacchus, not INSIDE. You don't even understand your OWN arguments.

 

[Belz...]

And, as I have said before, you are looking in the wrong place ...

If you wish to find what's on the other side of matter, then look to what's on the other side of matter.

There is no "side" to matter. Another meaningless post designer, I can only assume, to increase your total posts.

 

[Belz...]

The recognition of "any" truth is internal ... at least in terms of what we're speaking of here.

What is this "internal" of which you speak, Iacchus ?

 

[Belz...]

Just a variation of the same thing. People have always believed in God.

No, no they haven't. They used to believe in godS, and before that, in spirits. Spirits are not the christian god.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, no. You're not sleazing your way out, this time. You said:

You said KNOW. FAITH is not knowledge, Iacchus. If, for you, the two words mean the same thing, then language is meaningless and nothing you say can ever make sense.

...hummm... now that I think about it...

Oh, I never said faith could not entail believing in something blindly. That's what they call "blind faith" ... I have faith that the sun will shine tomorrow, don't you?