Idea or Reality

[Fool]

Well, most things do not have ideas, rather only beings with brains do, but I don't think you meant what you actually wrote.

But to answer what guess was your intended question, ideas come from the cognitive faculties of thinking beings and the existence of things is independent of whether a being chances to think about it.

so can a thing ever be actual; if the thing were not always a potential?


for instance, you? could you exist; if it were not always possible?


if no, then is it just random, or if yes, then is it systematic?

 

[Darkstorn]

for instance, you? could you exist; if it were not always possible?


if no, then is it just random, or if yes, then is it systematic?

Am i the only one who finds this to make very little sense? I mean in logical terms. I mean, not sure what was meant.

 

[Milton Platt]

so can a thing ever be actual; if the thing were not always a potential?


for instance, you? could you exist; if it were not always possible?


if no, then is it just random, or if yes, then is it systematic?

Not sure how this ties into your previous post. It's been a long day, so maybe some of my brain cells are not firing.

You (or anything else) could not exist if it were not possible. I am not sure why you qualify it with the word "always".
I mean, if it were sometimes possible, then the thing in question might (or might not) exist "sometimes" and not at other times.
How does the possibility or impossibility of the existence have anything to do with ideas.

I would assume that everything that can exist might exist, or might not exist. The fact that something can exist does not mean it actually does, right? We know Dodo birds can exist because they used to exist, but now they don't. That does not mean that it is now impossible for Dodo birds to exist, only that they don't currently exist.

Can you get to a point?

 

[osgart]

the hand was a concept well before it existed. The eye an invention of ideas.

we are the awry creation of mad scientists.

idea came first though, seriously.

 

[Darkstorn]

the hand was a concept well before it existed. The eye an invention of ideas.

we are the awry creation of mad scientists.

idea came first though, seriously.

I... I am not convinced.

 

[Milton Platt]

the hand was a concept well before it existed. The eye an invention of ideas.

we are the awry creation of mad scientists.

idea came first though, seriously.

Please provide data to support the assertion.......

 

[Milton Platt]

the hand was a concept well before it existed. The eye an invention of ideas.

we are the awry creation of mad scientists.

idea came first though, seriously.

Then who thought of the scientists and who thought of the thing that thought of the scientists.....into infiniti

When you can provide data to support your reply, please do so.

 

[Polymath257]

so can a thing ever be actual; if the thing were not always a potential?

Potential existence is an incoherent concept. A thing either exists or it does not. It may be possible to construct it through the laws of nature, on-existent objects don't have a property of 'potential existence' because non-existent objects have no properties at all.

for instance, you? could you exist; if it were not always possible?

What does it mean to be 'always possible' as opposed to, say, 'possible right now'? When my mother and father had sex, it was a possibility that they would have a child. If they had not done so, I would not now exist. But, *I* didn't have 'potential existence' before I existed. I just didn't exist. Now I do.

if no, then is it just random, or if yes, then is it systematic?

I have no idea what you are asking here.

 

[Fool]

Not sure how this ties into your previous post. It's been a long day, so maybe some of my brain cells are not firing.

You (or anything else) could not exist if it were not possible. I am not sure why you qualify it with the word "always".
I mean, if it were sometimes possible, then the thing in question might (or might not) exist "sometimes" and not at other times.
How does the possibility or impossibility of the existence have anything to do with ideas.

I would assume that everything that can exist might exist, or might not exist. The fact that something can exist does not mean it actually does, right? We know Dodo birds can exist because they used to exist, but now they don't. That does not mean that it is now impossible for Dodo birds to exist, only that they don't currently exist.

Can you get to a point?

Einstein Exhibit -- Voice of Einstein


"It followed from the special theory of relativity that "mass" and "energy" are both but different manifestations of the same thing -

 

[Thief]

I don't like how some people refuse to understand this: This is a debate forum. Not a proselytizing forum. You can't assume your premise to be true in a debate against those who DO NOT hold your premise to be true. There are many different people of many different faiths here and some people come into an argument assuming everyone already holds the Christian biblical version of events as the default position.

I think it's intellectual laziness and lowers the quality of threads. At least separate your claims from factual arguments by saying "in my opinion". Please. Otherwise it's a one sided argument by default and that means no one wins.

assumptions are required....as no proof will ever be rendered

and you know this

there will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or repeatable experiment

you cannot place God in a petri dish

this is a debate forum......about God and religion

no proof for you.....toooooooo bad

 

[Fool]

Potential existence is an incoherent concept. A thing either exists or it does not. It may be possible to construct it through the laws of nature, on-existent objects don't have a property of 'potential existence' because non-existent objects have no properties at all.



What does it mean to be 'always possible' as opposed to, say, 'possible right now'? When my mother and father had sex, it was a possibility that they would have a child. If they had not done so, I would not now exist. But, *I* didn't have 'potential existence' before I existed. I just didn't exist. Now I do.


I have no idea what you are asking here.

energy can exist as a potential mass and mass is a potential energy source. as einstein explained, they are simply 2 different manifestations of the same thing.

 

[Thief]

energy can exist as a potential mass and mass is a potential energy source. as einstein explained, they are simply 2 different manifestations of the same thing.

and you would say as much for dark energy and dark matter?

 

[Darkstorn]

assumptions are required....as no proof will ever be rendered

and you know this

But you do realize that this leaves whatever argument you're trying to make weak: If it requires assumption instead of evidence.

there will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or repeatable experiment

Never? Your certainty sure is absolute regarding everything you seem to spew out. I find it funny.

you cannot place God in a petri dish

How can you know?

this is a debate forum......about God and religion

But your debating style isn't debating at all. It's asserting something subjective based on your sensory perceptions, making an assumption, and then treating that assumption as fact while requiring far more from your opponents.

no proof for you.....toooooooo bad

Proof in this context is only used by people who don't understand what "evidence" means.

 

[Thief]

assumption is a useful tool

and evidence by reasoning will have to do

there is nothing else

and I require nothing from anyone else

 

[Darkstorn]

assumption is a useful tool

Not in your case though. It's undermining your argument.

and evidence by reasoning will have to do

That is not evidence. That's your subjective assessment. And it's shooting whatever argument you're trying to make in the foot.

there is nothing else

You use the word "is" in such an absolute way... It's also shooting your argument in the foot.

 

[Thief]

Not in your case though. It's undermining your argument.



That is not evidence. That's your subjective assessment. And it's shooting whatever argument you're trying to make in the foot.



You use the word "is" in such an absolute way... It's also shooting your argument in the foot.

your denial is noted
as well as your lack of stance

 

[Milton Platt]

Einstein Exhibit -- Voice of Einstein


"It followed from the special theory of relativity that "mass" and "energy" are both but different manifestations of the same thing -

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with this quote.

 

[Darkstorn]

your denial is noted

Denial? No. Rebuttal. Your post attests to this. You are no longer arguing the point.

as well as your lack of stance

I'm not sure what's that supposed to be except a personal comment about me.

 

[Willamena]

So which came first?

a thing, or it's idea?

Idea is a reality. Reality is an interesting idea.

 

[Thief]

Denial? No. Rebuttal. Your post attests to this. You are no longer arguing the point.



I'm not sure what's that supposed to be except a personal comment about me.

your lack of stance is obvious
your denial is shallow

ideas first
as in Spirit first