What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

[Orias]

There is no place in the universe that is truly dark. Everywhere in the universe emits some form of radiation.

And is "courage" an entity? It has a label.

It is. Do you even know the definition of an entity? If it exists, it is an entity. An Aspect.

Let me help you...

en·ti·ty (

n

t

-t

)
n. pl. en·ti·ties 1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
2. The fact of existence; being.
3. The existence of something considered apart from its properties.


And to correct you. There is places within the universe that are obsolete of light. They are called voids. If there was places within the universe that were not void of light then we would be able to see it, but we can't.

But I do understand your points; disagreeing doesn't mean I don't understand them.

Sorry, by your use of "attempted" I assumed you did not fully understand. Miscommunication

It's sort of like if I were arguing that murder is acceptable and someone said "I disagree" and then I complained that they're not understanding my point or seeing it from my point of view. No -- they understand, they looked at it from my point of view and rejected it because they disagree; and such is what I'm doing here. I do get what you're saying, I'm just of the opinion that it's incorrect.

Why disagree?

But darkness is a fancy word for relative absence of light. It's not an entity, it's a concept. Nor is "3 photons of light" the opposite of "999 trillion photons of light." That's essentially what you're saying here, and I disagree. Darkness is not an entity, light is.

However you view it, light is in Opposition of Darkness, as it could not be without Darkness. No matter what you say, darkness is an entity, because it is ascribed, it is described it has a label, it exists. It just is. If it wasn't then yes, it wouldn't be an entity, be it has been comprehended. It may be the absence of Light, just as much as it is the Opposition of it.

But you can't have a left turn unless a right direction exists, otherwise it wouldn't be a turn (it'd be a straight line in one direction). You can't have left without at least the capacity for right: they are true opposites. However it's logically possible to have only darkness (such as if photons never existed), and it's logically possible to have only light (such as is arguably the case right now, since all units of space have photons in them to the tune of ~3 K of cosmic microwave radiation, or shortly after the Big Bang during the quark-gluon plasma when the universe would have been completely opaque with light).

Nonesense. Right is the absence of Left.

Do you see where your getting here?

Nature seems to have a way of solving its own paradoxes.

The labels are irrelevant to what they actually are. You can define illogic by trying to dig a hole to China, though it is possible, the possibilities just haven't been created yet.

I recall one of the first posts I made here, the subjectivity of existence. Maybe this is relative to the topic at hand.

Your arguing fallacies.

You already admitted that Right is a direct Opposite of Left (which you denied at first). Light and Darkness are no different, same as energy and "non-energy".

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm not arguing fallacies, and you don't seem to be interested in anything other than a one-sided discourse as you've simply ignored my arguments and retorted that "no matter what I say," you are still correct.

So, good day to you, I'll see you around in other threads.

Also, for readers, I'd like to point out that the posted definition of "entity" doesn't include "courage."

Courage isn't particular or discrete, it's not a being (it only "exists" insofar as it's experienced), and it doesn't exist "apart" from properties because it only IS a property/experience.

Edit: Also I never denied that right is an opposite of left, please re-read what I've argued: which has always been that they are opposites, but that light/darkness are not.

 

[Magic Man]

However you view it, light is in Opposition of Darkness, as it could not be without Darkness. No matter what you say, darkness is an entity, because it is ascribed, it is described it has a label, it exists. It just is. If it wasn't then yes, it wouldn't be an entity, be it has been comprehended. It may be the absence of Light, just as much as it is the Opposition of it.

It's kind of hard to argue with "No matter what you say". I guess the only response is "No matter what you say, darkness is not an entity". The point still remains that light can exist without darkness and vice versa. Darkness is the absence of light, not quite the opposite of it.

Nonesense. Right is the absence of Left.

Do you see where your getting here?

You don't seem to understand what's being said. Right is not the absence of left; it's the opposite of it. If you have darkness, you add light, and you no longer have darkness. If you are moving to the right, and you stop moving, you're just standing still; you're not going left. So, yes, your statement here is nonsense.

 

[PolyHedral]

However you view it, light is in Opposition of Darkness, as it could not be without Darkness. No matter what you say, darkness is an entity, because it is ascribed, it is described it has a label, it exists. It just is. If it wasn't then yes, it wouldn't be an entity, be it has been comprehended. It may be the absence of Light, just as much as it is the Opposition of it.

If I was an alien who could see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, the concept of "dark" would be nonsensical.

 

[Orias]

I'm not arguing fallacies, and you don't seem to be interested in anything other than a one-sided discourse as you've simply ignored my arguments and retorted that "no matter what I say," you are still correct.

So, good day to you, I'll see you around in other threads.

I haven't ignored your arguments. I simply added onto the statement the darkness is the absence of Light (which I agree with). But it is also Opposition. I am one sided, yet you would go as so far to disagree that I am agreeing with you, in a way that you disagree with.

Also, for readers, I'd like to point out that the posted definition of "entity" doesn't include "courage."

Courage isn't particular or discrete, it's not a being (it only "exists" insofar as it's experienced), and it doesn't exist "apart" from properties because it only IS a property/experience.

Again, that is connotative. It exists, therefore it is.

Edit: Also I never denied that right is an opposite of left, please re-read what I've argued: which has always been that they are opposites, but that light/darkness are not.

So your not going to direct my points? The thing is, these are concepts, you can't touch them. I didn't see any reason to believe that light and dark are not Opposites.

It's kind of hard to argue with "No matter what you say". I guess the only response is "No matter what you say, darkness is not an entity". The point still remains that light can exist without darkness and vice versa. Darkness is the absence of light, not quite the opposite of it.

Nonesense. Right is the absence of Left. Do you see where your getting here?

You don't seem to understand what's being said. Right is not the absence of left; it's the opposite of it. If you have darkness, you add light, and you no longer have darkness. If you are moving to the right, and you stop moving, you're just standing still; you're not going left. So, yes, your statement here is nonsense.

Maybe your the one that is not understanding.

If you have darkness and light, there is still darkness and there is still light. The thing is, that they COMBAT each other. How many times to I have to repeat the concept that, one cannot see with just darkness, nor light? Just as, how can you logically Oppose, without Opposing yourself?

Again, my view is obviously not one you are caring to understand, because your points are irrelevant to anything I have been trying to say.

You face me, your left is my right. Left is just as infinite as right, same as up and down. Yet they are in absence of each other, because left is just that, left. Though left is right, in a backward view, it is not right to your visible view of right. These things exist to define and characterize the Opposite of each other.

Yes, without right, left could not be. But simply, they could, as you have proclaimed darkness and light would still be, if they didn't have each other. The point is, Light and Darkness define each other, they are labels given to define our perceptions. They are Opposite. I am not Opposing your views, as I agree that they are the absence of each other, but that is Opposition. Your denying something that you can't conclude.


You don't know darkness could exist without light and vice versa, since within our existence we see both and we view both, we have given perception to both. Thats quit a dogmatic statement.


op·po·site (

p

-z

t)
adj. 1. Placed or located directly across from something else or from each other: opposite sides of a building.
2. Facing the other way; moving or tending away from each other: opposite directions.
3. Being the other of two complementary or mutually exclusive things: the opposite sex; an opposite role to the lead in the play.
4. a. Altogether different, as in nature, quality, or significance: The effect of the medication was opposite to that intended.
b. Sharply contrasting; antithetical: had opposite views on the subject.

5. Botany Growing in pairs on either side of a stem: opposite leaves.

n. 1. One that is opposite or contrary to another.
2. An opponent or antagonist.
3. An antonym.

adv. In an opposite position: They sat opposite at the table.

prep. 1. Across from or facing: parked the car opposite the bank.
2. In a complementary dramatic role to: He played opposite her.

This is why, Light gives heat, darkness does not. Of course, you could try and turn that around into, well darkness doesn't emitt cold, but it already is, naturally cold. To conclude what I am trying to say, Light and Darkness are the same thing, as they consist in the same space and are part of everything that we are.

You consist of dust, as do I.

Now, you know the definiton of Opposite, and you can chose to see the subject at hand as Opposites or not. Either way, you are not going to make me believe, that they are not Opposites. ( I am sure the same goes for you. So this argument was pretty useless now wasn't it?)

If I was an alien who could see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, the concept of "dark" would be nonsensical.

Thats laughable, because darkness is defined, it exists. If you view it as nonesensical, then explain why it exists.

"Because its the absence of Light". Thats a given, non-existence is the absence of existing, yet we go through both. Explain that?

From what I get from your argument is that the concept of dark is just as nonsensical as the concept of perception and existence.

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe your the one that is not understanding.

If you have darkness and light, there is still darkness and there is still light. The thing is, that they COMBAT each other. How many times to I have to repeat the concept that, one cannot see with just darkness, nor light? Just as, how can you logically Oppose, without Opposing yourself?

Yes, we have darkness and light, but that doesn't mean we have to. Just because we have darkness doesn't mean we have to have light. If we have left, then we must have right. That is the difference. Darkness and light don't combat each other. They exist.

Again, my view is obviously not one you are caring to understand, because your points are irrelevant to anything I have been trying to say.

I'm just responding to what you said. If you meant something different, then you should go back and rephrase.

You face me, your left is my right. Left is just as infinite as right, same as up and down. Yet they are in absence of each other, because left is just that, left. Though left is right, in a backward view, it is not right to your visible view of right. These things exist to define and characterize the Opposite of each other.

Yes, without right, left could not be. But simply, they could, as you have proclaimed darkness and light would still be, if they didn't have each other. The point is, Light and Darkness define each other, they are labels given to define our perceptions. They are Opposite. I am not Opposing your views, as I agree that they are the absence of each other, but that is Opposition. Your denying something that you can't conclude.


You don't know darkness could exist without light and vice versa, since within our existence we see both and we view both, we have given perception to both. Thats quit a dogmatic statement.

Wow, that was a lot of words for no reason. It's simple. Left and right are opposites. You have to have them both or neither one. Light and dark are not the same. Left is not the absence of right; it is the opposite of right. If you're not turning left, then you're either staying still, you're going straight or you're turning right. Going straight or standing still is still the absence of "left", but you're not going right.

And yes, I do know that darkness could exist without light and vice versa. If the entire universe was filled with photons, darkness wouldn't exist, but light would. If there was no such thing as a photon, light would not exist, but darkness would.

 

[Meow Mix]

I haven't ignored your arguments. I simply added onto the statement the darkness is the absence of Light (which I agree with).

I read this just before having to run some errands, but okay, I'll open discourse with you on this subject again. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll post later tonight.

 

[Meow Mix]

I haven't ignored your arguments. I simply added onto the statement the darkness is the absence of Light (which I agree with). But it is also Opposition. I am one sided, yet you would go as so far to disagree that I am agreeing with you, in a way that you disagree with.

Maybe we're having a semantic breakdown. To my understanding of what opposites are, they are things that could not exist if the other didn't exist (at least as a capacity) because they are defined in relation to that other thing. "Left" is the opposite of "right" from my understanding because you can't have a "left" direction unless there is also a "right" direction. Even if you try to look at it like a Cartesian grid and suggest that a point moves only to the left on it in a straight line, the meaning of moving "left" is still defined by the existence of the direction "right."

I'm arguing that the absence of something is not that thing's opposite (with one exception: the word "something" indeed has an opposite in "the absence of something," because that is "nothing").

Darkness, as the absence of light, is not the opposite of light any more than the opposite of an apple is the nonexistence of an apple. Darkness doesn't have to exist in order for light to exist, in fact darkness isn't an existent thing -- but light is an existent thing. Also, as pointed out, there is no darkness in the universe -- not even in the voids that you mention -- because of the ubiquitous microwave cosmic radiation, which is light. Darkness is only the relative absence of light. Thus to say that "darkness is the opposite of light" is like saying "3 photons is the opposite of 999 photons," which is clearly as false a statement as "3 matchsticks is the opposite of 55 matchsticks."

Now, if by darkness/light you're referring to visibility, you might have a case. Indeed, visibility is the opposite of non-visibility: but this is a different statement than darkness/light. Of course the opposite of being able to see is not being able to see. But if we're talking about things that exist outside of us like light (photons), they don't have an opposite in darkness because "darkness" is an equivalent term to saying "less photons."

On that note, photons do have an antiparticle called antiphotons, so maybe it can be said that they have "something" of an opposite, but I'd find that pretty shaky, too.

Again, that is connotative. It exists, therefore it is.

Yes, I don't dispute courage's existence but I generally consider an "entity" to be something which exists externally to a mind, which "courage" doesn't. The definition posted does seem to support my position for the reasons I listed.

So your not going to direct my points? The thing is, these are concepts, you can't touch them. I didn't see any reason to believe that light and dark are not Opposites.

I explained above why "right" and "left" are different from "darkness" and "light." Neither "right" or "left" exist except in relation to one another, but you can have a universe that is all darkness (nonexistence of photons) without logical contradiction; and you can have a universe with ubiquitous light (such as our universe, or if you prefer, during the opaque period of the universe when photons were so abundant that you wouldn't have been able to see anything but light).

As far as I understand, things aren't "opposites" if one side can exist in the absence of the other. You say that darkness can't exist without light and that light can't exist without darkness but that isn't physically true: each of those statements are logically possible; they entail no contradictions.

As I said, this may just be a semantic breakdown: you might have a different understanding of "opposites." Is that the case?

Maybe your the one that is not understanding.

If you have darkness and light, there is still darkness and there is still light. The thing is, that they COMBAT each other. How many times to I have to repeat the concept that, one cannot see with just darkness, nor light? Just as, how can you logically Oppose, without Opposing yourself?

The reason they "combat" each other -- which actually isn't true, light only combats darkness (darkness has no power to combat light) -- is because darkness is in physical reality a lower amount of light. Just switch the word "darkness" for the phrase "less amount of light" to understand more vividly. Obviously, adding more light combats the state of "having less amount of light." But would you say that having 5 matchsticks is the "opposite" of having 10 matchsticks? I wouldn't. So why are you saying that 5 photons is the "opposite" of having 10 photons? Or are you defining darkness and light in some other, non-physical meaning?

Again, my view is obviously not one you are caring to understand, because your points are irrelevant to anything I have been trying to say.

This would support my suggestion that maybe there's just a semantic breakdown. Maybe I should request that you define what exactly you mean by "opposite" and what exactly you mean by "darkness" and what exactly you mean by "light."

You face me, your left is my right. Left is just as infinite as right, same as up and down.

Yet they are in absence of each other, because left is just that, left. Though left is right, in a backward view, it is not right to your visible view of right. These things exist to define and characterize the Opposite of each other.

Yes, I agree that left and right are opposites. They are defined by one another; one can't exist without the other. However, that is not the case with the physical reality of light and its relative absence.

Yes, without right, left could not be. But simply, they could, as you have proclaimed darkness and light would still be, if they didn't have each other. The point is, Light and Darkness define each other, they are labels given to define our perceptions. They are Opposite. I am not Opposing your views, as I agree that they are the absence of each other, but that is Opposition. Your denying something that you can't conclude.

If you're talking about our perceptions (blue emphasis added) then indeed, you're speaking of "visibility vs. nonvisibility," which I agree are opposites. When I'm talking about light/darkness, I'm talking about the presence/relative absence of photons. Perhaps this is where our disagreement has come from?

You don't know darkness could exist without light and vice versa, since within our existence we see both and we view both, we have given perception to both. Thats quit a dogmatic statement.

I've stated that it's logically possible, which is true. There are no logical contradictions with assuming a universe that doesn't contain photons (and therefore only darkness) or a universe such as ours which is permeated with photons (and therefore only varying degrees of light).

You consist of dust, as do I.

Now, you know the definiton of Opposite, and you can chose to see the subject at hand as Opposites or not. Either way, you are not going to make me believe, that they are not Opposites. ( I am sure the same goes for you. So this argument was pretty useless now wasn't it?)

It may not be pointless, as I said: could just be semantic dissonance. It comes down to whether or not you feel that "1 matchstick" is the opposite of "2 matchsticks." If you do, then I will disagree. If you don't, then you might understand (now that I've been more clear on what I'm referring to with "light"/"darkness") that 1 photon (darkness) is not the opposite of 2 photons (light).

Nor is the nonexistence of a specific thing its opposite. If you say that the nonexistence of an apple is the opposite of an apple, I will disagree there, too.

 

[ellenjanuary]

It's the way we're wired, culturally. Language forms around concepts, but does that create a concrete reality?

The language of the Aymara, who live in the Andes highlands of Bolivia, Peru and Chile, has been noticed by Westerners since the earliest days of the Spanish conquest. A Jesuit wrote in the early 1600s that Aymara was particularly useful for abstract ideas, and in the 19th century it was dubbed the "language of Adam." More recently, Umberto Eco has praised its capacity for neologisms, and there have even been contemporary attempts to harness the so-called "Andean logic" – which adds a third option to the usual binary system of true/false or yes/no – to computer applications.

~Backs To The Future: Aymara Language And Gesture Point To Mirror-Image View Of Time

In between the dark and the light may be more than just gray. If we can't trust our brains to codify an objective reality that is truly objective due to the structure of language; who can we trust?

God. Not my god, not your god, not their god; but the god that is us all.

 

[Orias]

Yes, we have darkness and light, but that doesn't mean we have to. Just because we have darkness doesn't mean we have to have light. If we have left, then we must have right. That is the difference. Darkness and light don't combat each other. They exist.

Again, you are not directing my point. Your taking to imitative subjects, and putting an objective "fact" behind the matter, when really these terms are subjective. Yes light and dark exist, making them entities. If you haven't noticed, light seeks the consummation of darkness, as darkness envelops light. They do in a sense "fight" each other. Hence the constant analogies of "light" and "dark" in numerous religious and spiritual connotations. Its not literal, its an analysis from a psychological and a naturalistic perception of being. What your not understanding is just that, Opposition is everything. In order to Oppose, it must already be Opposing itself. For the constitution of being already demands, to be, and not to be. Given that it is a common view as Light and Dark to be Opposites, it is also pragmatic to assume that darkness is imminent, and everything that emerges from it, returns to it. Non-existence, the Opposition.

I'm just responding to what you said. If you meant something different, then you should go back and rephrase.

This proves my point.

Wow, that was a lot of words for no reason. It's simple. Left and right are opposites. You have to have them both or neither one. Light and dark are not the same. Left is not the absence of right; it is the opposite of right. If you're not turning left, then you're either staying still, you're going straight or you're turning right. Going straight or standing still is still the absence of "left", but you're not going right.

It is a rather simple concept to understand, light and dark are Opposites. Again, I see contradictions in your terminal view of conceptual knowledge. Its a philosophy, not a text book. The sentences underlined proves my point. There is more than one way to be Opposite. Yes they are indeed the "absences" of each other, as well as being "not the same" as each other (in a sense they are however). But again, your detracting from the comparison that, within a standard view, their labels define them. Left is the absence of right, if this was not so, the other would not exist. As I had previously said, Opposition allows the existence of Opposition. So why are you trying to disagree with me, when you just agreed with me?

And yes, I do know that darkness could exist without light and vice versa. If the entire universe was filled with photons, darkness wouldn't exist, but light would. If there was no such thing as a photon, light would not exist, but darkness would.

And again, you are in agreement with me. Of course, I am not insinuating that darkness is non-existence, its just dust, "unused", matter. The problem is, the "unused" matter, consumes everything and recycles everything. Its a constant battle.

And to clarify, you don't know darkness could exist without light and vice versa, because...thats not the case here. You can try and define existence with your scientific theories and arithmetic, but when it comes down to it, all you truly know is Life. Your "knowledge" is just as good as my created perception. Like I had previously said, light and dark define each other, as much as good and bad, rotten and rich. Just because you see it, and determine it the "absence" of something, does not dictate, that it is not Opposite. As Opposition is necessary for Nature to overcome (itself).

 

[PolyHedral]

Thats laughable, because darkness is defined, it exists. If you view it as nonesensical, then explain why it exists.

Space itself emits "light", so to say that darkness exists as a physical entity is undefendable. Can you measure dark? What is it made of?

 

[Orias]

.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P{padding:0px;}.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}

[/COLOR]

Maybe we're having a semantic breakdown. To my understanding of what opposites are, they are things that could not exist if the other didn't exist (at least as a capacity) because they are defined in relation to that other thing. "Left" is the opposite of "right" from my understanding because you can't have a "left" direction unless there is also a "right" direction. Even if you try to look at it like a Cartesian grid and suggest that a point moves only to the left on it in a straight line, the meaning of moving "left" is still defined by the existence of the direction "right."

So why is it so wrong to apply the same to Light and Dark? You measure photons, but what about the other theories of Dark Matter, or Dark Energy? You can measure energy in light (thats why it is able to be seen), but is it not also safe to assume that there is an energy in darkness (because it can be seen). I understand the occurrence of being an "absence" of it, but really the only absence of anything is Existence to Non-existence. If it was in absence it would not be (where you are coming from), but darkness is labeled, it is defined, it exists just as much as light. It exists within perception, denotative.

I'm arguing that the absence of something is not that thing's opposite (with one exception: the word "something" indeed has an opposite in "the absence of something," because that is "nothing").

If it applies to your example it applies to everything else, its a voiced perception.

Darkness, as the absence of light, is not the opposite of light any more than the opposite of an apple is the nonexistence of an apple. Darkness doesn't have to exist in order for light to exist, in fact darkness isn't an existent thing -- but light is an existent thing. Also, as pointed out, there is no darkness in the universe -- not even in the voids that you mention -- because of the ubiquitous microwave cosmic radiation, which is light. Darkness is only the relative absence of light. Thus to say that "darkness is the opposite of light" is like saying "3 photons is the opposite of 999 photons," which is clearly as false a statement as "3 matchsticks is the opposite of 55 matchsticks."

Thats exactly what I am saying. You don't have to be in direct defiance to be Opposite. You just have to not be the same. But again, you are using the label darkness, which is determined, defined, relative. If it didn't apply to this situation, it wouldn't be darkness, it would just be, the absence of light. But because of our perceptions (made up of the senses), we are able to comprehend darkness. Which I understand, in order to see "darkness" it needs to have some form of radiation or light. But that is not the case, if it is imminent, it is relative.

Now, if by darkness/light you're referring to visibility, you might have a case. Indeed, visibility is the opposite of non-visibility: but this is a different statement than darkness/light. Of course the opposite of being able to see is not being able to see. But if we're talking about things that exist outside of us like light (photons), they don't have an opposite in darkness because "darkness" is an equivalent term to saying "less photons."

I understand that. But it exists, because we give reasons, labels, and definitions for it to exist.

On that note, photons do have an antiparticle called antiphotons, so maybe it can be said that they have "something" of an opposite, but I'd find that pretty shaky, too.

I think you should just open your mind to more possibilities .
He who is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for the belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom."-Anton LaVey

Yes, I don't dispute courage's existence but I generally consider an "entity" to be something which exists externally to a mind, which "courage" doesn't. The definition posted does seem to support my position for the reasons I listed.

However, it also supports my position. Because it exists as a concept, from the mind. A concept used to label the human act of being "fearless" or able to face fear. It is a label, something given to something that exists. Even if it doesn't exist "outside" of us, things exist, because we exist to acknowledge it's existence. Its like saying when we die, things don't exist, but to existing things (perceptions), they do.

I explained above why "right" and "left" are different from "darkness" and "light." Neither "right" or "left" exist except in relation to one another, but you can have a universe that is all darkness (nonexistence of photons) without logical contradiction; and you can have a universe with ubiquitous light (such as our universe, or if you prefer, during the opaque period of the universe when photons were so abundant that you wouldn't have been able to see anything but light).

I understand that as well. The possibilities are there, but I would assume that if that were the case, this discussion would not be happening, proving my point. Unless of course, it was a universe parallel to ours, consisting of such inconsistencies, and somehow manging to produce the outcome of Life. Like the negative effect on a camera. Or in the stage theories, where everything that possibly could happen does happen, in different parallel universes. These things could exist, as much as any photon, neutron, or electron. But the point is, we know of these things, and we know what they do, but that doesn't determine that they are not in Opposition of each other. What would the world be like if there was no flies or Jesus? What I am saying is Opposition allows the existences of other concepts or things to Oppose each other.

As far as I understand, things aren't "opposites" if one side can exist in the absence of the other. You say that darkness can't exist without light and that light can't exist without darkness but that isn't physically true: each of those statements are logically possible; they entail no contradictions.

Again, you don't truly know the physicality of what isn't. It is possible, but the "fact" is, that its not the case.

 

[Orias]

As I said, this may just be a semantic breakdown: you might have a different understanding of "opposites." Is that the case?

Perhaps. I would say its safer to assume we have a misunderstanding of relevance. Its just how it is.


Both sides of our argument is like trying to destroy air with a sledge hammer, like trying to prove and disprove the existence of a logically formed "God". We aren't getting anywhere.


I understand you think that light is a form energy, and that it consists of photons, that it can't be paralleled along side of "Opposition". But the matter at hand is, dark is because of light, because like you said, in order to see "dark" you need light. There truly is no "darkness", yet the word dark is defined as having little or no light. So how can it be the absence of light if it already has light within it? Do you understand? It is the absence of photons within it, not light. Just like you use a flashlight to see in the dark. They are Opposite by nature.

The reason they "combat" each other -- which actually isn't true, light only combats darkness (darkness has no power to combat light) -- is because darkness is in physical reality a lower amount of light. Just switch the word "darkness" for the phrase "less amount of light" to understand more vividly. Obviously, adding more light combats the state of "having less amount of light." But would you say that having 5 matchsticks is the "opposite" of having 10 matchsticks? I wouldn't. So why are you saying that 5 photons is the "opposite" of having 10 photons? Or are you defining darkness and light in some other, non-physical meaning?

I got that, as I said in the statement before this one. And yes, I would view having five matches as Opposite to having 10. The matchstick is relevant, its conducive to us, but it Opposes itself. One matchstick is Opposite to one matchstick.

This would support my suggestion that maybe there's just a semantic breakdown. Maybe I should request that you define what exactly you mean by "opposite" and what exactly you mean by "darkness" and what exactly you mean by "light."

Heh, already did that
Is this a miscommunication...Opposite=Everything.
Dark=Not Light. If it were considered Light (which I guess it is), then it would be "Light". But its not, because its called Dark. Its like Satan and Lucifer, they are not the same, because of the different labels, yet they are the same, as the represent a philosophy.

Yes, I agree that left and right are opposites. They are defined by one another; one can't exist without the other. However, that is not the case with the physical reality of light and its relative absence.

We already went over this.

If you're talking about our perceptions (blue emphasis added) then indeed, you're speaking of "visibility vs. nonvisibility," which I agree are opposites. When I'm talking about light/darkness, I'm talking about the presence/relative absence of photons. Perhaps this is where our disagreement has come from?

I agree with both statements you say. Its just, the point I am getting across, is the relative realization of Opposite. Like I had stated in the topics above.

I've stated that it's logically possible, which is true. There are no logical contradictions with assuming a universe that doesn't contain photons (and therefore only darkness) or a universe such as ours which is permeated with photons (and therefore only varying degrees of light).

Even if we didn't have vision, perception would still be. Just as, if it was only dark, or only light, perception would still be. (From what I get from your standpoint). Of course, I am not denying what you are saying to not be possible either. But the matter is, that its not.

It may not be pointless, as I said: could just be semantic dissonance. It comes down to whether or not you feel that "1 matchstick" is the opposite of "2 matchsticks." If you do, then I will disagree. If you don't, then you might understand (now that I've been more clear on what I'm referring to with "light"/"darkness") that 1 photon (darkness) is not the opposite of 2 photons (light).

I understand your standpoint. But why do you disagree with me? I am in agreement with you. If it makes sense it should be agreeable right?

Nor is the nonexistence of a specific thing its opposite. If you say that the nonexistence of an apple is the opposite of an apple, I will disagree there, too.

I understand. To think, if we had just done this right of the bat, the misunderstanding and impertinence would not have been necessary.



However, the point I have been trying to make is this...


The essence of Existence, is Opposition. For this reason, what exists, allows the existence of others (such as food, "light", "dark", the stars, warm, and cold). It is in Opposition, because it is not the same in label, but in matter, it is. For example, we allow our existence by eating and combating radioactive degeneracy. Stars allow their existence by fighting gravity, and so on. But while allowing themselves to exist, they also allow other things to exist, which allows other things to exist.


Not only is up, down and right Opposite of left, left is Opposite of left, because within left is right (same goes for up and down). Not only that, it is relevant to you, one facing me, but their left is my right.


Do you get where I am going? I could elaborate further if needed. And I apologize for this big post, you covered a lot, and I felt it necessary to respond to all of it

But like I said, nature has a funny way of solving its own paradoxes.

 

[Orias]

Space itself emits "light", so to say that darkness exists as a physical entity is undefendable. Can you measure dark? What is it made of?

Dust.

 

[PolyHedral]

Physical particles of dead skin, dirt, ash, etc...? You sure that's what you mean?

 

[Orias]

Physical particles of dead skin, dirt, ash, etc...? You sure that's what you mean?

No, I mean dust.

 

[Etritonakin]

At the heart of the question is whether or not God exists.

If God did not exist, faith in him would obviously be counterproductive.

He does exist, and faith in him is reasonable -so there is no choice to be made between faith and reason.

However, many who think they have faith do not -and many do have misguided faith based in falsehoods.

Faith is not blind. Many have not taken the time to prove what they believe -and actually do not have faith. Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things not SEEN -not of things not known.

Many think they have faith because they simply believe this or that, but true faith is something to live by. Many who believe this or that -even if what they believe is true -will compromise their beliefs for various reasons because they lack faith. According to the bible, to have faith, (among other things) one must believe God exists and that he rewards those who serve him and diligently seek him.
When many are faced with difficult choices -between right and wrong -they often choose wrong knowingly because they fear the consequences of doing what is right. They obviously do not believe God will reward them, but fear what men will do to them, or fear doing without something they want. They are not like Daniel's friends who refused Nebuchadnezzar, were thrown into a furnace and were not harmed.

God does exist. He brought about our existence without us having faith in him -he has declared the end from the beginning, knowing how we would choose and guiding our history -and has purposed to give us eternal life.

Without God, there would be no hope for any dead, we would be at the mercy of random natural and cosmic disasters and, short of that, would destroy ourselves due to our inability to create and maintain peace.

Faith is perfectly reasonable, but many have false faith in false gods.

 

[Orias]

At the heart of the question is whether or not God exists.

If God did not exist, faith in him would obviously be counterproductive.

He does exist, and faith in him is reasonable -so there is no choice to be made between faith and reason.

However, many who think they have faith do not -and many do have misguided faith based in falsehoods.

Faith is not blind. Many have not taken the time to prove what they believe -and actually do not have faith. Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things not SEEN -not of things not known.

Many think they have faith because they simply believe this or that, but true faith is something to live by. Many who believe this or that -even if what they believe is true -will compromise their beliefs for various reasons because they lack faith. According to the bible, to have faith, (among other things) one must believe God exists and that he rewards those who serve him and diligently seek him.
When many are faced with difficult choices -between right and wrong -they often choose wrong knowingly because they fear the consequences of doing what is right. They obviously do not believe God will reward them, but fear what men will do to them, or fear doing without something they want. They are not like Daniel's friends who refused Nebuchanezzar, were thrown into a furnace and were not harmed.

God does exist. He brought about our existence without us having faith in him -he has declared the end from the beginning, knowing how we would choose and guiding our history -and has purposed to give us eternal life.

Without God, there would be no hope for any dead, we would be at the mercy of random natural and cosmic disasters and, short of that, would destroy ourselves due to our inability to create and maintain peace.

Faith is perfectly reasonable, but many have false faith in false gods.

Its faith in general, not just following one faith.

Saying many have false faith in false Gods is hypocritic statement for one.

Of course faith is reasonable to exist, if it wasn't reasonable then it wouldn't exist. So this applies against your argument for the belief in your God.

If its reasonable for you to have faith in your God, then its reasonable for others have faith in their God(s), or theories.

Hypocrisy should be evident. Its the foundation of Christianity.


"He who is slow to believe in anything and everything is of great understanding, for the belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom."-Anton LaVey

Thats the 100th time I've used that quote here. I can't count the number of quotes that are along the similar lines of "Beware of the man with one book," or "Verstehen". You could also call it being narrow minded, incompetent, or useless to the human race.

But I won't be that mean, for it exists conceptually because its reasonable.

We all win...yay:drool:

 

[Etritonakin]

It is understandable that everything that exists does exist -but some things that exist are "unreasonable" (because unreasonable also exists, doesn't it? -and that's perfectly reasonable, too)-such as faith or even simple belief in the false. They do not "stand to reason", as it were.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar...

The one true God is everyone's God -whether or not they know it to be true. They may have false gods for the time being, but because they are false, they will not stand to reason -because all will see the one true God, eventually.

I do understand you don't believe this to be true -yet.

 

[Orias]

It is understandable that everything that exists does exist -but some things that exist are "unreasonable" -such as faith or even simple belief in the false. They do not stand to reason, as it were.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but everyman a liar...

The one true God is everyone's God -whether or not they know it to be true. They may have false gods for the time being, but because they are false, they will not stand to reason -becuase all will see the one true God eventually.

I do understand you don't believe this to be true -yet.

No offense man, but take your bs elsewhere.

I understand your a hypocrit, and know as much as I do (which is nothing).

Truth is relevant to comfort, whatever floats your boat. Just don't break my sand castle.

If a label was unreasonable, then it wouldn't be labeled in definition to the aspect. It wouldn't exist.

Its perception, and your silly stories have blinded you to reality. Because within it, all is true, simply because people believe it to be.

But then again, that stands against me as well.

Like I said, we all win.