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

[ellenjanuary]

Dark is made of gravity.

What's gravity made of?

Theoretical gravitons.

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

Does not your label of "silly stories" describe an unreasonable definition? Are you not accusing me of that which you say cannot be?

I, being human, am most certainly a hypocrite.

"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."

Truth is not relative to comfort. Truth is truth. I do not believe what I do because it is comfortable -far from it -but because I have seen what I believe to be true. It has proven to be true time and time again -and will continue to be, because it is true. I sometimes believe and have believed that which is false, and when it proves to be false, I no longer believe it. We can know things.

If your sandcastle breaks, it is because was not built well -and is bound to break by its very nature.

At the very least, realize this is an open forum about religion -and if you view what I say as bs, this is probably the best place for it! Plenty of it going around here, too!
I respect everyone -and their beliefs, but sometimes -as you pointed out -what people believe is bs.

BS exists!

 

[Willamena]

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?

Now that one I know is incorrect. Space is not an entity the way you're using the word, it's a theoretical grid by which we describe relative position. The light that is present everywhere is not "emitted" from space, but from "high energy protons and other nuclei" (Wikipedia) that occupies the space.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well, possibly "emitted" isn't the right word to use, but my main point is that there is some form of radiation everywhere in the universe, both because of the energy of the empty vacuum, and because of the background radiation. (Rather than cosmic rays, which I think you are quoting) Hence, "dark" as a physically entity doesn't make any sense.

 

[Willamena]

Well, possibly "emitted" isn't the right word to use, but my main point is that there is some form of radiation everywhere in the universe, both because of the energy of the empty vacuum, and because of the background radiation. (Rather than cosmic rays, which I think you are quoting) Hence, "dark" as a physically entity doesn't make any sense.

Consider this: dark, if it truly is the absence of light, is present everywhere light is, as each potentiality gets fulfilled (the potential to be, and the potential to be not).

 

[PolyHedral]

No. It's not useful to think of darkness as "present" if light is also present.

 

[Meow Mix]

No. It's not useful to think of darkness as "present" if light is also present.

Agreed. As I said earlier "darkness" is the same thing as saying "less light."

I'd hardly consider 3 matchsticks to be the "opposite" of 697 matchsticks.

 

[Orias]

And the scrutiny of views is irrelevant to what it actually is...

What we make it.

This is getting redundant and irrelevant to the OP.

SO, what we have here is two people who view Opposite as, in direct defiance, and two people who view Opposite as, not the same, or Altogether different, as in nature, quality, or significance.

It seems the second definition better describes the first one.

They are the same, yet you are chosing to view it as different.

Now, the point is, dark is this, difficult to understand; obscure:, absence of light, a place having little or no light.

So what we really have is, people arguing the definition of dark, when...its the same!!!!

So again, arguing our points will get us no where. I think we have gone over this enough to realize that our scrupulous interpretations of darkness has gone beyond being stubborn.

I mean, just look at the stupid dictionary, its everything that we have said, yet in an attempt of desparation, we still seem to be arguing one definition of darkness over the other.

Its just stupid.

Now, direct the friggen OP.

I believe understanding points directed to others is more important for the future well-being of humankind, as you can see, bickering self proclaimed knowledge obviously allows pervious impertinence (heh that kind of rhymed) and lack of quality judgement.

But then this leads me to another question, if you understand, then why do you disagree? Is it irresponsible to accept a, how shall I say...disagreeing form of agreement?

 

[Willamena]

No. It's not useful to think of darkness as "present" if light is also present.

I suspect you mean, rather, that it's not convenient.

 

[Orias]

I suspect you mean, rather, that it's not convenient.

So is it as inconvenient as existing as the same time as you?

 

[Etritonakin]

Agreed. As I said earlier "darkness" is the same thing as saying "less light."

I'd hardly consider 3 matchsticks to be the "opposite" of 697 matchsticks.

edited due to dorkiness

 

[blackout]

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?

Is darkness somehow 'beyond'physical then?

 

[PolyHedral]

Well, it's an abstract concept. Does that count as "beyond" physical?

 

[Magic Man]

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.




This proves my point.




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 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).

I give up.

 

[Orias]

Well, it's an abstract concept. Does that count as "beyond" physical?

Life is an abstract concept.

Photons in light and dark being "less" light than light is an abstract concept.

Energy is an abstract concept.

Giving labels and defining things are abstract concepts, for what we label them is not always relative to what they are. Like somethins standing for one thing, but the same thing standing for another, to, too, and two. Its abstract, and when voiced, physical.