Is there nothing that doesn't exist?

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by nkt

Each of the three corners?

Which point of each corner?

Originally Posted by nkt

I figured someone would say "But it's not *exactly* aligned in the same plane", or whatever.

Given any three (distinct) points, there will be one (and only one) plane to which all three belong.

Originally Posted by nkt

That doesn't matter, since any three points that are connected form a triangle, regardless of the surface it is mapped on to. Length variations don't matter either. You could also argue that the physical triangle has depth, but that matters not, either, since the three arbitary points can be chosen as on the bottom edge of the triangle.

Ah, so there are infinitely many geometrical triangles that the hunk of plastic looks approximately like.

Originally Posted by nkt

It's like saying that cardboard doesn't exist - it's just really thick paper. Actually, paper doesn't exist, because it's just mashed up trees...

If you define paper as mashed up trees, and mashed up trees exist physically, then paper exists. If thick paper exists, then cardboard exists.

Originally Posted by nkt

Q, want to give us a better definition?

A plane figure delimited by three straight lines intersecting at three distinct points; or by a closed polygonal of three segments; there are different possible equivalent ways.

[Mr. Potato Head]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Hmmm, no. Not physically. Any drawing that you make will never be an isosceles triangle, or even just a triangle. It will always be a drawing of one!

When I was at high school a classmate was once getting into an argument with a teacher over some matter of geometry. The teacher asked him if points exist and, when they guy answered yes, the teacher told him to bring a kilogramme of points next day.

To a mathematician, they exist. But a mathematician doesn't say they exist physically.

Couldn't he have simply brought 1 kilogram of anything he wanted? Who is to say how many, what size, and what weight a point is in a given body of mass? A better question would have been to bring in 300 points. That is not possible.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Mr. Potato Head

Who is to say how many, what size, and what weight a point is in a given body of mass?

The geometric concept of a point is an entity having zero size and even less weight. In a finite volume there are n^(aleph_0) of them.

[tarak]

Here we do full circle when we talk about existence of God in the plane of human psyche.There can only be possibilities and situations that can be new and not the already existing matter.If there was a wheel inside the mud,it was there.Only the possibilityof its invention came up when a situation of use springed up at that particular point of time.
The only thing that exist in infinity is the time-space.Rest is all for the matter-energy to fill it in all kinds of possibilities.

[nkt]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

The geometric concept of a point is an entity having zero size and even less weight. In a finite volume there are n^(aleph_0) of them.

Hmmm... So if I get a whole lot of points, and stick them in a balloon, it should float then...

An infinite number of lighter than nothing points should be massively ( ) repelled by gravity! We at Hypography has solved the problem! All the points are in deep space, or perhaps at various La Grange points, or else they are flying around at large parts of the speed of light.

Perhaps these so-called "points" explain the increasing expansion rate of the universe?!?!

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by nkt

Hmmm... So if I get a whole lot of points, and stick them in a balloon, it should float then...

If you fill the balloon with nothing but empty space (!!!) it will certainly float.

It won't be repelled by gravity though.

[Teleman21]

Though the point jabbing is funny, to get back to the original problem that started all this is the question as to the origin of ideas. I personally think the Humean way to think aobut it is the most probable, that is that ideas are unoriginal only meaning they are a compound to something we already know or something we have already experienced. If this is true then the God idea could be an idea which is a compound or something which does exist. When one thinks of the traditional characteristics of the Judeao-Christian (and Islamic) God, He (ironically titled enough) is given very paternalistic qualities. This being recognized (by Frued and others) suggested that primative man affixed these qualities onto a supernatural idea because of fear of abandonment of their parents (which explains why God is attributed with immortality/eternality). Regardless, to combat your friend, try reading David Humes Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, or a good secondary source. There is a great argument for your theory on the origin of ideas...now if you want to affix further ideas according go ahead, but do so with caution. I say this because Hume was an atheist who did not use the orgin of ideas to discuss religion. Rather, he used it to kill the hopes of inductive reasoning by humans

[blazer2000x]

Originally Posted by kyle8921

Ok, my friend Steve and I got into an arguement about God's existence. I said, "You can't think of a color that doesn't exist. You can think of new colors, but you only take already existing colors and mix them up. Therefore, it's impossible that ancient people thought of God without some supernatural cause."

He was stumped. But then, he said:

"Well, the wheel didn't exist before people thought of it, therefore you can think of things that don't exist."

Guess who was stumped this time?

So then I startead to think, maybe everything exists all the time? Do things exist before they are "invented?" I mean, maybe something doesn't have to come into physical existence to actually "exist?"

Do I sound really stupid, or does it make any sense?

Regardless of the time when something is invented, all of the principals of why it does what it does, already existed, so it could be invented at any time.

"That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
Eccl 1:9"
The above verse I still find a bit confusing, but I feel it has something to do with this. Since, by your discussion's point, you believe in God, you can accept that God already knows everything we will make, and so it has already been thought up before we think of it. Although that won't go too swell in an argument against someone who doesn't believe in God.
If everyone were afraid of sounding stupid, very little would be accomplished.
"I made a giant piece of metal/wood fly.(airplane)"
"I caught lightining in a bottle so we can use it instead of candles.(lightbulb)"
"I made a big round thing to replace feet"(wheel)

Does nothing doesn't exist?

Let's better define "thing."

I would define that if we can call it "thing" then it exists - we can think of it, how could we think of something that doesn't exist?

So, then every'thing' exists. Can you think of some'thing' that doesn't exist. Can you think of a 'thing' that isn't a 'thing'? How would you call it. I would call that a NO-'thing', or simply 'nothing'.

So, if every thing exists, then nothing doesn't exist.

If not every thing exists, then some thing does not exist - how can we talk about some thing if that 'thing' doesn't exist?

If we define 'nothing' as that which does not exist. Then someone can asks us:
Is there any thing that doesn't exist?
Answer: No, nothing, nothing doesn't exist.
(We can't say Yes, because 'nothing' isn't a thing. The question asked for a 'thing')

Our very language gives us these clues. I just find these peculiarities of the language interesting, not that they have any weight over how things are.

[Mr. Potato Head]

Originally Posted by loarevalo

Does nothing doesn't exist?

Let's better define "thing."

I would define that if we can call it "thing" then it exists - we can think of it, how could we think of something that doesn't exist?

So, then every'thing' exists. Can you think of some'thing' that doesn't exist. Can you think of a 'thing' that isn't a 'thing'? How would you call it. I would call that a NO-'thing', or simply 'nothing'.

So, if every thing exists, then nothing doesn't exist.

If not every thing exists, then some thing does not exist - how can we talk about some thing if that 'thing' doesn't exist?

If we define 'nothing' as that which does not exist. Then someone can asks us:
Is there any thing that doesn't exist?
Answer: No, nothing, nothing doesn't exist.
(We can't say Yes, because 'nothing' isn't a thing. The question asked for a 'thing')

Our very language gives us these clues. I just find these peculiarities of the language interesting, not that they have any weight over how things are.

Language is flawed and does not take into account potential.