Search results

Wow - does that mean CountryWide was a feeder-fund for the bundlers? So what about the bundlers?

Ok - this I agree with. But maybe I'm just a bit dense - so if there is a 3rd party looking at this, can you comment? Another viewer may rephrase it in a way that sinks in better for me.

IF you are arguing from a predetermined point, (existence), then all you arguments do flow from hindsight. How can that not be? I don't understand the questions, because if you start from a known, the questions are rhetorical. My point is potential divorced from a known is uncertainty...

Again, your argument of existence is hindsight. "There IS existence" is like my saying "There IS ice cream". Yes, of course. By hindsight, it was invented at some point. "The potential for sky fairies may or may not exist. There may well be a potential for their non-existence. " This...

Ok - your questions are all affirmative because they are all grounded in hindsight. That makes the answers pre-determined. However, the non-manifested potential exists - but only in THEORY, not actuality. That is why it is hypothesized only. However, hypotheses can be wrong, and the...

Not sure what you are proposing here. Your questions appear to all originate from hindsight. However, if we are looking at "existence" - creation on the 1st order (like the Big Bang) there is a point of pre-Big Bang where there is no hindsight. Maybe it will clarify if you answer these...

This is a circular statement. Potential can only be claimed in hindsight. Otherwise it is potential...for what? Unrealized potential is indistinguishable from non-existence. Therefore you cannot say potential "exists" at the outset when all you can claim is you don't know if it exists...

Reading through it again, these 2 statements appear contradictory to me. The first states that "potential existence" is not equated to "existence", but the second statement equates the two. In my view, "potential existence" and "existence" are not equivalent. "Potential existence" is a state...

Yes, that does sound contradictory. However, you seem to be defining unfulfilled potential existence as existence. So, if I understand your approach, then there is no such thing as non-existence. If you define the potential for something that is never realized as existence, then all...

There appears to be quite a bit of bile back and forth, which I don't see as particularly productive in thrashing through the topic. I am not an advocate for any particular view. Beliefs are personal. Stated beliefs are called Opinions. My own Opinion is that "existence" is probably way...

No offense, but that sounds circular. If we use the Big Bang as a scientific "start" of existence, then pre-Big Bang is "potential existence". If no Big Bang, it's all still potential, no existence. So the potential is necessary, but not sufficient to call it existence. By your...

Hmmm - wouldn't that be putting existence BEFORE potential? If a potential for existence is there, but existence never occurs, that is unfulfilled potential. So wouldn't it need to be the reverse - that the potential is required (and therefore first) but alone is not sufficient for...

I follow your reasoning except for that one. What you are describing is "potentiality", but potential of existence is not the same as existence. It is like proving a negative.

I'm not sure if I agree with the OP's post - it may have a fundamental flaw. From a Darwinian approach, the primary goal is to secure yourself and your progeny. Even the rutting animals in the forest do that. What the OP is proposing is a higher ideal that incorporates a spiritual...

This is an interesting assertion. I suppose it is like the philosophical question, does such a thing as "beauty" exist without an observer. Does existence require consciousness to define it? If so, then yes, nothing could pre-date it. Though I suppose, since time is being used as the...

The problem in proving dimensions beyond our senses really is vexing to scientists. They admit that if the theory cannot be observed and tested in some manner, it is not science, it is philosophy. Still, the possibilities are intriguing. I am also reminded of something I heard once from...

Seems it is 2 different arguments. Slave labor is cheapest of all - and pre-Civil War it did increase employment. So much so that it had to be imported. But collectively, the increased labor put to productive use did support the southern economy and grow it. The separate argument is...

Thx. Pretty wild stuff. Gives new meaning to the phrase"All I know is that I do not know..." ...'cause now I also don't know in all those extra dimensions... :)

Actually, the whole idea of string theory and multiverses existing in the same space-time is pretty cool - and the physicists seem to agree the underlying math is sound.

I've never understood the view that science is somehow anti-God. Science seeks the Truth. It doesn't say it FOUND the Truth. That is why it works in theories - and as you know, you can never conclusively prove a theory, just gather continuing supportive evidence. If you believe in God...