Non-existence

[Violet]

Kyu, you are wrong to think that science and math are the only two phillosophies that can explain anything... there is always faith and existentialism: that all of our knowledge (being math, faith, science, and others) is based on assumption of our being correct, and that we are often wrong. I would discuss more, but i must do some errands soon, and will likely be off the internet for some extended time. I will reply to your response when i next get a chance, good day

So, as I asked of Jon Paul, point out one thing (any thing) which has been fairly conclusively established on the basis of metaphysical or philosophical reasoning alone, something that is held to be true by (let's say) the vast majority of the scientific, academic and learned theological communities.

Kyu

One thing: our very existance. I did not use math or science to deduce that we do in fact exist. You cannot prove with our science or math our existance, as they are tools for measuring and identifying our universe... but are incapable of declaring either what might be beyond it, or why the measurement and identification must be true.

In math, you prove that one is equal to one by comparing it against our world and our mind. While that is perfectly acceptable for our world, it cannot tell you why one must equal one. The simple answer is that if it did not, then the universe would rapidly become oneness, or nothingness. That is a second example of philosophical evidence (I can cover it more for you if you have any trouble understanding it).

With science (of which math is a form), one forms a hypothesis based on an observation, and works to see if their hypothesis is a fact of our world or not. The problem? The observation was percieved with our own very innacurate senses. Can you see beyond that which you see with science? No... all you can see with is your eyes in science. But can you envision things that might not exist, like dragons, with your mind? Of course you can. And that is why philosophy and faith can be useful... they, like science, have a chance of being incorrect (I believe the history of science can be easily used for evidence of science being incorrect)... but they can ponder in what way we exist, and why it is so (much like we are doing now), whereas science can only tell us what works in our world, and will always be limited by our finite existance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Arcanus: I understood that he was asking in which form we exist, and i responded with stating that we do not exist as nothingness, and do in fact exist. Descarte (sp?) once said, 'I think, therefore i am.', but he could have gone further to conclude: anything that can be interacted with, must exist. And i feel it likely that even that is incomplete.

As for our state of existance though, is it possible that we exist in more ways than one? After all... your dreams exist as surely as a table does... yet they exist in differant ways altogether. The dreams are not tangible, they cannot be touched, smelled, felt, seen, or heard. They can only be imagined.

Water... exists not only as a liquid, but as ice, and as steam. It may be possible that our reality is similar. It is certainly an interesting hypothesis.