I challenge anybody to prove me that freedom and peace exists. I shall be on the opposing side in which I will be supporting the view which states the non-existence of both peace and freedom.
See your PM,
RSVP here
Why are freedom and peace being treated together? Seems like two different debates.
Do you wish to challenge me here in a official debate or the in the thread that is already made?
Supposedly if all people achieve freedom there will be peace or atleast that is what modern superstitions say.
By understanding that I believe both have similar origins.
Of course even describing the state of a person’s life as concepts they are still quite misleading.
Words exist. I don’t think an object has to have physical properties to exist. I mean…like…yeah.
God and unicorns exist. After all objects don’t need physical properties to exist and they’re real because humans say so.
Smears v. Doom, the nature of existence?
I don’t think existence can be just things with physical properties. I don’t even think that things which exist have to have physical properties at all. Some things exists as material things, others only as concepts, and so on. I mean, that’s pretty much my idea of it. If you just start thinking that way and don’t try and get out of it, things will make alot more sense.
If people achieve freedom How could there be peace? I have never heard that superstition. Less freedom = more peace maybe. but not your version.
We are sentient omnivore hunter creatures, give us freedoms, we will not be peaceful.
The best argument for freedom and peace is that they do exist.
They say god exists in that he tallies up our sins in seeing if whether were going to heaven or hell too.
Need I say more? This is why the whole arguement of concepts existing therefore they must be real fails.
( And why relativists who refuse to make a definition of what is real and not real are jackasses.)
I didn’t notice you offer a definition of existence, Doom. Offer one, then we can get a real debate going.
Create the thread where this conversation can be discussed more and link it here in this one.
Wait, a debate thread? Or a regular thread? You’re supposed to organize debates here.
Being that the challenge section of this forum has been inactive create a regular thread since the debate could very well go on for a very long time.
It is not possible to discuss the non-existence of something if it does not exist!
Everything exists! That is the complete ‘set’. Anything else is a ‘subset’ (divvying existence into neat bytesized piles of ‘physical’, ‘mental’, ‘subjective’, ‘objective’, etc…) thereof.
Existence is contextual (dualistic/definitional).
In one context or another, in/as one Perspective or another, everything that can be conceived exists (whether on canvas, in books, as a ‘word’, in poetry, on the ball field, in the grocery store, in your mind, whatever…).
Everything and anything of which you can be aware, conceive, exists.
‘Freedom’, ‘free-will’, ‘choices’, ‘FSMs’, ‘Jesus’, ‘levitation’… all exist to those who believe/perceive them. For them, in the universe of perception, the concepts/notions are ‘reality’.
All Perspective…
Are we saying that all of existence is a subjective one?
No. And yes.
Depends on Perspective.
(Perhaps that is what might be meant by; “He who knows doesn’t speak; he who speaks doesn’t know!”… and I never claimed to ‘know’! heh…)