well the "law" of gravity comes to mind for one. and most of the other scientific laws. science explains them but it is ultimately gods laws, as to how nad why they work so there!!! -

Those would not be absolute laws. They may only exist in this physical reality.

Do you think this physical reality is the only absolute reality?

If so why?

And how do you define "reality?"

how rude

why would gravity work differently in another reality? and if so would it be called "gravity", would it mean the same thing? a rose is a rose is a rose. no matter what it might be called in any reality it would be gravity, if it held things down from escaping into space as it does here then no matter what, it would be the same law. and i dont take "they >may< only exist" as anything more than conjecture my lady, thats all it is. I like to think that there are parallel universes and more dimensions and i think there are, but i cant prove them nor have i seen glimpses of more than one, being the spiritual, so if there is one more than normally expierienced then there could be many,and yet i could be wrong not having seen or expierienced them personally.

no one can prove what reality may really be, my take on it as of now is what i expierience on a moment by moment basis - no more no less.

Assume for a moment that the entire physical universe of stars, planets and galaxies is one reality.

Now assume that a completely different reality exists that does not require things to be "held down" and does not have any law of gravity. Things and entities simply just float around. The law does not exist in that reality.

Then gravity would not be an "absolute law." It would only be a law that applied to some realities but not all.




For that matter, everything is conjecture. There is only one thing you can know for certain and that is that you exist.

Everything else is an opinion and conjecture.




No one can "prove" anything because proof is always a personal matter of belief.

JB:

There is only one thing you can know for certain and that is that you exist.

Everything else is an opinion and conjecture.

tribo:


no you can only assume that you exist by what evidence your able to gleen from this expierience your going thru - so you can only know that it seems real and that you and others are in it expieriencing like things [pain, suffering, happiness, love etc..] This is not proof, it's assumption. your basing it on the idea that "you are" and putting that on others who also think "they are". to try and validate it. you or i maybe no more than a program, that includes the idea of believeing we are or do exist with a heavy dose of self/ego plugged into it.

JB:

Assume for a moment that the entire physical universe of stars, planets and galaxies is one reality.

Now assume that a completely different reality exists that does not require things to be "held down" and does not have any law of gravity. Things and entities simply just float around. The law does not exist in that reality.

Then gravity would not be an "absolute law." It would only be a law that applied to some realities but not all.


TRIBO:

it would be an absolute law wherever it exist. because you can "assume" there are circumstances t would not apply to - does not change what it is "gravity". Wherever it exist it will absolutely act the same at all times.

TRIBO:

it would be an "absolute law" wherever it exist. because you can "assume" there are circumstances it would not apply to - does not change what it is "gravity". Wherever it may exist, will absolutely act the same at all times.lack of it being throughout the universe or in other dimensions does not change what it [gravity] is within the confines it's experienced. Laws that pertain to something are laws, our laws may not apply to another country, but that does not negate their effectiveness for us as laws. with natural laws they will always remain the same wherever they are present. thus gravity remains in this world an absolute law - to argue about whether or not its multi-universal is of no consequence since it is not the OP's intent to ask about such - but what laws here apply.

But entities living in the reality with no gravity don't even know about gravity or what it is. Therefore the law does not even exist in that reality, so it is not "absolute" or even necessary in that reality.

Therefore I assert that "Gods" absolute laws are:

1.) You must exist
2.) Nothing cannot exist.

but they would be aware that they could just float around at will and do whatever, they would know the absence of what we call gravity, and therefore know gravity when encountered by its action, just like you know the absence of gravity when you encounter it. it still exist and is absolute just not being applied in the circumstance. absolute laws exist whether they are bieng applied or not.

Then the O.P. should define what he means by an absolute law of God.

We could be going way off into la la land here.

nope - first one - your stating a command, not a law, besides its not true -

second - your making a statment thats supposed to have meaning "nothing can not exist" but you cant make that statement and include "nothing" in it - otherwise by doing so you give it existance by saying it does not exist.

it's like the philspher saying "life has no meaning" - such a statment contradicts itself because it is claiming to be making a meaningful statement, but why bother making a statement that has "meaning" if you beleive in advance the idea of life is meaningless??

i agree damn philosophers -

Sure you can prove God. All you have to do is see the evolution of mankind to know there is a God. He revealed Himself thru a people for the benefit of all humanity, gave us the law as well really needed to know how to get along, & came as a God made Man to complete the work.

I believe America was born out of God's own hand. An experiment that worked...until the COUNTER culture rebellion that is. As they say idle hands is the devil's playground.

No matter how you slice the pie all other gods are just made up versions of the real thing...Father Son & Holy Ghost.

Reword it then.

1.) You exist



No because "nothing" is a just a concept of non-existence.

The very fact that there is existence (of something) cancels out non-existence (nothing) completely.

Nothing is like zero. It does not have existence. (The words themselves only represent the abstract idea of non-existence.)

"Nothing" and "zero" are unstable and cannot be located or pinpointed or measured. They cannot exist or have any sort of real duration except as a door between something and anti-something.

A crossover place or door between positive and negative, between matter and anti-matter.

by using the term "nothing" you give it existence. you can say all day long it does not exist if you want, but is saying such you give it life so to say, the only way it could not exist is if it were not used or thought of. a "concept" to me is something conceived in the mind, a thought or notion, or abstract or generic idea. I don't consider these proof at all but just what they are, a means of conveying a thought.because you are able to present to me something in this reality as substance - does not mean it can't exist in others, kinda like what your trying to get across on the other thread only here it applies. just because you cant conceive of it does not mean it can't be. that's just posing limitations on oneself and ones mind..

I did not invent the word "nothing." (Using the term does not give it existence.) ..Because if nothing existed there would be no one to use the term...

The logic is that if "nothing" exists then "something" cannot exist.

Something exists, and I know for certain it does because I know for certain that I exist.

Because I am.

I am something.

If you think nothing can exist, then would you be good enough to visualize it and then describe it?

Then after you do that, then answer the question .. Who is visualizing and describing it?

You.

Are you something or nothing?

You cannot say: "I am nothing." because it is a contradiction. You cannot say "I am..... " if you do not exist.