Day 12 recording

Argument given to proud certain proportion The argument gives in valid and it has true premises However, to this premises is added a supposition or assumption of which is opposite of the proposition that used to be true to the contradictory of that proposition so there is no question of the reality of the reasoning nor the truth of the premises regardless of the propositions that is added to the premises nothing is stable is just add to the text, it could be true of false. Now if all the premises is recently study the proportions are true then all the proportion are true then will will end up with true conclusion because that will be making a sub-argument However, in the argument given with a true premises plus a sub-proportion, we will end up with a contradiction meaning we will end up with the false conclusion, meaning the proposition is false And the only reason why we end up with a false conclusion is that the sub-proportion is false And if the sub-proportion is false then we can say the contradictory statement is true 04:00 However for variety kinds of reason some times one direct note proceed in this direct matter then you add what is giving sub-proportion and you proceeded incorrect proposition and which you will end up with a false statement. 06:10 Now begin with Political argument with anibasic the green false, obviously for someone like lock Page 154 (73) Chapter of God , second section of ANSELM'S ARGUMENT: DREAMBOATS AND TURKEYS a discussion of ancestry of anthropological argument there are some reference to Dencart because he gave another same argument 11:20 But when this same fool hears me say "something than which nothing greater can be thought", he surely understands what he hears, and what he understands exists in his understanding; even if he does not understand that it exists (in reality). . . So even the fool must admit that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists at least in his understanding, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And surely that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding. For if it exists only in the understanding, it can be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater. . . [T]therefore, there is no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality. This answer presentation of the argument. 10:20 The idea here is True or False positions of a believer or a fool (a none believer) What do a believer and none believer disagree about? A believer claim that god exist And none believer those not believe They are oppose which this is the difference between them The two positions are oppose but there is an agreement between them, Their agreement is that they understand the concept of god What is the concept of god? Is a been nothing greater than God There is a clearance that god exist in the understand .The believer goes one stand ahead with understanding with existent but the none believer claims that god believes in understand because they understand but not in reality 14:34 Then (a sub-proportion) suppose god only in understand and not in reality as the none believer claims, In this case then we can imagine or conceive of a been just like god not only in understanding but in reality, which would be greater? The god that only that only exist in understanding, or the god that exist in understanding and reality. It would be the one that exist in understanding and reality but This contradict the definition, Because the definition already said that there no been nothing greater then all what we conceived If we made a supposition that god exist only in understanding then we can conceive

we can imagine we can think of a been that not only understanding but in reality which this one can be greater than god and contradicts the propositions. 16; 23 Blackman explain or brakes down argument which will represented in two stage The notable thing about this argument is that it is purely a priori. it is priority, based only reason and understanding not on experience 47:08 It purports to prove God's existence simply from considering the concept or definition of God. It is like the specimen proof in mathematics, that deduces from the concept of a circle that chords dropped from a point to opposite ends of a diameter meet at right angles. The argument requires no empirical premises -- no measuring, or results from experience. this is defining a explanations of priority is not based on experience . he tries to break it down in two. Anselm's argument could be presented in two stages: The concept of God is understood.( Whether if he is a believer or not) (This is not a question because a believer understand the concept of god and accepts his existence in reality And A none believer understands the concept but denies his existence in reality ) Whatever is understood exists in the understanding. So God exists in the understanding. 42:40within the arguments itself you will find mini arguments so this is premises the concept what is understood another one is whatever is understood exist in the understanding what is the conclusion? God exist in premises. However a mini argument we can added to premises because they are true. 36 And then: Suppose God only exists in the understanding, and not in reality. This is the crucial step, he add a supposition what exist in the understanding and not in reality Then a greater being than God can be conceived: one that exists in reality. And basis of all this including the suppositions then you can imagine a greater been who exist in reality A greater been who exist in understanding and reality. So who would be grated the one that exist in the understanding or the one with understanding and reality which would be greater. The one who exist both, but it contradicts the definitions. True premises with supposition we need a statement that is false, so if this is false because it contradicts the definition what can be say about this supposition because this premises are not questionable we can say this suppositions are false which means its contradictory is true. In other words it is false that god exist in understanding and not in reality because it led to a false conclusion, therefore god exist in understand also in reality. So by reaching this false conclusion it show the suppositions are false then god exist in understanding he also exist in reality. But God is defined as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. So no greater being can be conceived, by definition. But now we have a contradiction. So our original supposition was false. This is an explanation, of the above explanation This is an argument form I describe more fully in the next chapter, called reductio ad absurdum. Anselm has us make the original atheistic assumption, but only en route to showing that it is false, for it implies a contradiction. This is an selm argument. The structure of an argument In such argument, you stand with true statements propositions that are not questionable and then you add to these true premises a supposition and generate them to true or false and you precede virility However if you reach a false conclusion which means that the suppositions is false and the arguments shows the suppositions is false then it also represents its contradictory argument is true . and its opposite its meant to be trouble When it comes to critics and argument it requires some preparation meaning some kind of word which we should consider some madness that will help us critically in the argument, so that we can generate the consideration to the argument What aswel begins with, DREAMBOATS, person describes their dream part.

page152] 22:40 Example of a person renting a room in an add and gives specific details, a person would respond to the requirements of the add. Suppose the person who wrote that add did not get no response, will be disappointment and redo its add with different requirements and someone will respond The second add had additional description to who exist, because no one responded to the first add no one connected to that description. Second example a business and you need help So help wanted you place and add with certain age, specialize this experience in that You would get a description in what you want in an applicant No on add to your add, meaning no one fits to that description You place another add with same info but to who exist, would you get a respond from them? The point here is to give a thought, now in a person who is such and such a person who is such and such A person who is and so on. In the case help wanted, college graduate, the description. Now, what would you fill in the blanks is a description and what do you write in a description? One way to put it is what to put in a description is the characteristics. A characteristic on what you want in a job applicant. 16:09 Philosopher prefer to this as properties or the characteristic How do you a grammatical analysis a sentence? Subject content is the simplest analysis, when we speak of characteristics and analysis and give them in a sentence The piece of chalk is white The chalk is the subject and the characteristic is the color white In another words the expression that we use for characteristic or properties, if we analysis in which they occur, in position of a pleg that why some philosopher dont just talk about properties but also speak of predicate because expressions for characteristics when describe something it forgets in the p0sition for predicates of a sentences and here you have a person who is blah blah is your predicate the subject is a such and such in a person and here is your predicate that gives us a characteristics or a property since it occurs in a proposition of critic we can also speak of such characteristics of property as critic and so, we started with characteristics and we say that philosophers generally prefer to speak of properties and furthermore they also speak of predicates and either properties predicates because such properties that describe things in occur in a proportion of accredit 11:00 you put this characteristics you want and no one responds and then you put a thirds characteristics and to whom exist and no one applies and then ending to whom exist grammatically is similar to the other characteristic of the other READ THIS FOR BETTER UNDERSTADING Staying with Dreamboat, we can work it through like this. Suppose you carefully added to Dreamboat's specifications that he or she must be not only a great lover, but also as great a lover as can be imagined. Then you can argue in a parallel fashion: The concept of Dreamboat is understood. Whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. So Dreamboat exists in the understanding. And then: Suppose Dreamboat only exists in the understanding, and not in reality. Then a greater lover than Dreamboat can be conceived: one that exists in reality. But Dreamboat is defined as that lover than which no greater can be conceived. So no greater lover than Dreamboat can be conceived, by definition. But now we have a contradiction. So our original supposition was false. Dreamboat exists in reality. Wonderful! But do not rejoice too quickly. You might also unfortunately prove by the same means that you have as dangerous a rival as can be imagined, for Dreamboat's affections. The crucial premise will be that real rivals are more dangerous than merely imagined ones -- which they surely are. And the ontological argument looks set to prove the existence of the Devil -- defined as that than which nothing worse can be conceived. For if something is to be that than which nothing worse can be conceived, it had better not exist only in the imagination, for then something

worse can be conceived, namely a being that is that bad but also really exists (notice that existence in a devil is an imperfection: it makes him worse). Most philosophers have recognized there is something fishy about the ontological argument -- as fishy as trying to make sure that Dreamboat exists by writing the right job description. But they have not always agreed on just what the mistake must be. Part of the problem is the move of treating "existence as a predicate". That problem is resolved by the theory we meet in the next chapter, called quantification theory. But it is hard to be sure that this move introduces the fatal flaw. In my own view, the crucial problem lies in an ambiguity lurking in the comparison of "reality" and "conception". In the argument, things "in reality" are compared with things "in conception" (i.e. according to a definition, or in imagination or dreams), for such properties as greatness, or perfection. This sounds simple, as if we are comparing things in two different geographical regions, and we know that those in one region are greater or lesser than those in the other. It would be like asking whether chickens in Germany are heavier than chickens in France. But in fact it is not at all like that. Consider this sentence:

Day 13 recording
April 3 The cosmological argument Dependent being Cause/effect Principals of science that are not question meaning they are not subject to research. The universe and its aspect has not been always been that way 7:06 Treating space and time as a thing is tricky that is why Thinker they would suggest time and space are not things but forms of things, meaning you have all kinds of things they exist in space and time meaning we would say your there in the chair and also space and time there in the chair. we would speak of things that exist in space and time but not time and space been as a different things 9:40 and the idea it cannot been imagine of the things that already had existed leads us to a recognizing whatever exist had come to existence at some point since nothing has eternally existed. That indicates to us that everything that exist must have a cause of its existence. The explanation is that under certain conditions it has cause its existence. And such things that has not existed and has a cause its existence thats what blackman call a independently a d been that not has always existence and care for its existence and care of the cause of its existent. And what ever is the base of the cause is of its existence. 12:00 THIS POINT IS TO EXPLAIN CERTAIN NOTIONS OR CONCEPTS, WHICH WILL MEET ANALYSIS AND DISCUTION OF ACRONOGICAL ART. Now at the later point What Blackman describes an independent being Isac introduce a notion which means the same as continuing being Continuing being will be later explain Now , in you High school science you have been told matter is neither created or destroyed therefore it must be always been there, this are not theories of science if I submit a proposal to the national science foundations that matter could be destroyed or created it would be denied. These are principals and not theories of science. They cannot be call assumptions they are basic principles that are not question, they are not subjects for further research. Last point, suppose I tell you in my neighborhood things appear out of no where, how would you respond to that<.? COME ON THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, you know things to come out of nowhere is impossible. Basic principles. 24:09 whatever exist have a cause of its existence and such a being we call it independent being Then supposedly ask the same question where did it come from about the cause of its existence of the independent being what would the answer be? It must had come from a further cause and so on and so on in other words once we recognize this idea of cause or idea of effected being this immediately to reorganization of sequence or a chain or a series of causes. Because if we see a continues, we could ask where it came from and the answer would be the cause. However, its in the indication of the cause of the being that would be an independent be which lead us to its own cause. Now, 3000 this notions are important for the further discussions cosmological discussion

32 :24 And once it is recognize of series of causes the question is rest those such sequence goes back to an infinity or goes back to a beginning. And this beginning is there first cause. Cosmological argument proceeds is not that it tries not to prove the first beginning, but the aim of the argument , it tries to show this statement is false, which means the only alternate mean the first cause is god This is the structure of the argument. April 5

Recording 14

Cause/effect Chain, series, sequence of causes are recognize the following Question; does the sequence go back to infinity? Or is there a first cause? the argument processed by this option is false, that this sequence goes infinity, meaning there is a first cause. This is a reminder of the structure of an argument, now there are varies of types of arguments and version and one particular version is Blackman discussion From Hume quotation from Hume comes from the book of his natural religition that was publish after his death. This are dialogs meaning it those not represent ideas continuously and in this dialogues demonstrate different characters different positions one character would represents the cosmological argument and another character would represent with a proposition of the argument, now we shouldnt be concern who argues what. Quotation of hume page 159 Whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence this establishes the primary premises in other words everything that exist is independently it being absolutely impossible for anything to produce itself or be the cause of its own existence. This establishes the most of the primary place, that it is impossible to produce itself and be the own cause of its existence. This is why nothing can me the cause of its own existence, because in order to cause its existence it had to already exist. But this is impossible why, because this is prior to intersect. In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, Indications a recognition of there are series of sequences of causes. we must either go on in tracing an infinite succession, without any ultimate cause at all, this is one possibility or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is necessarily existent: Now, that the first supposition is absurd may be thus proved. In the infinite chain or succession of causes and effects, each single effect is determined to exist by the power and efficacy of that cause which immediately preceded; but the whole eternal chain or succession, taken together, is not determined or caused by any thing: And yet it is evident that it requires a cause or reason, if someone is against the cosmological argument would say well if we had the succession and its causes and effects no one would denied that whatever exist has a course this is a plain fact. If someone is against the first cause in the succession each is cause by its own cause, however the succession has a whole has no cause. 16:11 Someone who is against of the idea first cause would not denied that everything has a cause, of Couse everything that exist has cause but the whole chain (sequence) those not have a cause. This suggest that someone one who those not accept the idea of a first course where we have stop, because it immediately it draws on that this idea the whole sequence has no cause only beginning and an end. much as any particular object which begins to exist in time. The question is still reasonable why this particular succession of causes existed from eternity, and not any other succession, or no succession at all.

Now the presentation here is a readable and quite simple but the argument is hard so there will be an example what the big bang is? The basic idea, there is a big explosion that began the universe. 1st our universe 2st Is it possible that we have a big bang instead of a universe it produce a different universe, is that possible? It is equally possible, but it could had reproduce a different kinds of universe. 3rd But is there a possibility that, that thing, whatever it is sits there and those not do nothing at all These statements are equally possible, which one is ours? (First one) the second and third it did not happen. 23:43 So all of them are equally possible but one of them is actual therefore there was something that made the first one happen. Therefore the idea sequence of course is absorb Example :Suppose we had a reunion 20 years from now , would some of you had children, Some would have three two one child and also is possible that some of you had no children so here and now are equally possible. But after 20 years for year of you one of you would have each of the characteristics Things that you do will make it possible or not, so whenever we had possibilities that are equally possible and one of them comes actual, there must be a reason why it is the actual one rather than the other possibilities. Similiratity here is bangs and reproduce our universes or it could had just sat there and be another universe. 28:43 And yet it is evident that it requires a cause or reason, as much as any particular object which begins to exist in time. The question is still reasonable why this particular succession of causes existed from eternity, and not any other succession, or no succession at all.NOTE-1 If there be no necessarily existent being, any supposition which can be formedis equally possible; nor is there any more absurdity in nothing's having existed from eternity, than there is in that succession of causes which constitutes the universe. What was it, then, which determined something to exist rather than nothing, and bestowed being on a particular possibility, exclusive of the rest? NOTE-2 External causes, there are supposed to be none. Chance is a NOTE-3 word without a meaning. Was it nothing? But that can never produce any thing. NOTE-4 We must,therefore, have recourse NOTE-5 to a necessarily existent Being, who carries the reason of his existence in himself; and who cannot be supposed not to exist, without an express contradiction. There is, consequently, such a Being -- that is, there is a Deity. NOTE-6 NOTE-1 THE ONE THAT WE HAVE NOTE-2 So if this is the possibility of amount others than how did this happen. How did this happen? NOTE-3 You cannot say that there is a external cause because you are speak sequence or the substation of the universe there is nothing outside. NOTE-4 it cannot happen by chance, chance is a word without meaning. You can ask why did it happen and you will be indicating a cause why did it happen If you indicating something happen by chance, what do you mean? It show that it didnt have a cause. If in fact happen will it have a cause?. The point trying to illustrate is that when chance is not another cause that makes certain things happen. NOTE-5 this is a conclusion after what we have read from the top of the page to this point this is the end to show that the idea of the subsection of the whole has no course is absorb. How do you establish that NOTE-6 there is a being.. The first cause is a necessary being, this mean there is God

There is a series of causes Necessary/contingent being Contingent being is the same as independent being meaning it has a cause for its existence but this first cause is a necessary existence being who carries the reason of his existence in himself it and who cannot be suppose not to resist without an express contradiction so that is the idea of a necessary being For the first cause you cannot ask for the first cause what is cause is? Because you be told this will apply only contingent being but when it comes to the first cause of its self it cannot be the cause of itself therefore is a being that cannot be concede not to exist. What its been read is explanation of the notion of a necessary being You can ask about what is the cause of this or the cause of the existence of that form, anything, that is dependent or continuing thing but when It comes to a necessary being the question is not applied because there is no notion of a necessary being is that carries its cause of its own existence. Now, so it starts with everything that it exist has a cause of its existence, and then the argument consist in this matter or another matter, the details are not important in this declaration articular information and the conclusion is A first cause that is necessary being and such being has no causeThis is a general idea. Russell is supposed to have remarked that the first cause argument was bad, but uniquely, awfully bad, in that the conclusion not only failed to follow from the premises, but also actually contradicted them. His idea was that the argument starts off from the premise "everything has a [distinct, previous] cause", but ends with the conclusion that there must be something that has no distinct, previous cause, but carries the reason of his existence in himself. Then the conclusion denies what the premise asserts. 49:00he has a point but its could be modified to a a better support analysis instead of saying everything exist has a cause he could had said every continuing being has a cause and there will be no contradiction over a conclusion Critics based by Hume 49:52 Necessary and contingent of general notions by priory and con-priory theory and modern and logical notions so we can speak of contingent being and a necessary being , contingent true statement and necessary true statement and so on. And so continuing necessary can apply either to indigents being or who statements are propositions or so on and its actually easier to approach this note first point Necessary truth and contingent truth suppose I say is sunny outside? True of falsetrue Is it possible it could be cloudy today than a nice day like today in other words my statement is solid today is true but its contingent true meaning it could had been false if the weather condition was different. So a contingent truth is statement a proposition that happens to be truth but is false. A depending being every contingent being has a cause and its a necessary being therefore there wont be no contradiction. WITHOUT STAMENTS THE PROPOSITIONS COULD BE EITHER TRUE OR FALSE SOME OF THEM ARE TRUE SAME ARE FALSE FOR MANY PROPERSITIONS IT COULD GO EITHER WAY A BEING THAT COULD EXIST OR COULD NOT EXIST A NECCESERY BEING IT MUST EXIST

RECORDING 15r
April 17 Is the notion question of the Necessary Being? If you recall the argument goes on reestablish that there first cause that has no true in a necessary being mean that, that being is conceive not to exist and the matter of issue is that well that notion as a necessary is inconvenient, This notion of this Necessary being is meaningless, because if consider any being that exist or may exist or had existed we can always consider not to exist meaning. there is no such notion of being must exist and cannot be consider not exist

Incoherent, inconsistent means meanings meaning less He makes a connection with the necessary with math, 2+2=4 can you imagine the result being something else. You can call it whatever you want but the concept still the same. Its all about the consist not what it represents (symbol) How can you describe ideologically 2+2=4? Necessary and congtineng true. 2+2 Its a necessary true it cannot be otherwise He said Well there is a necessary true like 2+2=4 but there is no necessary being in the same matter meaning a being that cannot be consider not to exist because whatever being that we consider that existed or may existed we can imagine its existence or conceive of it as non-existent. 12:23 161 page Remember :Cosmological argument it starts with everything or every being that goes through a sequence causes.. Now, this critis is external meaning he is not completely attached to details of the argument, what was the conclusion of the argument? There is a first cause. And this first cause is God. -----The critic here is well I do not want to question about God let us suppose the argument is successful the argument is solid for the sake of argument. Cleanthes say you are debating something with someone you have your opinion you have your opinion and there is a t you made your points they made their points your made your points. There some points that the other person for the sake of argument, I dont want to question whether I say this right or wrong even if I were right there is something wrong. It describes the matter of criticism for the sake of argument the cosmological argument we cannot question in detail let us assume that is solid, what those is true. That is a first cause. Then it jump from true to not true. Even if the argument is successful, if is sound all that the true is that there is a first cause. There is no reasoning that takes us to the first cause that this first cause to the first claim is God even if we accepted to the statement it is the final statement open? if someone gives same argument it add up to the first cause its nature, well, what is the difference even if is successful all that is true is this God, because there is no justification of the transitions to the first cause to God.

Attendance to accept certain things as an argument with a divine thing, if someone saids its nature then they will be ask what cause nature. Where did it come from everything then again leads to God.
35:00 the third point of criticism is not mention by Blackman but it was Norman It has a similarity in terms of approach with the second point of critic that we had just discuses The cosmological argument It points at it cannot be sound How many of you have a mother? Everyone in this world has past present future as a mother. But there no way that one mother for everyone 42:06 similarity to the point of the third point is that it starts with everything with cause and that it proceeds we have a conclusive that is that its a first cause of everything that its the cause of everything. Its hard to end up with this and ending with that God. Like the illustration of the mother. Everyone loves somebody, is there one person that everyone love this is obvious and its the same as the mother because everyone has a mother but we cannot reach the conclusion there is one mother that is the mother of everyone. Everything has a cause but you cannot lead to a first cause of everything. 48:57A remark that is logically, to explain the full of reasoning here requires as quantification One number has a successor, those not mean they have the same successor everything has some cause but then we cannot reach to a conclusion that it has one cause that cause everything.
CREATION AND EVOLUTION HAS SO MUCH SAID, ITS JUST A THEORY. THATS THE BUISNESS OF SCIENCE, THAT IS SCIENCE BUISNESS TO STAND WITH A THEORY. YOU CANT DEGRATE THEIR MATERIAL/THEME, ITS JUST A THEORY.

1:05;06 The argument from Design is the argument by analogy ,spoke about the proper connections of other minds. Discussed about the Analogy with The existence of other minds, but also extends .The general idea of argument by analogy, or an argument of an analogy, and the general idea, is that certain, sufficient number of analogy or similarities, are recognized and on basis of this analogy or similarities it is explain that is reasonable, presume that something further is also similar,. The point here is that argument of Design is that well, before we look at the past and nature and everything in nature as a whole part of every part and so one is that is a very complex everything fits everything else. And since what is the characteristic of machine is that, the design, and design comes from some intelligence means from human intelligences. There has to be some intelligence behind the design in nature and of the world. In addition, that is obvious that it cannot be human intelligence but the intelligence of divine and there it establish the existence of god. R Recording A April 19, 2012 1

16

It begins By recognizing by some kind order in the world or universe, and this order is compare with manmade machines. The counter argument said is alright the whole of nature and universe is like a huge machine, brake it in two parts and then you will find that its parts are smaller machines that has the same character of design importance and so on.. so design in order is all over the world and at all levels. this is compatible to its to and similar to with man machines. MACHINES Human intelligence (human mind) world And obvious that it cannot be human intelligence but A divine intelligence (or a divine mind) Thats how the existence of god is a divine mind is establish by analogy It might not look as powerful as it is Certain aspect of older design in the world It is important to appreciate the power the arguments if you read the argumentation suffincialy , it might not look as creative is. So let us consider some aspects of order and design however are there living things in the world what would they need to live?------Nutrition 04;10 So that you have Living thing needs nutrition, does every kind have the access to the same nutrition.? The uniform of nature we establish them and we recognize it applies everywhere Logically its possible The fundamental fact part of the human body is that the organs have a function. (all work together) Therefore the human body was made my master mind. The important thing about this discussing is the argument of Design This kind of argument was impressive earlier, the argument started to lose some of its attractiveness. The design in the world is annonemuse is similar to the human machines Argument by analogy Since according to dualism say I cannot be sure if someone has a mind of my own The general argument of Analogy begins by recognizing similarities , between machines and world And human intallegence is behind machines therefore there most be some intelligence behind the world. The unlike arguments of analogy a posterior ; observing the world and machines. Had made the argument less impressive At the end of the paragraph April 18 First point of critics Combines two points First point whole /part We look around to every aspect and recognized in thing that everything has parts A whole is constitute by parts THE WORLD there fore my analogy there must be Some intelligence in the order and design

And part is There are two important points about this argument. First, it is an argument by analogy. The world resembles the objects of human design. Therefore, just as it would be reasonable, coming across a watch, to postulate a human designer, so it is reasonable, coming across the entire frame of nature, to postulate a godly designer. Second, the argument is "a posteriori". That is, it argues from experience, or from what we know of the world as we find it. It is here that the evidence for design shines out. After Darwinism had begun to offer a natural explanation of the way in which Question: if god exist and created the world ; what is supposed to be or all powerful , if you had this characterics what do you expect . Part 2 The origin and Evolution of the Solar System What came before? When did it happen? What is still happenin? What is left over? There are large swarms of astereriods still found between the orbits of the palnets Mars and Jupiter, and more rectly discovered out beyond Pluto. Some basic definitions. Asteroidds: Minor Planet; one of several thousand very small members of the solar system that revolved around the sun, generally between the orbits of t Mars and Jupiter. Meteoroid; A very small solid body moving through space in orbit around the sun. the score of an asteroid. Coments: bodies of asmall mass that vervo;ve arpimd the sim