Parmenides does not believe in change, he argued that changes are unreal. He reason his way to that conclusion by resting his argument on at least two grounds: namely, that if there is a single substance behind all thing, the concept of change will be absurd logically and that the phenomenon of change is basically an illusion according to a quote from page 16 of the Ancient period.
             It is reasonable to wonder whether it is logical to believe that anything could change out of no change and if anything could become being out of no being. Paramides also argued that if one says that something arises out of being then there couldn't be any coming into being. It is important to avoid the contradiction that something comes out or from nothing. If there is any movement, it is from being to being in which case, that is no change because, before the change occurs, something is being and after there is still being.
             It is impossible to break something out of nothing and it is also impossible to get something out of nothing so therefore, the concept of change is logically unthinkable or expressible, there has to be something to break or get something. One can always think of something but the thinking always has to do with something that is already being. Parmenides was successful in influencing our thought in a more logical reasoning that whatever exists must be absolute or not at all.
             Parmedians theory about the ultimate nature of reality bear resemblance to traditional Western religious views about what is real because it believes that there is one God and religion arrives at that conclusion based on faith. God is belief to be the creator of the universe who creates all things both living and imaginary. It is real because it is unchanging and it will never end. The entire thing that we can think of both real and unreal has a direct connection to him. You can think about the present and the future event and conclude that things canno...