Existence exists, always has existed and always will exist?

Posted by Solver 9 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
367 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

One way this could be is by infinite time theory. But this also would mean that everything has already happened in every way possible beforehand. Yet we all would be totally obvious that it did.

Another opposing theory is one or more God(s), Infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s), created everything.

SO FOR THIS TOPIC, WHICH IS MORE LIKELY AND WHAT IS YOUR REASONING?
Existence exists, always has existed and always will exist?
Or
One or more infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s) created everything?

(Is it also possible that neither is correct.)


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 7.
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The John Galt oath was very carefully worded. By my reading of what AR wrote, I don't see how a Christian can be non-contradictory and take both halves of the oath.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Christian is expected to do what God the Father and Jesus ask willingly. One does have free will to choose. I agree with what you say, Robbie. What I am referring to is part of John Galt's oath. I know that Fred Speckmann and I have agreed to disagree on Christians taking both halves of the oath.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In this context, what does it mean to "live one's life on behalf of another?" I don't think it translates well.

    Normally it would mean that I have been enslaved (or have enslaved myself) in order to give to another of my mind or my labor. But God does not ask that of us. He asks us to love one another as we do ourselves. That is the essence of morality. Even the most prescriptive of the Commandments does not enslave (Keep holy the Sabbath and honor thy mother and father are not enslaving). The remainder are prohibitions on actions. I give not my mind or labor specifically, but rather my heart/soul. And do so of my own free-will.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 9 years, 11 months ago
    I have read your thread (though some of it appears to be blocked), and I think the word "infinite" is causing a problem. You cannot do math or assess improbability once you bring infinity into the reasoning. The human mind does not conceive it very well.

    Instead, imagine the primordial soup without life, and it contains molecules of varying complexity. The probability of the required set of molecules coming together in the right conditions to make the first self-replicating molecule could be huge, lets say billion times less likely than winning the lottery jackpot by buying one ticket.

    But over time, there were billions upon billions of instances of those raw materials coming together. So the lottery analogy is more like buying a million tickets every second for millions of years. In which case, NOT winning the jackpot sometime becomes practically impossible.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But what came before, or will remain after? And if the concept of before and after are rational, then mustn't time be rational and exist independent of "existence?"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do as you will. I'm no proselytizer, so I'm not here trying to convert anyone. You will come to your own conclusion, that is all anyone can do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Instead of saying that people "make up stuff" why don't you look at it as everyone touches a different part of the elephant. The one touching the leg thinks of a tree, the one touching the trunk thinks of a snake, the one touching the tail thinks of a bush. We all experience God in our own way, and come away from that experience with a different perspective.

    While I am a Catholic, I embrace that the God that I envision might be the same God that other religions espouse, just from a different perspective. And even may be embodied in those philosophies that don't identify a specific deity, like Hinduism, but are merely moral philosophies.

    I will come back to something that I've said a number of times. You are trying to conceive in human terms that which is beyond human capability to understand fully. I understand struggling with that, but once you accept it, all else makes sense.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, there is. You just don't want to accept the evidence because it doesn't comport with your definition of "evidence."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why should religions be any different than anything else? If you ask someone to describe GW Bush you'd get a variety of answers. Why should something far more complex, a belief structure, be any different? Also, if there is one god and everyone is just looking at that deity in a different way (coloring their dogma) I can agree with your "mass of contradictions". But not all religions believe in the same god (recently I heard of a incarnation of a monkey god in India and the boy is being worshiped) so expecting a unified answer that accurately portrays a single deity is asking a bit much, no?

    Don't discount XXX because of your dealings with XXX -ians - ists (substitute XXX with any philosophy you like (including objectivists) - except for islam, naturally)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But, if I "study", then that is using a concept based on human comprehension and understanding (because I'm human). According to your previous remarks, those are not the abilities one uses to reach those thoughts.

    I'm not picking on you, Robbie. I was in a similar intellectual position, as you, many years ago. One is not fair to oneself, if the use of reason is a la carte. Rational thought is only possible within the context of human comprehension. Contradictions don't exist in existence...(apologies for being redundant.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Q: if earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old and the evolutionary origin of man is a slow process AND mankind is 200,000 years old, how can there not be creation?

    Seriously, 200,000 years is a blip in time when it comes to 4.5 billion years. If the evolution of man is super slow gradual adaptive process that comes out of a species survival necessity how did it occur so fast?

    Mind you, I'm not asking to be difficult or to proselytize,. This is something that has just been in my head for a while and I could use another view that makes sense. This thread seems the logical place to fish for alternatives.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ref. "extremist evangelist' you have gathered my meaning precisely. :)
    Quite right, as they say "you can lead a horse to water...'
    Reply | Permalink  
    • jbrenner replied 9 years, 11 months ago
  • Posted by Kova 9 years, 11 months ago
    I don`t see how the term "existence" does not cover absolutely everything that could potentially be defined. Logically, there can be no such thing as "nothing" except as a comparison to something. (i.e. "I have a pen in one hand; nothing in the other.") Therefore, the primacy of existence is irrefutable.

    Why does the "eternity of existence" presuppose any divinity whatsoever? Unless you mean to define (your) consciousness, itself, as the divine miracle. That, too, can be reduced to another primacy...at least as far as *your* subjective experience can relay to you.

    Again, could it not possibly be a fundamental that "Grand Original Design" dictates causality, the unfolding of "existence" according to the irrevocably logical principles that underlie existence itself? If A is A, then existence plays out, perhaps, in the only way that it can (and must) according to the causality of events, from Big Bang to "now." If there is any "irrefutable divinity" to be identified, should it not be (the intricacies of) "Truth" itself, whose language is Logic?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I looked around the web without any success. Apparently the Science Channel prefers to be the sole source of the content of this show.

    Do watch it if you can. Its really fascinating science, very informative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not find a common understanding of God anywhere. People literally make up stuff as needed.
    So I do not reject that all ideas for a limited type of God as false.

    Example,
    Some says, "God created life on this planet."

    Ok, it is possible although very unlikely that a likely long dead being did seed this planet.
    It is more possible that some unknown event may have seeded this planet.
    If true, that which seeded this planet would be God, using the above statement only.

    But then they say, “He is infinitely all powerful and all knowing and is three and is one and has a son who died but is back and promises all his faithful eternal life if we pray to the holy mother using a string of beads...”

    At this point the idea of God is simply a mass of contradictions.

    It is just silliness when people can not well define the characteristics of the words they use.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed, “Existence Exists” is an axiom.
    My extension was placed as a question, not an axiom.
    Is it possible that existence exists, always has and (hopefully) always will?

    As far as time goes,
    Do things in existence continue to change if no life exists to notice these changes? In my opinion the answer is, yes. Time itself would literally not matter until or if life was created anew.

    This is compared to the infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s) that created everything theory, where my own personal opinion is, no.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you study you will find God. You don't need to ascribe to some other humans interpretation.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo