Existence exists, always has existed and always will exist?
Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
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.)
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.)
Previous comments...
Isn't the point of an axiom that you cannot disprove the existence of a thing that you must refer to it in order to disprove its existence, and that by nature of the fact that you referred to it, you proved its existence? Can you legitimately refer to any specific existent or consciousness in the distant past or distant future?
"God exists" has no explicit referent, and therefore could never be an axiom. And yet... The "spirit" or "essence" of humanity does exist whether the label for such a thing is "rational animal" or some other label. If "God" is the essence of "man" or that set of attributes which is essential to inclusion in the class of entities that "man" is composed of, then... well...
Many religions point to this idea - almost as if the adept are intended to discover that "God" is really nothing more than the image in which man was made. In this sense, by nature of man's existence, the nature/essence/spirit of man exists because you must refer to it to argue about it.
God(s) as "One or more infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s)" is/are equivalent to Santa Clause. Believe in such things if you wish, but to what end?
Something in the middle? Who knows?
In summary then, neither is correct in any credible way.
concept of hot, but can't hear it. I live with these
and other concepts, to the best of my ability. for
all I know, existence is infinite, but I can't measure
it accurately. I can measure my short life. and
love it. works for me!!! -- j
The World in which we exist is constantly changing, in all aspects. Our personal existence is therefore unstable at best and painful at worst unless we take charge of it.
Feeling “lost” if we can't take charge, we might look for an imagined “eternal consciousness” or "higher self" (i.e. GOD) to assuage these anxieties. This is speculative at best and imaginary to begin with.
Existence exists, always has existed and always will exist... until it doesn't exist anymore.
Deal with it!
Up to that time, if the "Objectivist meme" can somehow evolve and survive without consuming their young, people may still be asking "Who is John Galt" and may be still excommunicating each other over the Peikoff/Kelley "Fact and Value"/"Truth and Toleration" issue.
But seemingly when talking about anything that includes God it could be both or neither or something else because the rules of logic and reasoning don't work anymore.
Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check if the supernatural is involved. :O
Hmmm...willingly make this leap of fantasy that philosophically undermines all rational thought (because it "transcends human comprehension") or face "that eternal damnation thingy." I'll leave that decision to those who chose the ultimate parent to help them face life.
Religion a la carte combined with reason a la carte is not a recipe for rational thought.
Even though you've side-stepped my rationale all day, I have hope that you'll eventually address the logical dilemmas of your assertions.
And based on your criteria for "sufficient reason," it would absolutely make sense to believe in pink unicorns, because if you don't, they might stomp you for all eternity after you die. :-)
I agree about the fear aspect. But the truth is, to me, that we only know a fraction of who and what such a Being actually is. If omnipotent and omnipresent we, His creation - a fraction of his essence - likely cannot comprehend the totality of his view and his reasons. Do I like this? Not really.
2) There's nothing about pink unicorns that causes me to believe that they could exist or have ever existed or that they pose any risk to me at all.
It's called the Bible.
It answers all your questions, and all the pieces fit together better than the most intricate puzzle you've ever seen.
That is, if you're not being a stiff-necked hard-headed knucklehead going into it.
Point is, the evidence for the accuracy of the Bible, and its events, is so overwhelming, that it would be found truthful 100 out of 100 times in a court of law with an honest jury.
You'd have to understand Christianity to know why.
I never decided to become a Christian... there's a hint.
A succinct summary of faith vs. reason.
From the moment God changed my heart (not because of anything I ever did or was, but just because He decided to do so before the foundation of the world... after all, He *is* God...) from that moment, I desired to follow Him, to do the things that please him.
That doesn't mean I don't still sin every single day of my life, but I don't take joy in it, and I try to avoid it, whereas before I didn't... at least, rarely did I try to avoid it before.
Existence: All that exists
Exists: has objective reality or being
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVIegSt...
but then, A is A
How about an Ayn Rand derivative as a foundation?
Existence: All things that are what they are independent of consciousness--of anyone's perceptions, images, ideas, feelings.
In return, I send you the comic strip that a philosophy professor posted on his door. It showed a tree, in a forest, having fallen. The caption was "_of course_ it makes a noise!" and the sound bubble coming from the tree said "ohhhh, SHIT!"
I understand that that explanation is unsatisfying to those who insist that everything must exist in a frame of reference that is comprehensible to a human. Like the ant, I cannot prove to you that God exists, yet I know this to be the case. You will call this "faith," and scoff. I too call it faith as I have no other term that defines the undefinable.
I've identified a rational view as to why God must exist. The universe cannot be infinite in size or time, thus it must have had a beginning, and will have an ending. If that is the case, then something must have caused the universe to come into existence. Whatever that is, is God.
You also never did say to anyone why you thought that, if time which has pasted is infinite, the universe must also be infinite.
So would that mean if a something related to A (such as time) was infinite in a certain way (such as time that has passed) then A (such as the universe) would be infinite?
I still find no reason to reject that existence may have been around forever. But now we are nearly back to square one.
I find it interesting that most of my comments have been down voted. For honest and respectful discussion. Seems that there are some here that cannot handle that.
I've also had some of my comments down voted, hopefully also for fair reasons.
Would you say that, “Existence exists” is non-nonsensical?
Evidence shows that the universe, as we understand it, had a beginning point - the Big Bang. What existed prior to that is unknown, and perhaps unknowable with any human derived science. What we can conclude is that it wasn't the "universe" as we understand it. If there weren't any universe, then could there be "existence" in a sense that you want to define it? I think not.
So, we are left with non-existence that came into being. How can such a thing occur of its own volition - the universe created itself? That seems illogical. Thus, the universe must have been created. Only if you want to call your "existence" God, which you negate by the very question, does this make any sense. Thus, your question is non-sensical.
God is existence is the only answer.
If time is infinite, then there can be no beginning and no end, thus those infinite parallels could have come into being at any time. Thus, all that ever was and ever could be must exist at the same time.
If that were the case, then somehow we would have observed such, since there would be an infinite amount of them. Since we haven't, I conclude that there cannot be an infinite amount, thus the universe is finite and time bound.
In our experience of time, the past is the past, the future the future. Why would every possible permutation currently exist?
It's the nature of infinity. Infinite time means that there was no start and no end exists, thus all time must exist simultaneously. You cannot have a progression of time unless there is a beginning. An infinite universe means that every conceivable permutation exists somewhere - it's infinite - and exists at the same time.
No it doesn't. You can have a physically and temporally infinite universe that lacks certain conceivable permutations. Just as in math, you can have an infinite series of integers without any of them being odd numbers. "Infinite" does not necessarily equate to "all-inclusive".
Then that would mean any God(s) that actually exist would be limited to working inside the confines of the universe.
Your claims are God exists and the universe is all that exists.
I don't do supernatural logic. Who can?
I've never understood why folks like yourself feel compelled to try to disprove God. What does it mean to you either way? I live my life in a moral way in part because I believe that there will be a final accounting. I presume that you live your life morally, but based on what? "Natural rights?" See my comment on the post by OA about that topic. There's nothing "natural" about liberty, if it were then it would be the norm instead of the aberration.
This has been an interesting interchange, but as usual, without a conclusive outcome.
You and others are perfectly within reason to doubt much, if not all, of this. The three possible responses to Jesus are as follows. A) He was a liar (inconsistent with other aspects of his character) so effective that he could deceive billions of people over millenia. B) He was a lunatic. This is the typical response of an atheist, and that may well be correct. Or finally, C) he was who he said he was. You are free to choose any of the three responses, based on logic and evidence.
Your possible responses are A) to reject Jesus out of hand if he was a liar, as Gulch citizens are expected to be honest, B) to dismiss Jesus as a lunatic (albeit a powerful and influential one), C) follow Him and what he preached, or D) investigate the question further.
I will readily admit that the evidence for Jesus being the son of a very powerful god is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, it is perfectly reasonable for those in the Gulch to reject Jesus' claims.
Excellent. I choose primarily D. I am an inquiring mind, was raised a Christian, have read the Bible and find the most interesting and inexplicable phenomena to be the massive number of people of faith. While I do not share their enthusiasm, I find no difficulty with believers who are not extremist evangelists, respect others who believe otherwise, and recognize reality as observed in this physical plane of existence as proper basis for action.
Respectfully,
O.A.
For any Christian, any person in fact, to hang out in the Gulch, that person must be non-contradictory. For a Christian to be non-contradictory, they should be an evangelist (last few verses of the Book of Matthew). I am guessing by your use of the word "extremist" as an adjective to evangelist that you don't want the Bible "shoved down your throat". What I laid out in my previous discussion is what Christians should say when they evangelize and only when the subject comes up as part of a relevant discussion (like this Gulch post). As with everything in the Gulch, people must come to their conclusions for themselves. Ramming any philosophy down someone else's throat is generally unsuccessful unless done by force (as has been done in both Christian and Muslim subjugation of populations throughout history).
Quite right, as they say "you can lead a horse to water...'
The massive number of people of faith could be either an argument for or against a Biblical god. Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace a common lineage to Abram (later called Abraham); this could easily be made into an argument in favor of repeated taught deception and against a Biblical god. On the other hand, if the Biblically-revealed god was a complete hoax, then a reasonable argument could be made that such faith should have died off a lot sooner than it has. I have a hard time believing that so many people could be deceived, but there have been cases of mass deception before. Hitler comes to mind.
I know your objection is "well, it didn't happen to ME so it can't be true". I think in my mind I would be asking "WHY hasn't it happened to me? If it happened to all those others, why NOT me?"
Many have had experiences they can't explain, including me. Many also claim these types of events come from the hand of God. The masses seem to be very conflicted and confused though, when reasoning which are the true God(s) that caused these “miracles.” Nearly all seem to “know” that the other Gods are false and only theirs are true.
Which man could make a reasonable nonprejudicial judgment about all of this?
Suggest you read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell
I do believe much but not all of the Bible is true. That so many had to be murdered and so much had to be destroyed to protect the faithful from different opinions worries me a lot.
Read even just the first 2 chapters of Josh McDowell's book. There is *no* book in history that has as much internal and external supporting evidence for its accuracy and validity.
The Bible that "was" during the early Church, is the Bible that "is" today.
I seem to remember a fellow poster who chided me for a very mild rebuke. Don't seem to see anything coming on this side of the activity.
You may call that mass-hallucination. I call it a miracle.
Many will call this unsubstantiated and if not outright fraud, at least wishful thinking. That's your right and I don't deny that to you. But I ask you to think of this, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth lived is indisputable. Is it logical that a seemingly healthy 33 year old would have such mental problems as to intentionally bring on the scourge and crucifixion? Perhaps, but very unlikely. But the kicker is that why would the followers of such a man then invent some wild story about returning from the dead? Nothing in Judaism allowed such, so it would have been outside of their context.
I rejected religion/god at a very young age..I believe I was 7. I do have a constant thirst for knowledge however, so I will continue to investigate further.
How the universe was created. We'll call that God.
What happens after life is extinguished. We'll call that God.
One of many who died on a cross. We'll call him God.
An elephant being with lots of swords. We'll call that God.
A statue of a man with a eagle's head. We'll call that God.
A giant funnel that howls like the wind destroyed a 1000 armed men. We'll call that God.
That monstrous mountain that throws fire and destroys villages with it's flow of molten anger. We'll call that God.
The bright thing in the sky that gives us warmth. We'll call that God.
An almighty father who throws lighting bolts and his son who makes the thunder. We'll call those Gods.
Yes, there are many theories which seem absurd. I do not, however, fault one for posing a hypothesis. And if one can neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis in one's lifetime, it must needs remain unresolved until another comes along to take up our mantle.
Many of your examples illustrate the theories of men at one time that could not be disproved - the peoples of those times lacked the knowledge or technology to do so. To laugh at them is arrogant, however - if you were in the same position, you too could have verily come to the same conclusions they did. You use condescension as a means of guilt by association - a logical fallacy. Each hypothesis must stand or fall on its own.
If there are multiple universes (which would go against the definition of "universe") then they are separate and "nonexistent" to us and therefore not worthy of our exploration mentally or physically.
Todays Quantum Physics is Hippy Hokum that has never, and never will bare fruit.
The universe had a beginning. Whether it has an end is to be determined. The existence that led to the big bang is beyond our understanding. It would be like an Avatar in a computer game trying to understand he exists within a computer and is nothing more than ones and zero's
Yet, this is just another made up claim that is impossible to prove wrong.
That doesn't make us a video game, unless you subscribe to a creator.
It only implies that we cannot perceive our origins. A soap bubble cannot perceive the origins of the force that created it (a person, blowing into a straw, in a glass of soapy water). the bubble had a creation, it will likely pop and have an end. The soapy water and straw still exists.
The video game was just another non-disprovable fun made up way to explain the unexplainable.
Some see that as a superior entity.
I prefer a mathematical concept. In physics it would be called the "Grand Unified Theory" GUT.
I prefer, "Grand Ordering Device".
A mathematic concept has no agenda, or design. It simply is. God (the entity) assumes some power that could intervene in our destiny. Since we have never seen the laws of physics violated, either God is very disciplined and does not intervene (which according to the Bible God has done a lot of intervening in the past), or God (the entity) does not exist.
To reference Star Trek TNG, was Q a god? They couldn't help themselves from intervening in the Universe.
Where did Q come from? Outside our Universe? Yet, he can enter our realm? I would think only a dream state could achieve that. What is the existence and reality of those in our dreams? Are they infinite and immortal?
Are we diverging from the topic?
There have been many throughout history that have created their own description to serve their own ends. Some of those have been coincident with God, many have not. Just because you have a counterfeit coin in your pocket (or even several) doesn't mean that everything is unreal. I know, it's not the greatest analogy, but I'm busy.
I for one follow the Catholic Church. Mostly because that's what I was brought up in and where I'm comfortable. I do not believe that the Pope is infallible, that transubstantiation occurs, or many other teachings of the church. These are man-made constructs. Does that make me a bad Catholic? No doubt. Do I believe that such will count against me in the final accounting? Not by much. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. As a rational thinking being, I can observe and learn from history and come to my own conclusions. That's what I have done.
I think you'll ultimately have to admit that the basis of the descriptions is Hearsay.
Robbie, what do you mean by this statement?
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.)
I reached a point, in the ongoing process of removing contradictions from my personal views, where my concept of God became so watered down that it became redundantly useless.
I can't make the "leap" anymore to accept something (of fundamental importance to my existence) that is beyond my means to understand and is by definition a contradiction to existence. If someone else does, I may 'understand'; but I don't excuse or agree.
I'm not trying to convert you or anyone, either. I just wanted to define the contradictions in play.
"Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters." The doctrine is often called "Primacy of Conscience."
I would say that thinking and believing are acts, and the Catholic church advises you to exercise freedom and rely on your conscience when performing them.
There are a progressively growing number of these newly enforced servitude rights which oppress the mind and prevent individuals the freedom to make their own best judgments.
Faith and Reason are polar opposites; they are mutually exclusive. To say that you "find faith as much a reasoning process as anything" calls into question your understanding of either concept. Your beliefs are your own, but you don't get to redefine established concepts to bolster the a la carte religious views you've been espousing.
So, if you're agnostic, and you do not reject that the possibility of heaven and hell exist, wouldn't the rational thing be to act in accordance with those dictates, if for no other reason than to cover that possibility? But, such action must be genuine to be effective, so wouldn't that dictate full conversion?
I'm trying to understand how one can allow for something so powerful to be possible, but then not take the most self-interested action.
Sorry, it is hard to be non-sarcastic when you claim that the supernatural infinite is above logic.
If the God(s) are what created life on the planet then it is not impossible that their names were Picard and Ricker.
You define God your way and expect others to define God your way. Not everyone sees God as he who has a risen son named Jesus.
But that was just a deflection tactic on your part.
But again, good attempt at deflection. My question still stands.
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.
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)
GW Bush is real and not some belief system.
When some God (or Goddess) becomes utterly contradictory, such as one or more infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s) that created everything, I tend to reject that idea. I can't accept everything I'm told. I try to use logic and reason. I know of nothing that exists that is not subject to the rules of logic. In a (public) discussion I may express my views on this. Others express theirs. We try to learn.
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.
I suppose it might be "predicting", but is that the same?
Although, it is more probable that a number of the ingredients required for life came from elsewhere in the universe.
http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/w...
This mystic used this resource and many others to write Shadows Live Under Seashells.. I actually took notes from the DVR'd recordings that I still have to this day.
Do watch it if you can. Its really fascinating science, very informative.
My opinion: If all life was obliterated, existence would still exist and changes would still occur. "Time" would still progress although no life would exist to recognize it. Eventually, new "life" would be created.
It looks like at this point we'll need to agree to disagree.
I do agree that monkey won't create life typing on typewriters.
Are you equating with any significance the effects from lighting strikes with with effects from an uncountable amount of supernovas?
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.
Its as-if man just appeared..
I'd believe in alien planet seeding before I subscribe to the idea of natural evolution.
The number of factors is relatively inconsequential compared to the numbers of "samples" in which the mutations could occur. Since this has been increasing more dramatically most recently, one would think that the number of mutations would be increasing - but we don't see that occurring. What changes have occurred have been more a function of diet and health than it has been mutation/evolution.
A man lives 200 years - a finite span.
Aside from recording his observations for other finite beings to learn from he cannot conceive existence without limit - at least I can't. The entire open ended concept of God is something I have trouble with. Using I AM as the foundation, there had to be, from my human finite perspective, a time when I WAS NOT. TO BE suggests there was a time where NOT TO BE was the condition.
Again, this is a finite argument placed against something infinite that human minds may not be able to mentally fathom. I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know everything and that not everything can be rational.
"To be" does not need to imply that there was a time that "not being" was the "condition." After all, if you accept that energy cannot be created nor destroyed...why not direct the same logic towards existence itself?
Time has to be measured or recorded by someone for it to have any meaning at all.
It is the same thing, noise, like time, is an irrelevant concept if no one is there to register it.
The existence of Man gives relevance to a great many concepts that, while they would exist, would have no meaning otherwise.
an aside, how do you know what your brain is telling you is out there is actually there?
I can't tell if you're a skeptic or playing devil's advocate. However, we can agree to disagree on this topic.
I enjoy playing devils advocate on this subject. I write sci-fi and find it food for thought.
While I appreciate Rand's philosophy there are aspects of it where I think she was off, mainly those related to God.
I genuinely believe that man stems creation and not a random puddle of muck that happened to win the lottery 10 trillion times. That said, if man was not created then I have to wonder if literally anything would. Enviornment (space, earth, black holes, negative space, string theory, etc..) may exist but if there is no sentience to make it relevant then what does it matter.
I am skeptical of liberally everything, God and Rand included.
Do objects move because time exists, or does time exist because objects move?
[Far out! errrr, take a hit and pass it around. I wanna hear side 2 of Dark Side of the Moon, man!]
This is why I say no one will ever know so leave yourself open the possibilities regardless of your personal feelings. (except islam)