Existence exists, always has existed and always will exist?

Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 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 3.
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I disagree. Whether or not God(s) exist or have existed is all about how you define God.
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    By definition, must still exist, otherwise this other entity would merely be some other alien sentient being, but not God.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Interesting. I've not spent a lot of time looking for sanction because it just seems rational to me. My grandmother would have been mortified (she of the "miss a Sunday mass, you're going to hell" philosophy).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Does that make you a bad Catholic? I would say the official stance is "no," according to the Catechism on Conscience, line 1782 (promulgated as part of the Dignitatis Humanae in 1965 by Pope Paul VI). http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...

    "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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Prior to Ug the caveman (I enjoy giving names to things) ape was a ratlike thingy, prior to that a amphibian, prior to that a fish, prior to that sea slime?

    I'd believe in alien planet seeding before I subscribe to the idea of natural evolution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You said, matter "does not just appear out of nothing." Science seems as strange as any religion to me, sometimes: "According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_stat...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Can you have good without bad? Can you have reward without risk? Can you have compliance without a consequence?

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kova 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And the theory is...that an ape-like being gave birth to some sort of early caveman, but I can`t remember the first name. Certainly it appears as though evolution suddenly perks up and gets an incredibly swift kick in the butt.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The stat is that man appeared 200,000 years ago. That's a scientific estimation and not anything i made up - goop to Gus and Gail. :) 200,000 years contradicts the snails pace of evolution, no?

    Its as-if man just appeared..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hang in there, Robbie. :)

    Even though you've side-stepped my rationale all day, I have hope that you'll eventually address the logical dilemmas of your assertions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To be precise, I said that a recessive trait has to be present in both parents in order to become "active," and therefore of any use to the entity. A singular recessive mutation that is never matched with a similar recessive mutation is likely to disappear before ever being subject to the survival test.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kova 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, it doesn`t make sense to me that something (even a subconscious "need" for a trait to improve survival) could not somehow guide the mutation process. I was not aware, though, that the mutation must also be present in a mate for the mutation to be passed down. It seems rather fishy to me, that so many species of animals have been able to mutate precisely as needed (and faithfully reproduce these traits to their offspring) if the whole process is supposedly "random." It seems to me, that several members of said species must be reproducing offspring in possession of such similar "pioneer mutations" in order for them to mate and pass along a newly "evolved" trait.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    More like, from the moment of my birth, I desired to do the things that please the flesh. To do whatever I could in opposition to God.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1) Fear can cause all kinds of beliefs
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No scientific theory of which I'm aware. If there were, that would lead to the mythical perpetual motion machine.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's one of the things that burns me..."that eternal damnation thingy." :D

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, you seem to be overlooking a couple of critical aspects. 1) a mutation must increase the chance of survival or at least not degrade it, 2) a mutation must be passed down from one generation to another, 3) a recessive mutation must have a similar mutation in a mate and the two somehow come together and create an offspring.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kova 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What I understand, is that if existence has primacy over consciousness, then omniscience can`t have preceded omnipotence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Belief motivated by fear is not real belief at all, and any deity (assuming one exists) that would compel "belief" based on ancient miracle stories and testimonials would not be worthy of worship.

    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. :-)
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo