Good link. Thanks!

You make my point, you are sentient and possess consciousness. You, like the majority of humans, make existence relevant.

I enjoy playing devils advocate on this subject. I write sci-fi and find it food for thought.

My hero. Thank you.

I possess consciousness. I perceive what exists.

I can't tell if you're a skeptic or playing devil's advocate. However, we can agree to disagree on this topic.

No one.

I for one accept that existence exists "out there" as an unprovable yet fundamental axiom. We gain understanding of what is "out there" by our senses and our reasoning. Both having flaws.

Relevance explains much provided you believe that man was put here by God and everything is here to provide for his sustenance. Without man, nothing has purpose and sense (sight, sound, time) are irrelevant.

an aside, how do you know what your brain is telling you is out there is actually there?

Hello Solver,
According to Objectivist metaphysics "Primacy of existence" is a fundamental principle.
"Existence, this principle declares, comes first. Things are what they are independent of consciousness--of anyone's perceptions, images, ideas, feelings. Consciousness, by contrast, is a dependent. Its function is not to create or control existence, but to be a spectator; to look out, to perceive, to grasp that which is." "This is in opposition to primacy-of- consciousness." OTPOAR, pg. 18

"Supernatural" etymologically, means that which is above or beyond nature. "Nature" in turn, denotes existence viewed from a certain perspective. Nature is existence regarded as a system of interconnected entities governed by law; it is the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. What then is a "super-nature"? It would have to be a form of existence beyond existence; a thing beyond entities;a something beyond identity.
The Idea of the "supernatural" is an assault on everything man knows about reality. it is a contradiction of every essential of rational metaphysics. It represents a rejection of the basic axioms of philosophy (or, in the case of primitive men. a failure to grasp them).
This can be illustrated by reference to any version of idealism. But let us confine the discussion here to the popular notion of God.
Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.
Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to "design" is not "chance." It is causality.
Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.
Is god infinite? "Infinite" does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity without identity, i.e., of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of "infinity" denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subdivision. for example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite."

Every argument commonly offered for the notion of God leads to contradiction of the axiomatic concepts of philosophy. at every point, the notion clashes with the facts of reality and with the preconditions of thought. This is as true of professional theologians' arguments and ideas as of the popular treatments.

The point is broader than religion. It is inherent in any advocacy of a transcendental dimension. any attempt to defend or define the supernatural must necessarily collapse in fallacies. There is no logic that will lead one from the facts of this world to a realm contradicting them; there is no concept formed by observation of nature that will serve to characterize its antithesis. Inference from the natural can only lead to more of the natural, i.e., limited, finite entities. Such entities do not fulfill the requirements of "God' or even of "poltergeist." As far as reason and logic are concerned, existence exists, and only existence exists.
OTPOAR, pg.31-32

Leonard Piekoff sure has some brass ones, but his logic is difficult to counter. I do not know the answer and do not believe we can know the answer as to the mysteries of Faith.

I can form no authoritative opinion until I die and then it will be to late to tell anyone.
Respectfully,
O.A.

That's it! We're all in a game called “Universe Challenge” and a supreme being outside put a play token in the box grabbed the joystick and started moving the characters (us.) Yet we don't know it.
Yet, this is just another made up claim that is impossible to prove wrong.

I was waiting for this response. Irrelevance doesn't make it any less true.

Relevance is an important concept here. Lack of relevance doesn't prevent time from march on.

Put down the weed! There are not parallel us's, them's, or universes. There is one universe, and one of us in it at any given time. If the Universe is infinite in space and time, it will have more than enough of both to play out every possible life scenario one at a time - it's in no hurry.
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

A seeded planet, to me, is feasible and sustained initial contact would explain deities (particularly if the 'Seeders' did not possess FTL travel capability).

A vote for NOTA is definitively allowed here. :)

Infinite time just means there is no beginning and no end of time itself.
But why would this also have to mean that there would have to be infinite existence?

I'm not disagreeing with much of what you said. But without people, or some sentient being to name it or note it, none of it would have meaning.

Better yet Saucer Full of Secrets

If Nothing was there, he damn well heard and felt it.

Never a beginning, and never an end?
We recognize our existence (I think, therefore I is). Do we exist if we don't possess that level of thought? Do plants not exist because the can not comprehend their own existence? Maybe a plant does recognize it's existence.