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 12.
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am saying what I said above. Although, infinite time theory at a universal level, within a nearly infinite passing of time, would predict that another Romeo and Juliet would exist again, eventually.
    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.
    What I've been saying all along is that we humans do not have the conceptual framework to comprehend God.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think you may have underestimated the number of universal events required to create life by nearly an infinite amount.
    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.
    I don't think so. You are saying that you can take an infinite combination of numbers and get Romeo and Juliet. Just isn't possible. In this case you can disagree all you want. Still doesn't mean that life can come into existence from non-life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That one boggled me. If you see an infinite never ending line shooting out in one direction then turn around 180 degrees and see the end of the line in the other direction, is it an infinite line? The line=time passed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Check your premises. Logic itself only works within the real physical universe.
    Your claims are God exists and the universe is all that exists.
    I don't do supernatural logic. Who can?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not buy the Aristotelian argument that infinites do not exist. Conservation of matter and energy and Time imply that existence has always existed. How is that not infinite?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately, as interesting as it is it does nothing to answer the question of a Creator. Who created the species that seeded the universes? It only kicks the can further down the road.

    This is why I say no one will ever know so leave yourself open the possibilities regardless of your personal feelings. (except islam)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    With a nearly infinite amount of universal events happening everywhere without consideration of passing time, nearly anything can happen, including the creation of new life.

    It looks like at this point we'll need to agree to disagree.
    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.
    The problem with this discussion is that you insist on a human frame of reference. That would be like the ant being asked if humans exist. The ant has no frame of reference to even comprehend a human, nor a conceptual framework to even test for humans. Yet that ant can come into contact with a human and thereby know of its existence, but be incapable of "proving" such to another ant.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I used a dictionary.
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's what I always taught my Logic students, and my Current Events ones, and my rhetoric ones....
    but then, A is A
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Bah, I take what I need from different philosophies. Science offers many different looks at things as does, to phrase according to Objectivism, mysticism. I find the "possibilities" fascinatingly interesting.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This topic was interestingly explored by Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent Star Trek series with the concept of The Founders, who fictionally traveled the galaxy and found none like their own. They seeded many planets, and to discover their existence, their offspring from such many worlds had to develop to a point where they could solve a puzzle from each of their genetic codes. In that sort of scenario, the probability of the existence of "life" and the probability of the existence of life-sustaining planets would not have to multiply each other to some trivially small number.
    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.
    Why? You limit the parameters to what you can comprehend. God, in His fullness, is beyond human comprehension.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good stuff.
    If her logic is true then it demonstrates that if God = true then the basic axioms of logic = false
    No wonder the world is philosophically confused.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think "devil's advocate" is more devil than advocate. I just can't argue in favor something I don't believe in - I get all incoherent and flustered. Discussion of things I don't believe in is one thing - promoting it? ick.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In this context I would say something like,
    Existence: All that exists
    Exists: has objective reality or being
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    After nearly an infinite number of universal events, most utter failures in creating viable life, yep.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo