the reason your wrong is because God doesnt EXIST; as you said yourself, whether existence exists is a question in and of itself. God is more than the reason anything exists, His position in the universe is beyond paradoxical and therefore all those who rely solely on science for answers are at a loss to explain God and His nature of being, so they automatically deny what they cannot prove. Belief in God is a leap of faith, and athiests are too afraid of what lies on the other side . . . .
@ariisbest2 You tell them. They fail to understand God and try to explain him with sceince and with our minds and way of thinking. They fail to understand that we may not be able to explain this supreme being with our own minds God has obviously created all things.
One of the concepts my Dad gave us as kids to make us think was; What came before God...excellent question; my theory is that existence has existed forever. Or both, if you look at it like computer machine language...on, off, on, off--1010....
Push philosophy and theology to their ultimate (and Buddhist idealism probably is the ultimate of both) and what do you wind up with? Nothing. Nothing exists (they proved that the self doesn't exist, either). There is only one way out: seeing it all as ultimately funny. I could go to bed and laugh for hours. I am still laughing right now.
Your notion of the condition of non-existence is predicated upon your notion of existence, thus cannot logically apply beyond the scope of your existence, since the concept of non-existence is meaningless without existence itself.
"Everything must exist" could only be a proper conclusion if it means everything that does exist must exist. I'm not sure what the author means exactly, but if you're interested in the topic look up "Existence Exists" as a video by GaltSpeaking.
Your question is what I refer to as "The ultimate mystery." For a long while in my ignorance, I actually believed I was the first person to ask the question. I note it in my proof of a Creator (Donald Schneider) based upon Einstein's STR. No philosophy, theistic, atheistic or pantheistic can answer it. I lean towards pantheism and its tenet that consciousness is the primal ground of being that cannot be further sublated. Just how it can "just be," however, is indeed the ultimate mystery!
@gklr I'm a big fan of this type of questions, paranormal stuff, aliens, ufo's. Because of my hobby I've collected a large amount of information and my conclusion on this question is that our brains aren't evolved enough to find an answer. It's like trying to find the killer but we don't have enough clues yet.
There is nothing wrong with asking yourself if existence exist. It's a very useful mind exercise. We need to educate ourselves in order to understand who we are and where we are. Cheers!
I think that our brains aren't capable enough to understand the puzzle that you are trying to solve with your video. I'm not saying you're right and I'm not saying you're wrong. I truly believe that we CAN'T understand NOW, but I hope from all my heart that we will sometimes in the near future because we're curious and we need to know.
but from this zero can come "1" so some thing does come in existence from nothing.....
example..... 1... is something ... 0.5 is half of that something .... so on 0.001 is something..... but as we go further and deeper near zero... like this == 0.00000000001 we are going toward infinity until this infinity reach Zero which is Nothing.... and now revers the process and we get....
Something out of Nothing .... so this Prove that Existence can exist out of nothing.....!
0 = nothing is false. 0 is a number. Nothing, is not a number. Nothing is not anything, there is no such thing. All things are some thing. No thing is not a thing.
to the person who made this video, let me ask you this, do You exist?, do you have the sense of feeling "I am"? and is this feeling ever not here? this moment as in this moment right now is always here, constantly here, regardless of our past and future this now moment exist always, almost as if you were trapped in this now moment and you are aware of that, and this wareness also exist, so everything that exist, exist now and what never leaves this now moment? is awareness.
False. It is not possible that a ball exists that is on fire and not on fire at the same time. Logical contradictions prove what cannot exist. Contradictions are expressed as P and not P at the same time, where P is a proposition.
Other than the subject of a logical contradiction, anything possibly exists.
@gklr Peter’s final conclusion makes it appear that he would be in sympathy with the "Many-Worlds Interpretation' of quantum mechanics. Everything that can be imagined literally exists in parallel universes. Dr. David Deutsch of Oxford is the theory's leading contemporary proponent. He has a Yahoo email list devoted to his book *The Fabric of Realty* that is active and has often stimulating discussion if any are interested. He often participates. continued)
@gklr It’s interesting, but I am skeptical as I see inherent flaws in the theory. On one hand, the theory positions a "multiverse” which is the sum of existence and has *always* existed, which implies a static existence along the lines of Einstein’s block universe. In fact, it is simply a vast expansion of it: myriad block universes instead of just one. (continued)
@gklr On the other hand, Dr. Deutsch speaks of dynamic forces such as evolution. This seems to me to be an inherent contradiction. Still, the MWI is the only theory that could resolve paradoxes with time travel into the past if such is possible at all. I am convinced that if time travel into the past is possible, whoever proves it will also prove the validity of the MWI in conjunction with it. Therefore, if the MWI is invalid in fact, then TT into the past is not possible. Don Schneider
To say "nothing exists" is invalid, since "nothing" cannot be considered in object form, since "nothing" is merely what we conceptually understand to be a state in which there is no thing. It is not something that can be pointed to with a proclamation of, "there is nothing!" Even empty space is something. We cannot truly conceive the state of nothing, because that requires cognition which, itself, is present and therefore exists.
Existence is an idea, a word with meaning. It cannot be percieved, it is concieved. If you are stuck in a materialist worldview then you can't explain it and is reason why to abandon that worldview. Nor would you be able to show truth exists, logic, language, mathematics or any of metaphysics. Philosophy, atheism, theism.... none of that is percieved either.
Existence is not a 'thing'. It is irrational to parrot the Randians who use ordinary speech and metaphor to assert that "existence exists".
The term 'exist' is an adjective, not a noun or verb. It describes that which is objectified by its presence.
'Exist' is a static concept. This means that a genuine noun of reality (an object) can only occupy a SINGLE location when it is said to exist. There is no time-dependency or dynamism to existence.
the the best thing you said was if it can exist then it must exist.is it were possible for one to observe a non existence by not being in existence? does the existence of ones perception adjoin its self to existence by merely being able to observe it? there is no way to prove another existence is outside of your own realm of perception mawhaw!
I see we agree completely, nice :) Indeed, the definition of nothingness is that it doesn't exist, so existence is... inevitable? :P I might just subscribe to you, sir!
If "something" cannot derive from "nothing", then how does life derive from non-life? The fact is, simply, man is too ignorant to comprehend his universe in any fashion except what he can predict from experience. Your question is a silly conundrum for silly people to ponder, no better than "cogito ergo sum".
Existence exists because it can neither exist or not exist. Statement does not make sense does it? There really can not be anything other than an infinite progression of empty nothing ,feel this statement. But that would be something one empty forever and there can not be anything. In this negation is the root of existence negation can not exist and something can not exist. Then what is being experienced? The on off flux that can never reach equilibrium is creation it always was and will be.
peter, u proved nothing other than the fact that something has to exist in order for existence to occur. The universe got her some how, it could not have always been here but how can something spring from nothing? how can u have some pre-time and if ur answer is god how did that god get here?
First of all, ChrisWatch. No. Your logic is non-linear, incoherant babble for the most part. Second. God doesn't exist. Third. Not everything must exist because we can imagine it. That is a fallacy brought about by language. Lastly, it depends on what you are talking about when you say nothing. Conciousness disapears durring sleep before the dream stage known as REM. If conciousness can become nothing, why cant existance? After all, conciousness is just a way for the universe to know its self.
Existence is preceptive and only based on our brain's limited interpretation of the stimuli which tickles our nerves. It's possible that my life and everything I sense is just an illusion. Dreams are as real as perceived reality when your sleeping. The question of whether our brain can interpret reality as it truly exists is more suitable than the question does existence exist. What is existence anyway? Does a dead person exist in his own mind?
Don't take me to court for what I said eitha. I'm just chillaxin, learning how to hack my router to get faster internet. (basically making one long straight road around the earth. until my isp{deer} gets hit, I'll have fun)
end and beginning. What is the difference if it ends and begins. A man was born. and he died. he died because he was born. but, he always was, therefore he always shall be.
(,.;:!?!:;,.)Does that mean if he always was,(?) he was never meant to be((,.;:!?!:;,.)
Or, he was always, until he was meant to be.
Always nothing, until he was meant to be. Until you become aware you were always. You are a mere human enjoying the fruits of life provided to us.
We can understand it in our dreams. But when we wake up we can't accept it, remember it, conjure it. Because it doesn't exist. Thats why it is.
Why, Where. We I am and am i i am or am i
i am is am i
We exist not for ourselves. But for life to exist. Death, life. Love, hate, there is a balance. But that doesn't mean it's going to fall, or over balance. It already is and that means it always will be because, it is.
It is, always was, because, it is. beginning and end...
I'm just making this up as I go along. but, that doesn' tmean I never thought of this before.
So the idea behind "the meaning of life" is, why where we created?
God was created to exist and understand everything that is.
But, what that is, is very specific. We describe everything as meaning of life, but the meaning of life isn't in our expressions or thoughts. It exists in a higher level of understanding that is pure emotion, meditation. IT CANNOT EXIST IN THIS FORM OF REALITY. :0 ^_^;)
For "nothing" to "exist" as reality is an invalid concept in itself. For "nothing" there should be something to define it. Therefore, nothing/something.
But, since nothing is and as proves that we exist, so there is also nothing. We can surely comprehend it to a point of terror. Therefore, nothing exists in us. but, lately time and space would best describe nothing.
So the idea of nothing in itself is the reality that it does exist. Therefore, for nothing to exist, we had to be born.
@ChrisWatch we had to be born to fulfill the duties, that our universe, and reality could be possible in balance.
But, for it to be possible, means we had to be born to create nothing. But, we cannot create nothing. Which shows that nothing exists because it is of nothing. SO we think of nothing as a negative to what does exist. That itself shows that nothing does exist. But, not in a physical way or "see with eyes" way. It exists because we understood it. Not because it is.
@ChrisWatch Any tiny shred of existence/reality in "past or future" that can evolve in itself, must be the universe itself. Therefore, it has always been and always will. For where it came was the notion that nothing "exists" and therefire, nothing and exist collided into eachother and ripped and exploded and became one in nature and devided itself with nothing.
Existence was always there. We just grew into it like a sperm hitting the egg.
Sure, the existence of gods/ goddesses/ demons/ trolls/ unicorns may exist simply because they can. But what relevance do they have in This universe/existence? Were the nature of their existence to be applied to This existence, which we know to be bound by the laws of nature, their "supernatural" activities (humans have defined the existence of unicorns to be horses with horns; god as having self-contradicting natures) would not be carried out. Thus, prayer, and heavenly mandates do not work.
... that it is not logical, rational, and practical to use these "holy" scriptures as guidelines for humanity.
The last time we went by religious text? We had the Dark Ages.
If you argue that because the JudeoChristian god, or the Islamic god exist because they can, then their "divine" authorities upon humanity (there are over 3000 versions of god(s)) conflict with each other.
Truth is, if we dwell in a world governed by natural laws, then there is no soul, and so there is no afterlife.
you are indeed correct if you state that everything that we can think of, must exist. but this does not mean it exist in a physical form in this universe. it can also exist within our imagination, which does not mean it doesn't exist, but at the same time does also not mean it is real.
we can think of pink winged rabbits with a snake for a tongue. this is because we know tje colour pink, we know wings, we know rabbits, we know tongues, and we know snakes. this does not mean this rabbit is real.
"It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist. " I must agree. The only thing impossible within existence is nonexistence. Saying something does not exist makes no sense, because you have a term for referring to that something, and while referring to it you likely have a concept of it. How can you observe and get a concept of something that does not exist?! How can it affect you directly or indirectly?
Although we ought to trust our senses, all our experience in existence springing forth from non-existence is limited at best and therefor not enough to make a universal claim about what can and can not be done.
In fact if we turn to science, energy can form from nothing for a very short time.
We look at things from a finite perspective, we live in a world of cause and effect, therefore we assume that everything must have had a creator. Maybe it's just inconceivable to the human mind, but I have a very hard time thinking that our EXISTENCE came from nothing, or what expanded into the universe was just THERE. That's just impossible, because if you say that, you are refusing to entertain the question of where that came from, and that equates to the God question. Both are roadblocks.
The big bang actually was an explosion of matter, but a very small one at that and it was a silent explosion.
The big theory postulates that 13.7 billion years ago, our Universe and all it's matter was packed into an extremely hot and dense state. It then expanded from this state into the cosmos we currently inhabit. The cooler cosmos made life possible. That's all
Keep in mind I'm not refuting what DiamondFistLincoln said, rather clarifying a few things. Remember DiamondFistLincoln, things like that can be interpreted differently so make sure you cover it from all angles. I think if people read up on what the Big Bang Theory actually is, they'll realize it was simply a start to this Universe, the cosmos we currently live in. It does not disprove any God, nor does it answer everything. People who try to do that from the big bang theory are doing it wrong.
I think you answered the question later on in your post. Anything can exist if the absolute properties for it to exist are already there and the properties themselves allow it to exist. That's how it exists, get it?
Any number of users besides me could have posted here, yet none of their posts exist, yet COULD because they COULD exist! But mine does exist, but it CAN and in a few seconds WILL exist! There is infinite number of possibilities.
Another way of putting it, I suppose, is why do we start from this position of nonexistence and ask how things came from it when we haven't (and couldn't I don' t think) find evidence of nonexistence... existing, as it were. Perhaps its a bias from the process of looking at things as coming from other things, when really most of our experience is of things changing each other. A sculpture doesn't come from a sculpter, he molds clay and fires it or chisels rock and then we call that a sculpture.
Which is to treat concepts(like numbers and abstractions), like concretes(independent existences), when they are not independent, they are dependent upon a mind to create and use.
The problem with you Theists, is that you don't seem to realise that what always existed, was existence itself.
Existence as a conceptual whole is eternal, and because of this, your God is unneeded, and irrelevant.
Theists, because of their evolutionary programming o be superstitious, refuse to start with existence, and the fact of reality, but instead, wish to go beyond existence, to an invisible magic God being that created it all. This is invalid metaphysics.
Well first off, your personal attacks were unnecessary and childish. If would me more mature and respectable if you stick to the topic of contention. Secondly, the Universe is supported by several credible sources as EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. These are available upon request.
And third, nothing you said abnegated the fact that your views and positions are wrong, since you cannot go beyond existence, to an immaterial mind, for the answer to a first cause, prime mover.
Your God cannot be eternal, since a "THING" cannot be eternal.
A thing, is something that exists independently, and distinguished from something else. Time applies to all things necessarily. So your God cannot be eternal, since it would imply an actual temporal Infinity, which is impossible.
are you saying that there is not THING that can exist eternally?
what about numerical values such as the number 7 and abstract objects such a the properties of squares, these are necessary THINGS that do not exist from causal relations, nothing caused them to exist,
and by definition of God, one of its attributes is eternalness
"these are necessary THINGS that do not exist from causal relations, nothing caused them to exist,"
^^^Sure something caused them to exist. Humans did. Humans created numbers and other abstractions.
That type of response is a typical Christian fallacy, identified in Objectivism as the fallacy of the floating abstraction, and commonly as the fallacy of hypostatization.
A non-existing "thing" does not take up space. We do not point to a position in space and then list all the things of non-existance which are taking up (or more like not-taking up) this space.
Everytime we point to something that isn't there and say "look, at the lack of that thing" - we are illustrating non-existance.
Non-existance exists within our world of existance. It takes up no room, so it can (and does) readily co-exist with existance.
"Non-existence exists within our world of existence."
You are of course perfectly correct. There does not exist a purple unicorn behind my computer screen. But if it were possible for such a unicorn to exist behind my computer screen, there would exist a universe in which such a purple unicorn exists behind my computer screen (it would have to be a very small unicorn). I assumed multiverse to be implicit in my essay. That was an error.
@Panpiper Non-existance can exist ONLY at a conceptual level because we can determine if smth exists or not by first proposing that thing in question. And concepts, exists only when minds exist therefore, non-existence in natural world does not exist, but merely in our puny heads.
Nonexistence is without a referrent. NON is a set theory term. The set of those things that does not exist is not a set, since to be a member of a set an object must exist.
@gklr But surely to assume set theory "makes sense to us", or set theory "is correct" means accepting that we exist in the first place to allow ourselves to come up with set theory. So we're missing a postulate here somewhere I think...
The statement "makes sense to us" does not prove we exist, it assumes it. I see no problem in that. To prove we exist is done seperate to that statement. "I pee, therefore I am". I cannot pee if I do not exist.
1 truth about an object proves that object exists. Existence exists, because we have many truths for the concept existence, including "existence is a concept".... which is not possible if existence does not exist.
@gklr I get the view point "I pee, therefore I am", but I'm not convinced by it. It is still based on logic which we accept, but that doesn't make it "true".
We assume a lot of things in any truth statement. When we say something is true or false, it comes with that baggage (axioms etc...) for any truth and for any belief. All truths are "...given such and such assumption...".
@roidroid - Just as friendly Devil's Advocate... a thought or dream is the experiential product of neural chemical synapse within the brain, yet not a structural atomic object that would describe the subjective experience. But as a "thing" in and of itself, the thought or dream occupies no space.
@roidroid - (cont'd) Maybe we don't have the words to accurately describe "existence". Maybe the concept is so abstruse that we can only try to define what "non-existence" is not. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that "it" is devoid of all matter, energy and consciousness assets. The "it" is a linguistic direct object imperative that does not necessarily reflect reality, but only our ability to try to describe things.
A hard drive does not loose or gain weight or mass when information is stored on it, or when that information is scrambled.
Information itself has no mass or physical presence that you can refine, then hold up and say to someone "this is information". Matter and/or energy are already in existence in the universe, and information is merely a specific arrangement of that "physical stuff".
@roidroid - I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, since it's hard to have an opinion on these types of subjects (for me, at least). I think that matter and energy are semantically different from information, because information is an interpretation of something, whether real or imaginary. I don't see how entropy fits into your extrapolation of my response. Please explain. Regards....
@marcopolo2001 What makes up our identity is our brain, a physical organ. However it's perhaps possible for our identity to be transferred into another vessel, ie: mind uploading. The brain as we knew it would be no-longer required. Thus identity is not a brain, but the INFORMATION stored on the brain - the pattern that makes your brain "you".
Put that brain in a blender, increase it's ENTROPY, scramble the pattern of atoms. The atoms remain but now the "you pattern" has been lost forever.
@gklr the concepts of words and meanings, and the words and meanings themselves, ONLY EXIST in our heads - and our heads are made of physical stuff.
ergo: words and meanings require physical stuff and are thus ultimately at the mercy of the laws of physics and nothing else (psychology --> neurobiology --> biochemistry --> physics).
Can you think of any way to create, manipulate & store words, meanings & ideas that doesn't require a physical universe? Nothing can "exist" metaphysically alone.
Words, meanings, language, logic, numbers etc, concepts like existence, have no physical location. It is false to say they exist "in our head". If they had a physical location we could not say that 1+1=2 or that any equation is equal to any other. The reason is because if they were physically in our head they could not be equal to the same equation in someone elses head. It would violate Liebnizs Law that A=B if and ohly of all that is true for A is true for B.
Yes mind is brain dependent, but that doesn't mean we are referring to a physical object when we talk about what existence or logic or math is.
"Nothing can "exist" metaphysically alone."
Agreed and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. All concepts are brain dependent, so far. That is why one of these comments was rather odd, when what was being talked about was information stored on a computer when no such thing can happen. Computers are physical only, information isn't.
Computers store on/off sequences that we interpet as informative. There are no words in any book or library. No numbers in any computer. Ink spots are not words, they refer to words. Just as sound is not a word and when we speak we use that sound to refer to a word with meaning. The word is not the ink spot or the mumbles we make anymore than a car is the word or sound "car".
We interpet pixels to have meaning and only via that interpetation do they mean anything.
We need a brain to have thoughts yes. Numbers would be a good example of things that exist only by way of thought. The number 1 is not a physical item and does not exist inside your brain.
Liebnizs Law has no application to the physical world and that was in part my point. It's only application is with abstract objects, only they can be equal.
If the number 1 existed in your head, it could not equate the number 1 in mine. 1 does not equal1, if they exist in our heads.
Can our brains truly fathom pure concepts? They can only work with "good enough" neural approximations* (unique per individual, thus bypassing Leibniz's law no?). Allas this means that all human thought is full of continual unseen errors.
*These approximations (eg: concepts like the "number one") exist solely as a property of a mind, (ie: of a physical brain). Can a property of an object exist without any physical record or evidence of it? Simmers down to "If a tree falls in a forest" no?
"unique per individual, thus bypassing Leibniz's law no?"
Not if the truth that 1+1=2 exists physically in your head and physically in mine. Then my truth does not equate yours, as something can be said true about yours that is not true about mine.
Materialism dies with Liebnizs Law. Obviously there is beyond the physical, we have abstract concepts as well that exist and are real.
Circular reasoning implies the assumption of truth in a first premise that assumes the truth of the conclusion. The only first premise I make in my question is that existence exists. Do you debate this as unfounded?
I meant that your first premise postulates that at one time there was nothing and then there was something. How does one know there was ever nothing? Of course we could be butting heads with semantics. I do hear what you are saying. I'm just saying the first assumption is not any kind of truth at all. A starting point yes, but a contrived starting point. So if your starting point is false your ending point will also be false. Unless by shear chance you end with truth w/out sequence
Perhaps listen to the opening again. I did not state such as a premise, instead I stated it as a question; "Can it be that something can spring from nothing?" I then follow my reasoning to assert that there cannot be such a condition of non-existence. Admittedly, my opening was not very clear.
No, but he does really have a good point. You can tell he thought about this a lot. I actually agree with him now that I think about it. The universe goes on forever, therefore if something CAN exist, it must somewhere.
if one looks at the reality of nature from a higher dimension starting from fourth perhaps... i don't like to use the word "dimension" from the limitations, but it best describes energy from a higher level of space/time, with mathimatical consistancy.
one could see beyond the framework of finite interactions.. thus examine the reciprocal flow of energy interacting within/out itself, instaneously and infinitely.. thus existence does exist.
The Big Bang actually doesn't claim that nothing gave rise to something. The Big Bang theory, which is largely accepted by many theists as well as atheists within the science community and without only claims that the Universe began with an explosion of matter that was present. Science does not yet claim to know where the matter came from and never has.
Must it exist physically or can it only exist in our imaginations?
For instance can a universe exist within a universe that exists inside a small piece of tungsten residing in the anus of a non conductive eel that is invisible only in the ultra violet spectrum and can only travel sideways through time stuck in its own moment.
I think the word existence is too limited. Perhaps you could try learning Greek. There are far richer words in that vocabulary to help you on your philosophical quest
We have absolutely no way of knowing if our Universe is contained completely inside the atom of some other Universe. We've seen pretty far out but I don't think we've seen any walls to our Universe. I agree that existence is almost obsolete in some philosophical discussions and I also note that I wasn't arguing with the video but the previous comment.
I'd love to learn Greek, unfortunately I'm only adept at learning programming languages.
And i am somewhat confused as to whether you are a Christian, Agnostic or Atheist? because this video sounded a bit like "If a wood chuck could chuck wood, how much wood could a wood chuck chuck".
And you say "the glib answer with those from little imagination". You just proved the Christian point that religion is based on pure imagination and imagination as to how things happened is not a good enough theory which is all it is, a simple "theory" that God created the heavens and the earth. The main issue we as Atheists have is how religion is distorted and is used as mass manipulation to serve many doctrines hell bent of being the "right" religion to gain power over others.
This is the ONLY argument Christians can EVER give for a "proof" of a God, but its not that Atheists are trying to refute the existence of a God, its just there there is not "enough" evidence to sustain a belief for us, so its not that we don't "want" to believe, we just simply "cannot" based on the ridiculous statements within the Bible, its cruelties, its contradictions and the Christian reverence for an Apocalypse is just plain sickening.
What if existance existed before existance. would that therefore imply that there was pre-existance? And if there was pre-existance does that not mean that this was existance at the time. From this doesn't there seem to be an underlying paattern that existance is infinite; an ever-beggining and never-ending cycle?
Cute, but why can't a "God" have created "existence" i know it's silly, but if things like gravity, DDR, breast implants, Hugh Grant, Statistical Analysis and Pong exist and are derivative, why can't "existence" derive from some pre-existence?
There is no book that says yes or no on authority save those claiming to be written by a god of some sort. Setting aside our cultural standards for credibility (scientific, structured, prose, organized and exhaustive) is there weigh in their weigh?
why try to figure this shit out ? if there is a god or not, doesnt seem to matter much. there are far more important issues to solve that can be solved and make a difference. If we did prove the existence of god what good would it do? people would still kill over who is right. once we live without conflict we will realize the silliness of this talk. religion and the battle over god is stupid and if we keep up with this separation of humanity and nature, the future of humanity is over.
or does existence exist to the extent that existence can exist to be existance. And was there ever nothing. wouldent nothing be existenc any ways since theres a mer word for the existance of nothing to exist in existence. even if there was no existence it would still be existence to have nothing to exist to be non existence. And i know i sound like a dummy. and i know nothing i said made sense but it was fun to think of
god is legit. i like him. he is real. i know htis because god could just as eaasily be thinking mohamed does not exist but he would be wrong. and that is impossible because he is always right. because he is perfect. therefore, both me and god exist. QED
Existence exists doesn't explain anything. What follows also doesn't make any sense. If it can exist, it must exist? What if it can't exist? Does existence account for those things as well? I would argue that it is existence that is secondary to a perspective which in itself isn't relying upon that which exists, rather existence relies on some sort of infinite perspective. To talk about the perspective as existing doesn't make any sense though. It is that which is perceived that exists.
Existence doesn't require an explanation. It just happens. If you live your life contemplating whether things exist or not then you are way to inside your head to realize what is going on around you.
But for argument's sake: If I could break down this guys philosophy into my own words. I would say "Everything has an origin." Claiming non-existense of something is the same thing as dividing by zero. You cannot not divide an object in space and time into 0 parts; you must start with a part.
"It just happens" is an explanation, and a very poor one. I occasionally take time to ponder the deep questions, but I spend much more time enjoying life, thanks for the concern. As for claiming the non-existence of something, we do it all of the time. But we use additional terms like probable or improbable to address the issue more empirically and less philosophically. There is nothing wrong with that. As for dividing something by zero, divide an infinite set by zero and see what you get.
Huh what did you say? Sorry but your used car salesmanesq speach caused me to nod off and then you were done. I guess I'll watch it again tonight if I have trouble sleeping. zzzzzzzzz!
we only see time as running in one direction and that is because it is how we r living it.therefore it is easy for us 2 accept that existence will exist forever but it is harder for us 2 accept that existence of anythin has always existed. so for all of you who want to know how it all begin, it didnt begin because it has always been
another thing existence is restricted only to wat we know is possible. it is only through the knowledge of the existence of something that anything is able to exist
Hey mr. philosopher how about you consult some of the modern discoveries,it might enlighten you.Have you heard about the big bang,yes it is that little thing that hapened 13.7 billion years ago,and guess what was before?Nothing.That kinda blows away your argument.What you don't understand that there is a limit in that logic can be used,you can't aplly it to all like existence and god.For example:if god created everything including what you call logic,it doesn't necessarily submit to it.
At least if there is God, you know what the rules are, and what you are doing here.
With evolution, you dont know why you are here, are random, make the rules yourself and offer no future hope to anyone other than the universe will contract at the end of time and we'll all be dead. That doesnt sound simpler to me.
For all the atheists out there, how did the big bang exist? An explosion which came out of gases that were "just there."
This sounds a bit like saying "God was just there". Both these things are faiths at the end of the day. You have to believe that they existed. It seems to me that evolution raises more questions. Nothing -> big bang (somehow) -> throw in some time...->planet earth-> me! Wow! That takes a lot of belief.
I agree. If there is any god out there, it is a programmer with limitations and we are the programs. So basically, we are part of a computerized Universe and not real, but think we a re real, that is the closest thing in my opinion, that can be considered, a god. Perhaps the programmer created religion, prophets in order to through us off from knowing the truth? This can explain how our universe supposably grows, that the programmer is improving our universe and we may never know what truth is.
I subscribe to the belief ("Science" does not know what event started the expansion of space we call the big bang) that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and so the events dealing with time and causality with the universe before a certain point in our timeline are meaningless from a scientific and causal perspective.
That said, that doesn't make your question of existence meaningless. Of course if the big bang happened as I believed it, objectively existence is an eternal concept.
Existence takes different sementic points and it was pointed out that you didn't really define it. I will try a few definitions to see which you like.
The first is as an attribute (wikipedia uses the term predicate). Things 'are'. I 'am'. This is a perfectly fine defintion as existence of something must convey a concept to it (hilariously to me, existence can be seen as an attribute). This does nothing to help the issue so i will move on.
I agree that to postulate existence of the universe by pointing to a creator ('God') is not a good enough solution. When I was younger, I attempted to define God by virtue of a creator that was before time, and possibly beyond the universe. The sheer amount of doublethink I had to do made such a 'proof' (more like delusion) short lived. God would have to be a paradox of causality and also would violate the concept of infinity as a conceptual notion rather than a physical concept.
Axioms ftw
NegativeMeatPopsicle 1 week ago 2
Comment removed
kohenonline 2 months ago
Comment removed
kohenonline 2 months ago
Comment removed
kohenonline 2 months ago
Comment removed
kohenonline 2 months ago
the reason your wrong is because God doesnt EXIST; as you said yourself, whether existence exists is a question in and of itself. God is more than the reason anything exists, His position in the universe is beyond paradoxical and therefore all those who rely solely on science for answers are at a loss to explain God and His nature of being, so they automatically deny what they cannot prove. Belief in God is a leap of faith, and athiests are too afraid of what lies on the other side . . . .
ariisbest2 3 months ago
@ariisbest2 You tell them. They fail to understand God and try to explain him with sceince and with our minds and way of thinking. They fail to understand that we may not be able to explain this supreme being with our own minds God has obviously created all things.
ZeusHelios 3 weeks ago
Non-existence is as strange as het 'number' zero.
Zero doesn't exist either, it just means that there is 'lack' of anything we have defined, but it doesn't mean there is totally no-thing.
Have you ever heard someone use the number zero in a phrase?
"I have zero eggs." No, the common used phrase is: "I have no eggs.".
Non-existence is just some poor way to describe something that hasn't been described yet.
I see that @CeltoSaxonKnight already told you that.
whahas 3 months ago
One of the concepts my Dad gave us as kids to make us think was; What came before God...excellent question; my theory is that existence has existed forever. Or both, if you look at it like computer machine language...on, off, on, off--1010....
watertonrivers 4 months ago
Push philosophy and theology to their ultimate (and Buddhist idealism probably is the ultimate of both) and what do you wind up with? Nothing. Nothing exists (they proved that the self doesn't exist, either). There is only one way out: seeing it all as ultimately funny. I could go to bed and laugh for hours. I am still laughing right now.
QuantumLeap365 4 months ago
@QuantumLeap365 Mushrooms make you laugh, and they show that you are One with everything.
mrstrings2006 3 months ago
Came back to watch this video again. This is the most obvious fundemental truth as we know it...
alique087 4 months ago
Your notion of the condition of non-existence is predicated upon your notion of existence, thus cannot logically apply beyond the scope of your existence, since the concept of non-existence is meaningless without existence itself.
Put simply – you don't know.
CeltoSaxonKnight 5 months ago
If humans aren't there to say something exist, does it exist? If everyone on this planet dies at the same time....
karnivorus 6 months ago
"Everything must exist" could only be a proper conclusion if it means everything that does exist must exist. I'm not sure what the author means exactly, but if you're interested in the topic look up "Existence Exists" as a video by GaltSpeaking.
clemonsx90 6 months ago
according to peter atkins nothing does exist
scar504 6 months ago
Greatest video i'v ever seen. Why? Because this is the greatest truth as we know it.
alique087 8 months ago
This guy better not quit his dayjob.
BlatendCrude 8 months ago
why don't unicorns exist in our universe?
Paul1239193 8 months ago
einstein is and was a idiot completely wrong just like the majority of scientist.
TheLovesoul1 8 months ago
@TheLovesoul1 What was he/they wrong about? What is your theory?
litwriter100 8 months ago
Your question is what I refer to as "The ultimate mystery." For a long while in my ignorance, I actually believed I was the first person to ask the question. I note it in my proof of a Creator (Donald Schneider) based upon Einstein's STR. No philosophy, theistic, atheistic or pantheistic can answer it. I lean towards pantheism and its tenet that consciousness is the primal ground of being that cannot be further sublated. Just how it can "just be," however, is indeed the ultimate mystery!
litwriter100 8 months ago
I think that you might enjoy my video Existents is inside of non existence I invite you to watch it enjoy =)
my02cent 9 months ago
@gklr I'm a big fan of this type of questions, paranormal stuff, aliens, ufo's. Because of my hobby I've collected a large amount of information and my conclusion on this question is that our brains aren't evolved enough to find an answer. It's like trying to find the killer but we don't have enough clues yet.
There is nothing wrong with asking yourself if existence exist. It's a very useful mind exercise. We need to educate ourselves in order to understand who we are and where we are. Cheers!
TimmyFarlight 9 months ago
I think that our brains aren't capable enough to understand the puzzle that you are trying to solve with your video. I'm not saying you're right and I'm not saying you're wrong. I truly believe that we CAN'T understand NOW, but I hope from all my heart that we will sometimes in the near future because we're curious and we need to know.
TimmyFarlight 10 months ago
@TimmyFarlight,
I fail to see any problem at all in asking if existence exists. Why do you see a problem in this question?
gklr 9 months ago
Huh.....?
BlatendCrude 10 months ago
0 = nothing.....
but from this zero can come "1" so some thing does come in existence from nothing.....
example..... 1... is something ... 0.5 is half of that something .... so on 0.001 is something..... but as we go further and deeper near zero... like this == 0.00000000001 we are going toward infinity until this infinity reach Zero which is Nothing.... and now revers the process and we get....
Something out of Nothing .... so this Prove that Existence can exist out of nothing.....!
imranbug81 11 months ago
@imranbug81 The Wall B/w non-existence and existence is Infinity..... !!
imranbug81 11 months ago
@imranbug81,
0 = nothing is false. 0 is a number. Nothing, is not a number. Nothing is not anything, there is no such thing. All things are some thing. No thing is not a thing.
gklr 9 months ago
to the person who made this video, let me ask you this, do You exist?, do you have the sense of feeling "I am"? and is this feeling ever not here? this moment as in this moment right now is always here, constantly here, regardless of our past and future this now moment exist always, almost as if you were trapped in this now moment and you are aware of that, and this wareness also exist, so everything that exist, exist now and what never leaves this now moment? is awareness.
Tukuklan 11 months ago
In an infinitie universe, anything *can* exist, including the flying spaghetti monster. Why then make an exception for God?
cantleysugar 1 year ago
@cantleysugar,
"In an infinitie universe, anything *can* exist"
False. It is not possible that a ball exists that is on fire and not on fire at the same time. Logical contradictions prove what cannot exist. Contradictions are expressed as P and not P at the same time, where P is a proposition.
Other than the subject of a logical contradiction, anything possibly exists.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr Peter’s final conclusion makes it appear that he would be in sympathy with the "Many-Worlds Interpretation' of quantum mechanics. Everything that can be imagined literally exists in parallel universes. Dr. David Deutsch of Oxford is the theory's leading contemporary proponent. He has a Yahoo email list devoted to his book *The Fabric of Realty* that is active and has often stimulating discussion if any are interested. He often participates. continued)
litwriter100 8 months ago
@gklr It’s interesting, but I am skeptical as I see inherent flaws in the theory. On one hand, the theory positions a "multiverse” which is the sum of existence and has *always* existed, which implies a static existence along the lines of Einstein’s block universe. In fact, it is simply a vast expansion of it: myriad block universes instead of just one. (continued)
litwriter100 8 months ago
@gklr On the other hand, Dr. Deutsch speaks of dynamic forces such as evolution. This seems to me to be an inherent contradiction. Still, the MWI is the only theory that could resolve paradoxes with time travel into the past if such is possible at all. I am convinced that if time travel into the past is possible, whoever proves it will also prove the validity of the MWI in conjunction with it. Therefore, if the MWI is invalid in fact, then TT into the past is not possible. Don Schneider
litwriter100 8 months ago
To say "nothing exists" is invalid, since "nothing" cannot be considered in object form, since "nothing" is merely what we conceptually understand to be a state in which there is no thing. It is not something that can be pointed to with a proclamation of, "there is nothing!" Even empty space is something. We cannot truly conceive the state of nothing, because that requires cognition which, itself, is present and therefore exists.
JamesMorlan 1 year ago
Existence is an idea, a word with meaning. It cannot be percieved, it is concieved. If you are stuck in a materialist worldview then you can't explain it and is reason why to abandon that worldview. Nor would you be able to show truth exists, logic, language, mathematics or any of metaphysics. Philosophy, atheism, theism.... none of that is percieved either.
gklr 1 year ago
Existence is not a 'thing'. It is irrational to parrot the Randians who use ordinary speech and metaphor to assert that "existence exists".
The term 'exist' is an adjective, not a noun or verb. It describes that which is objectified by its presence.
'Exist' is a static concept. This means that a genuine noun of reality (an object) can only occupy a SINGLE location when it is said to exist. There is no time-dependency or dynamism to existence.
fatfist 1 year ago
That which is said to 'exist' cannot be created from nothing. It can only be assembled from that which already exists.
In similar fashion, that which 'exists' cannot be destroyed and converted into nothing.
The CLAIM which alleges the creation of space & matter is an ontological contradiction. Creation under any context is impossible!
fatfist 1 year ago
@fatfist,
"Existence is not a 'thing'"
Then it doesn't exist.
"'Exist' is a static concept."
Then it exists.
gklr 1 year ago
I concur senor
wholelover 1 year ago
So... what you are trying to say is that there was never non-existance
Bankairazy 1 year ago
"Anything which can exist, must exist"
.
That's an elegant proof that God exists. Thankyou.
cantleysugar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cantleysugar
God doesn't exist!
LivingdeadMetal 1 year ago
and look up alan watts' view on nothingness
sillybunz2012 1 year ago
the the best thing you said was if it can exist then it must exist.is it were possible for one to observe a non existence by not being in existence? does the existence of ones perception adjoin its self to existence by merely being able to observe it? there is no way to prove another existence is outside of your own realm of perception mawhaw!
sillybunz2012 1 year ago
Perhaps infinite nothingness is past the edge of the universe, a vacuum in space = nothing right?
TekLok 1 year ago
existence is infinite.
TekLok 1 year ago
nothing exists everything also exists witch makes me think i can do anything senses everything exists it makes anything possible
bloob5 1 year ago
nothing exists everything also exists witch makes me think i can do anything senses everything exists
bloob5 1 year ago
I see we agree completely, nice :) Indeed, the definition of nothingness is that it doesn't exist, so existence is... inevitable? :P I might just subscribe to you, sir!
Anonymous247n 1 year ago
If "something" cannot derive from "nothing", then how does life derive from non-life? The fact is, simply, man is too ignorant to comprehend his universe in any fashion except what he can predict from experience. Your question is a silly conundrum for silly people to ponder, no better than "cogito ergo sum".
4KnowWon 1 year ago
Existence exists because it can neither exist or not exist. Statement does not make sense does it? There really can not be anything other than an infinite progression of empty nothing ,feel this statement. But that would be something one empty forever and there can not be anything. In this negation is the root of existence negation can not exist and something can not exist. Then what is being experienced? The on off flux that can never reach equilibrium is creation it always was and will be.
jobedied 1 year ago
Well at least you didn't use the Stephen hawking mechanical voice gag. That clearly doesn't exist.
couerl 1 year ago
peter, u proved nothing other than the fact that something has to exist in order for existence to occur. The universe got her some how, it could not have always been here but how can something spring from nothing? how can u have some pre-time and if ur answer is god how did that god get here?
bcraig6424 1 year ago
Whoa..
Sn3kz 1 year ago
First of all, ChrisWatch. No. Your logic is non-linear, incoherant babble for the most part. Second. God doesn't exist. Third. Not everything must exist because we can imagine it. That is a fallacy brought about by language. Lastly, it depends on what you are talking about when you say nothing. Conciousness disapears durring sleep before the dream stage known as REM. If conciousness can become nothing, why cant existance? After all, conciousness is just a way for the universe to know its self.
88Squee88 1 year ago
Existence is preceptive and only based on our brain's limited interpretation of the stimuli which tickles our nerves. It's possible that my life and everything I sense is just an illusion. Dreams are as real as perceived reality when your sleeping. The question of whether our brain can interpret reality as it truly exists is more suitable than the question does existence exist. What is existence anyway? Does a dead person exist in his own mind?
cyphi1 1 year ago
awesome! an example of pure philosophology.
breaneainn 1 year ago
Don't take me to court for what I said eitha. I'm just chillaxin, learning how to hack my router to get faster internet. (basically making one long straight road around the earth. until my isp{deer} gets hit, I'll have fun)
ChrisWatch 1 year ago
end and beginning. What is the difference if it ends and begins. A man was born. and he died. he died because he was born. but, he always was, therefore he always shall be.
(,.;:!?!:;,.)Does that mean if he always was,(?) he was never meant to be((,.;:!?!:;,.)
Or, he was always, until he was meant to be.
Always nothing, until he was meant to be. Until you become aware you were always. You are a mere human enjoying the fruits of life provided to us.
ChrisWatch 1 year ago
We can understand it in our dreams. But when we wake up we can't accept it, remember it, conjure it. Because it doesn't exist. Thats why it is.
Why, Where. We I am and am i i am or am i
i am is am i
We exist not for ourselves. But for life to exist. Death, life. Love, hate, there is a balance. But that doesn't mean it's going to fall, or over balance. It already is and that means it always will be because, it is.
It is, always was, because, it is. beginning and end...
ChrisWatch 1 year ago
I'm just making this up as I go along. but, that doesn' tmean I never thought of this before.
So the idea behind "the meaning of life" is, why where we created?
God was created to exist and understand everything that is.
But, what that is, is very specific. We describe everything as meaning of life, but the meaning of life isn't in our expressions or thoughts. It exists in a higher level of understanding that is pure emotion, meditation. IT CANNOT EXIST IN THIS FORM OF REALITY. :0 ^_^;)
ChrisWatch 1 year ago
For "nothing" to "exist" as reality is an invalid concept in itself. For "nothing" there should be something to define it. Therefore, nothing/something.
But, since nothing is and as proves that we exist, so there is also nothing. We can surely comprehend it to a point of terror. Therefore, nothing exists in us. but, lately time and space would best describe nothing.
So the idea of nothing in itself is the reality that it does exist. Therefore, for nothing to exist, we had to be born.
ChrisWatch 1 year ago
@ChrisWatch we had to be born to fulfill the duties, that our universe, and reality could be possible in balance.
But, for it to be possible, means we had to be born to create nothing. But, we cannot create nothing. Which shows that nothing exists because it is of nothing. SO we think of nothing as a negative to what does exist. That itself shows that nothing does exist. But, not in a physical way or "see with eyes" way. It exists because we understood it. Not because it is.
ChrisWatch 1 year ago
@ChrisWatch Any tiny shred of existence/reality in "past or future" that can evolve in itself, must be the universe itself. Therefore, it has always been and always will. For where it came was the notion that nothing "exists" and therefire, nothing and exist collided into eachother and ripped and exploded and became one in nature and devided itself with nothing.
Existence was always there. We just grew into it like a sperm hitting the egg.
ChrisWatch 1 year ago
Comment removed
ChrisWatch 1 year ago
mind fuck
DiSz1MeXi 2 years ago 2
we exist because some1 or something wants us 2 or dreams us 2
smiler263291 2 years ago
Panpiper
What makes you think you exist to begin with? :D
sdrs85 2 years ago
Sure, the existence of gods/ goddesses/ demons/ trolls/ unicorns may exist simply because they can. But what relevance do they have in This universe/existence? Were the nature of their existence to be applied to This existence, which we know to be bound by the laws of nature, their "supernatural" activities (humans have defined the existence of unicorns to be horses with horns; god as having self-contradicting natures) would not be carried out. Thus, prayer, and heavenly mandates do not work.
ASTCify 2 years ago
Thus, the god as described in the bible, quran, and other scriptures may exist because they can, but they have no relevance in this universe.
And this has been proven: pi is not 3, even though the bible says so.
The earth is not a circle, with edges, on pillars, even such can exist, such does not exist in a universe such as ours that adheres to laws of nature.
Therefore, the scriptures are not absolute in their authority and legitimacy, and we conclude...
ASTCify 2 years ago
... that it is not logical, rational, and practical to use these "holy" scriptures as guidelines for humanity.
The last time we went by religious text? We had the Dark Ages.
If you argue that because the JudeoChristian god, or the Islamic god exist because they can, then their "divine" authorities upon humanity (there are over 3000 versions of god(s)) conflict with each other.
Truth is, if we dwell in a world governed by natural laws, then there is no soul, and so there is no afterlife.
ASTCify 2 years ago
God is existence.
Scorner99 2 years ago
you are indeed correct if you state that everything that we can think of, must exist. but this does not mean it exist in a physical form in this universe. it can also exist within our imagination, which does not mean it doesn't exist, but at the same time does also not mean it is real.
we can think of pink winged rabbits with a snake for a tongue. this is because we know tje colour pink, we know wings, we know rabbits, we know tongues, and we know snakes. this does not mean this rabbit is real.
jursle 2 years ago
"It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist. " I must agree. The only thing impossible within existence is nonexistence. Saying something does not exist makes no sense, because you have a term for referring to that something, and while referring to it you likely have a concept of it. How can you observe and get a concept of something that does not exist?! How can it affect you directly or indirectly?
kurogogyou 2 years ago
My philosophy is
unobserved the universe is infinite possibility and observed it if finite experience.
nothing itself is somthing so everything exists
indigoskrubz 2 years ago
Although we ought to trust our senses, all our experience in existence springing forth from non-existence is limited at best and therefor not enough to make a universal claim about what can and can not be done.
In fact if we turn to science, energy can form from nothing for a very short time.
newexperiment 2 years ago
You're probably awesome when you're drunk.
LBLlama 2 years ago
Are these actually your views or are they the views of the piece of paper that your reading from beside the camera LOL.
UndefeatedArmy09 2 years ago
We look at things from a finite perspective, we live in a world of cause and effect, therefore we assume that everything must have had a creator. Maybe it's just inconceivable to the human mind, but I have a very hard time thinking that our EXISTENCE came from nothing, or what expanded into the universe was just THERE. That's just impossible, because if you say that, you are refusing to entertain the question of where that came from, and that equates to the God question. Both are roadblocks.
muslimsareanimalsV2 2 years ago
DiamondFistLincoln,
The big bang actually was an explosion of matter, but a very small one at that and it was a silent explosion.
The big theory postulates that 13.7 billion years ago, our Universe and all it's matter was packed into an extremely hot and dense state. It then expanded from this state into the cosmos we currently inhabit. The cooler cosmos made life possible. That's all
muslimsareanimalsV2 2 years ago
Keep in mind I'm not refuting what DiamondFistLincoln said, rather clarifying a few things. Remember DiamondFistLincoln, things like that can be interpreted differently so make sure you cover it from all angles. I think if people read up on what the Big Bang Theory actually is, they'll realize it was simply a start to this Universe, the cosmos we currently live in. It does not disprove any God, nor does it answer everything. People who try to do that from the big bang theory are doing it wrong.
muslimsareanimalsV2 2 years ago
If anything can exist, it must exist. That is pretty much what quantum physics states. If a quantum state is possible, then it will happen.
In the context of your video of course the question arises, what is your criterion for "can exist" ?
Have a nice day, and THX for your posts.
silk
;-))
blacksilkblacksilk 2 years ago
why is the universe so fucking ugly is what i always wondered.
AEVautomatic 2 years ago
I think you answered the question later on in your post. Anything can exist if the absolute properties for it to exist are already there and the properties themselves allow it to exist. That's how it exists, get it?
Any number of users besides me could have posted here, yet none of their posts exist, yet COULD because they COULD exist! But mine does exist, but it CAN and in a few seconds WILL exist! There is infinite number of possibilities.
muslimsareanimalsV2 2 years ago
Another way of putting it, I suppose, is why do we start from this position of nonexistence and ask how things came from it when we haven't (and couldn't I don' t think) find evidence of nonexistence... existing, as it were. Perhaps its a bias from the process of looking at things as coming from other things, when really most of our experience is of things changing each other. A sculpture doesn't come from a sculpter, he molds clay and fires it or chisels rock and then we call that a sculpture.
Valefarous 2 years ago
Continued @MJL
Which is to treat concepts(like numbers and abstractions), like concretes(independent existences), when they are not independent, they are dependent upon a mind to create and use.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
no, you clown. we observe their existence.
i cant believe you would argue that, i have better thing to do then school you
MitchellJohnLeard 2 years ago
@MJL
Your continued need to resort to childish insults is very telling about the erroneous nature of your position.
If you are to claim numbers exist independently, and humans only observe their existence, where does the number 23,777 exist independently in nature?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
if there is something that exist now, then there must always of existed something,
if any thing is moving now, then there must of been a first mover, that was unmoved and put motion into action.
once you begin to grasp the ontological arguments for theism, it is very hard to escape back to atheism
MitchellJohnLeard 2 years ago
@MitchellJohnLeard
The problem with you Theists, is that you don't seem to realise that what always existed, was existence itself.
Existence as a conceptual whole is eternal, and because of this, your God is unneeded, and irrelevant.
Theists, because of their evolutionary programming o be superstitious, refuse to start with existence, and the fact of reality, but instead, wish to go beyond existence, to an invisible magic God being that created it all. This is invalid metaphysics.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@Dhorpatan
you follow me around like a bad smell.
when anyone refers to the universe, they refer to the space-time reality.
it is you who includes absolutely everything in the word universe. i don't know whether your ignorant or just stupid.
and that video is coming soon
MitchellJohnLeard 2 years ago
@MitchellJohnLeard
Well first off, your personal attacks were unnecessary and childish. If would me more mature and respectable if you stick to the topic of contention. Secondly, the Universe is supported by several credible sources as EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. These are available upon request.
And third, nothing you said abnegated the fact that your views and positions are wrong, since you cannot go beyond existence, to an immaterial mind, for the answer to a first cause, prime mover.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@
Dhorpatan
are you arguing that the time-space arena is eternally existing?
MitchellJohnLeard 2 years ago
@MJL
No. My initial objection was to your assertion that "there must always of existed something,".
And the answer is, EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTED. To say otherwise, violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Thus, your made up God is irrelevant, null, and void.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@Dhorpatan
i argue god always existed and was the first unmoved mover.
Now what is it that you argue always existed? what part of existence is eternal? do you believe that the time-space reality is eternal?
MitchellJohnLeard 2 years ago
@MJL
Existence as a conceptual whole is eternal.
Your God cannot be eternal, since a "THING" cannot be eternal.
A thing, is something that exists independently, and distinguished from something else. Time applies to all things necessarily. So your God cannot be eternal, since it would imply an actual temporal Infinity, which is impossible.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@Dhorpatan
are you saying that there is not THING that can exist eternally?
what about numerical values such as the number 7 and abstract objects such a the properties of squares, these are necessary THINGS that do not exist from causal relations, nothing caused them to exist,
and by definition of God, one of its attributes is eternalness
MitchellJohnLeard 2 years ago
"these are necessary THINGS that do not exist from causal relations, nothing caused them to exist,"
^^^Sure something caused them to exist. Humans did. Humans created numbers and other abstractions.
That type of response is a typical Christian fallacy, identified in Objectivism as the fallacy of the floating abstraction, and commonly as the fallacy of hypostatization.
continued....
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Bravo!
TomSaunders89 2 years ago
A non-existing "thing" does not take up space. We do not point to a position in space and then list all the things of non-existance which are taking up (or more like not-taking up) this space.
Everytime we point to something that isn't there and say "look, at the lack of that thing" - we are illustrating non-existance.
Non-existance exists within our world of existance. It takes up no room, so it can (and does) readily co-exist with existance.
Non-existance does exist.
roidroid 2 years ago
"Non-existence exists within our world of existence."
You are of course perfectly correct. There does not exist a purple unicorn behind my computer screen. But if it were possible for such a unicorn to exist behind my computer screen, there would exist a universe in which such a purple unicorn exists behind my computer screen (it would have to be a very small unicorn). I assumed multiverse to be implicit in my essay. That was an error.
Panpiper 2 years ago
@Panpiper Non-existance can exist ONLY at a conceptual level because we can determine if smth exists or not by first proposing that thing in question. And concepts, exists only when minds exist therefore, non-existence in natural world does not exist, but merely in our puny heads.
McNistor 1 year ago
@Panpiper,
Existence exists, it is a concept
Nonexistence is without a referrent. NON is a set theory term. The set of those things that does not exist is not a set, since to be a member of a set an object must exist.
Nonexistence is gibberish.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr But surely to assume set theory "makes sense to us", or set theory "is correct" means accepting that we exist in the first place to allow ourselves to come up with set theory. So we're missing a postulate here somewhere I think...
jewbinson 9 months ago
@jewbinson,
The statement "makes sense to us" does not prove we exist, it assumes it. I see no problem in that. To prove we exist is done seperate to that statement. "I pee, therefore I am". I cannot pee if I do not exist.
1 truth about an object proves that object exists. Existence exists, because we have many truths for the concept existence, including "existence is a concept".... which is not possible if existence does not exist.
gklr 9 months ago
@gklr I get the view point "I pee, therefore I am", but I'm not convinced by it. It is still based on logic which we accept, but that doesn't make it "true".
jewbinson 9 months ago
@jewbinson,
We assume a lot of things in any truth statement. When we say something is true or false, it comes with that baggage (axioms etc...) for any truth and for any belief. All truths are "...given such and such assumption...".
gklr 9 months ago
@roidroid - Just as friendly Devil's Advocate... a thought or dream is the experiential product of neural chemical synapse within the brain, yet not a structural atomic object that would describe the subjective experience. But as a "thing" in and of itself, the thought or dream occupies no space.
marcopolo2001 1 year ago
@roidroid - (cont'd) Maybe we don't have the words to accurately describe "existence". Maybe the concept is so abstruse that we can only try to define what "non-existence" is not. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that "it" is devoid of all matter, energy and consciousness assets. The "it" is a linguistic direct object imperative that does not necessarily reflect reality, but only our ability to try to describe things.
marcopolo2001 1 year ago
Comment removed
marcopolo2001 1 year ago
@marcopolo2001 i think i see your point.
A hard drive does not loose or gain weight or mass when information is stored on it, or when that information is scrambled.
Information itself has no mass or physical presence that you can refine, then hold up and say to someone "this is information". Matter and/or energy are already in existence in the universe, and information is merely a specific arrangement of that "physical stuff".
I guess a relevant subject is entropy.
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid - I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, since it's hard to have an opinion on these types of subjects (for me, at least). I think that matter and energy are semantically different from information, because information is an interpretation of something, whether real or imaginary. I don't see how entropy fits into your extrapolation of my response. Please explain. Regards....
marcopolo2001 1 year ago
@marcopolo2001 What makes up our identity is our brain, a physical organ. However it's perhaps possible for our identity to be transferred into another vessel, ie: mind uploading. The brain as we knew it would be no-longer required. Thus identity is not a brain, but the INFORMATION stored on the brain - the pattern that makes your brain "you".
Put that brain in a blender, increase it's ENTROPY, scramble the pattern of atoms. The atoms remain but now the "you pattern" has been lost forever.
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid,
Words and meanings have no "physical stuff". They are metaphysical, outside of physics.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr the concepts of words and meanings, and the words and meanings themselves, ONLY EXIST in our heads - and our heads are made of physical stuff.
ergo: words and meanings require physical stuff and are thus ultimately at the mercy of the laws of physics and nothing else (psychology --> neurobiology --> biochemistry --> physics).
Can you think of any way to create, manipulate & store words, meanings & ideas that doesn't require a physical universe? Nothing can "exist" metaphysically alone.
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid,
Words, meanings, language, logic, numbers etc, concepts like existence, have no physical location. It is false to say they exist "in our head". If they had a physical location we could not say that 1+1=2 or that any equation is equal to any other. The reason is because if they were physically in our head they could not be equal to the same equation in someone elses head. It would violate Liebnizs Law that A=B if and ohly of all that is true for A is true for B.
gklr 1 year ago
@roidroid,
Yes mind is brain dependent, but that doesn't mean we are referring to a physical object when we talk about what existence or logic or math is.
"Nothing can "exist" metaphysically alone."
Agreed and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. All concepts are brain dependent, so far. That is why one of these comments was rather odd, when what was being talked about was information stored on a computer when no such thing can happen. Computers are physical only, information isn't.
gklr 1 year ago
@roidroid,
Computers store on/off sequences that we interpet as informative. There are no words in any book or library. No numbers in any computer. Ink spots are not words, they refer to words. Just as sound is not a word and when we speak we use that sound to refer to a word with meaning. The word is not the ink spot or the mumbles we make anymore than a car is the word or sound "car".
We interpet pixels to have meaning and only via that interpetation do they mean anything.
gklr 1 year ago
How can you agree that all concepts are brain dependent, but disagree that they exist "in our head"?
Can you explain again the bit about Leibniz's law? (i wikied it, and don't understand quite how it's relevant to our physical real world).
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid,
We need a brain to have thoughts yes. Numbers would be a good example of things that exist only by way of thought. The number 1 is not a physical item and does not exist inside your brain.
Liebnizs Law has no application to the physical world and that was in part my point. It's only application is with abstract objects, only they can be equal.
If the number 1 existed in your head, it could not equate the number 1 in mine. 1 does not equal1, if they exist in our heads.
gklr 1 year ago
Can our brains truly fathom pure concepts? They can only work with "good enough" neural approximations* (unique per individual, thus bypassing Leibniz's law no?). Allas this means that all human thought is full of continual unseen errors.
*These approximations (eg: concepts like the "number one") exist solely as a property of a mind, (ie: of a physical brain). Can a property of an object exist without any physical record or evidence of it? Simmers down to "If a tree falls in a forest" no?
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid,
"Can our brains truly fathom pure concepts?"
Sure, we do it everyday. 1+1=2 is conceptual.
"unique per individual, thus bypassing Leibniz's law no?"
Not if the truth that 1+1=2 exists physically in your head and physically in mine. Then my truth does not equate yours, as something can be said true about yours that is not true about mine.
Materialism dies with Liebnizs Law. Obviously there is beyond the physical, we have abstract concepts as well that exist and are real.
gklr 1 year ago
Dude, you are lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps. Circular reasoning.
Intiminator99 2 years ago
Circular reasoning implies the assumption of truth in a first premise that assumes the truth of the conclusion. The only first premise I make in my question is that existence exists. Do you debate this as unfounded?
Panpiper 2 years ago
I meant that your first premise postulates that at one time there was nothing and then there was something. How does one know there was ever nothing? Of course we could be butting heads with semantics. I do hear what you are saying. I'm just saying the first assumption is not any kind of truth at all. A starting point yes, but a contrived starting point. So if your starting point is false your ending point will also be false. Unless by shear chance you end with truth w/out sequence
Intiminator99 2 years ago
Perhaps listen to the opening again. I did not state such as a premise, instead I stated it as a question; "Can it be that something can spring from nothing?" I then follow my reasoning to assert that there cannot be such a condition of non-existence. Admittedly, my opening was not very clear.
Panpiper 2 years ago
You are just thinking too much. We know that this is wrong.
ej1041 2 years ago
"Existance exists because it can"
Wherever in the whole universe there may be suitable conditions, life will exist.
Let us hope that Gliese 581 d have this conditions.
raonipaes 2 years ago
Hahaha Dr. Seuss on crack. :p
No, but he does really have a good point. You can tell he thought about this a lot. I actually agree with him now that I think about it. The universe goes on forever, therefore if something CAN exist, it must somewhere.
darxide88 3 years ago
if one looks at the reality of nature from a higher dimension starting from fourth perhaps... i don't like to use the word "dimension" from the limitations, but it best describes energy from a higher level of space/time, with mathimatical consistancy.
one could see beyond the framework of finite interactions.. thus examine the reciprocal flow of energy interacting within/out itself, instaneously and infinitely.. thus existence does exist.
arithaul 3 years ago
The Big Bang actually doesn't claim that nothing gave rise to something. The Big Bang theory, which is largely accepted by many theists as well as atheists within the science community and without only claims that the Universe began with an explosion of matter that was present. Science does not yet claim to know where the matter came from and never has.
DiamondFistLincoln 3 years ago
Must it exist physically or can it only exist in our imaginations?
For instance can a universe exist within a universe that exists inside a small piece of tungsten residing in the anus of a non conductive eel that is invisible only in the ultra violet spectrum and can only travel sideways through time stuck in its own moment.
I think the word existence is too limited. Perhaps you could try learning Greek. There are far richer words in that vocabulary to help you on your philosophical quest
MuXBoX 3 years ago
We have absolutely no way of knowing if our Universe is contained completely inside the atom of some other Universe. We've seen pretty far out but I don't think we've seen any walls to our Universe. I agree that existence is almost obsolete in some philosophical discussions and I also note that I wasn't arguing with the video but the previous comment.
I'd love to learn Greek, unfortunately I'm only adept at learning programming languages.
DiamondFistLincoln 3 years ago
Comment removed
xtremetrooper123 3 years ago
And i am somewhat confused as to whether you are a Christian, Agnostic or Atheist? because this video sounded a bit like "If a wood chuck could chuck wood, how much wood could a wood chuck chuck".
blade004 3 years ago
And you say "the glib answer with those from little imagination". You just proved the Christian point that religion is based on pure imagination and imagination as to how things happened is not a good enough theory which is all it is, a simple "theory" that God created the heavens and the earth. The main issue we as Atheists have is how religion is distorted and is used as mass manipulation to serve many doctrines hell bent of being the "right" religion to gain power over others.
blade004 3 years ago
This is the ONLY argument Christians can EVER give for a "proof" of a God, but its not that Atheists are trying to refute the existence of a God, its just there there is not "enough" evidence to sustain a belief for us, so its not that we don't "want" to believe, we just simply "cannot" based on the ridiculous statements within the Bible, its cruelties, its contradictions and the Christian reverence for an Apocalypse is just plain sickening.
A creator who created but needed its own creator?
blade004 3 years ago
What if existance existed before existance. would that therefore imply that there was pre-existance? And if there was pre-existance does that not mean that this was existance at the time. From this doesn't there seem to be an underlying paattern that existance is infinite; an ever-beggining and never-ending cycle?
djdejan72 3 years ago
Cute, but why can't a "God" have created "existence" i know it's silly, but if things like gravity, DDR, breast implants, Hugh Grant, Statistical Analysis and Pong exist and are derivative, why can't "existence" derive from some pre-existence?
There is no book that says yes or no on authority save those claiming to be written by a god of some sort. Setting aside our cultural standards for credibility (scientific, structured, prose, organized and exhaustive) is there weigh in their weigh?
lolinate 3 years ago
Your stuck in a linear mind set who's logic exhibits its own failure.
IF pre- existence created existence what created pre-existence?
You logic is stuck in a loop, it's not the way to look at the problem.
smudge6699 3 years ago
why try to figure this shit out ? if there is a god or not, doesnt seem to matter much. there are far more important issues to solve that can be solved and make a difference. If we did prove the existence of god what good would it do? people would still kill over who is right. once we live without conflict we will realize the silliness of this talk. religion and the battle over god is stupid and if we keep up with this separation of humanity and nature, the future of humanity is over.
theoryac 3 years ago
or does existence exist to the extent that existence can exist to be existance. And was there ever nothing. wouldent nothing be existenc any ways since theres a mer word for the existance of nothing to exist in existence. even if there was no existence it would still be existence to have nothing to exist to be non existence. And i know i sound like a dummy. and i know nothing i said made sense but it was fun to think of
junichiroe 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
god is legit. i like him. he is real. i know htis because god could just as eaasily be thinking mohamed does not exist but he would be wrong. and that is impossible because he is always right. because he is perfect. therefore, both me and god exist. QED
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
Existence exists doesn't explain anything. What follows also doesn't make any sense. If it can exist, it must exist? What if it can't exist? Does existence account for those things as well? I would argue that it is existence that is secondary to a perspective which in itself isn't relying upon that which exists, rather existence relies on some sort of infinite perspective. To talk about the perspective as existing doesn't make any sense though. It is that which is perceived that exists.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Existence doesn't require an explanation. It just happens. If you live your life contemplating whether things exist or not then you are way to inside your head to realize what is going on around you.
But for argument's sake: If I could break down this guys philosophy into my own words. I would say "Everything has an origin." Claiming non-existense of something is the same thing as dividing by zero. You cannot not divide an object in space and time into 0 parts; you must start with a part.
Kingnaster74 3 years ago
"It just happens" is an explanation, and a very poor one. I occasionally take time to ponder the deep questions, but I spend much more time enjoying life, thanks for the concern. As for claiming the non-existence of something, we do it all of the time. But we use additional terms like probable or improbable to address the issue more empirically and less philosophically. There is nothing wrong with that. As for dividing something by zero, divide an infinite set by zero and see what you get.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Also, the reason I brought up perspective in my first comment is because I do realize what is going on around me. I realize this because I perceive.
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Huh what did you say? Sorry but your used car salesmanesq speach caused me to nod off and then you were done. I guess I'll watch it again tonight if I have trouble sleeping. zzzzzzzzz!
GHLemaitre 3 years ago
we only see time as running in one direction and that is because it is how we r living it.therefore it is easy for us 2 accept that existence will exist forever but it is harder for us 2 accept that existence of anythin has always existed. so for all of you who want to know how it all begin, it didnt begin because it has always been
another thing existence is restricted only to wat we know is possible. it is only through the knowledge of the existence of something that anything is able to exist
Bendigo888 3 years ago
How can existence not exist? That's the most oxymoronic thing I ever heard.
merle234 3 years ago
Hey mr. philosopher how about you consult some of the modern discoveries,it might enlighten you.Have you heard about the big bang,yes it is that little thing that hapened 13.7 billion years ago,and guess what was before?Nothing.That kinda blows away your argument.What you don't understand that there is a limit in that logic can be used,you can't aplly it to all like existence and god.For example:if god created everything including what you call logic,it doesn't necessarily submit to it.
BogdaNO88 3 years ago
At least if there is God, you know what the rules are, and what you are doing here.
With evolution, you dont know why you are here, are random, make the rules yourself and offer no future hope to anyone other than the universe will contract at the end of time and we'll all be dead. That doesnt sound simpler to me.
aa90000000 3 years ago
*slaps head with palm*
I'm sorry to reply so long after your original comment, but that was one of the stupider things I've read.
He obviously meant logically simpler, not "simpler for a person to use to feel good about their life".
If you make decisions based on what you think in nice-sounding, fine. But you can't expect anyone intellectual to care what you say.
MishaVargas 3 years ago
For all the atheists out there, how did the big bang exist? An explosion which came out of gases that were "just there."
This sounds a bit like saying "God was just there". Both these things are faiths at the end of the day. You have to believe that they existed. It seems to me that evolution raises more questions. Nothing -> big bang (somehow) -> throw in some time...->planet earth-> me! Wow! That takes a lot of belief.
aa90000000 3 years ago
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum"
A universe which simply exists is simpler than a universe existing in addition to a God.
EdgarBoffin 3 years ago 4
something or even everything existed forever but in different forms.. no start no end . hows that?
farerse 3 years ago
I agree. If there is any god out there, it is a programmer with limitations and we are the programs. So basically, we are part of a computerized Universe and not real, but think we a re real, that is the closest thing in my opinion, that can be considered, a god. Perhaps the programmer created religion, prophets in order to through us off from knowing the truth? This can explain how our universe supposably grows, that the programmer is improving our universe and we may never know what truth is.
VulcanXL 3 years ago
test
piecharthosen 3 years ago
-1-
I subscribe to the belief ("Science" does not know what event started the expansion of space we call the big bang) that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and so the events dealing with time and causality with the universe before a certain point in our timeline are meaningless from a scientific and causal perspective.
That said, that doesn't make your question of existence meaningless. Of course if the big bang happened as I believed it, objectively existence is an eternal concept.
piecharthosen 3 years ago
-2-
Existence takes different sementic points and it was pointed out that you didn't really define it. I will try a few definitions to see which you like.
The first is as an attribute (wikipedia uses the term predicate). Things 'are'. I 'am'. This is a perfectly fine defintion as existence of something must convey a concept to it (hilariously to me, existence can be seen as an attribute). This does nothing to help the issue so i will move on.
piecharthosen 3 years ago
I agree that to postulate existence of the universe by pointing to a creator ('God') is not a good enough solution. When I was younger, I attempted to define God by virtue of a creator that was before time, and possibly beyond the universe. The sheer amount of doublethink I had to do made such a 'proof' (more like delusion) short lived. God would have to be a paradox of causality and also would violate the concept of infinity as a conceptual notion rather than a physical concept.
piecharthosen 3 years ago