• daniel j lavender
    29
    "Existence Is Infinite"


    Abstract

    Existence is infinite, existence is not bound as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.


    Terms and Definitions

    Existence (n.): Being; that which can be observed or is observed all around, that which can be interacted with in some way. That which allowed the ability to conceive such a concept of such a term. In context of this essay, all that exists, all or everything as a whole.

    Infinite (adj.): Immeasurable; vast; unlimited or unrestricted.

    Nonexistence (n.): Non-being; nothing, nothingness; can never be observed or interacted with other than as a term or concept; it itself does not actually exist. An erroneous and contradictory concept.

    Consciousness (n.): Awareness; a chemical-energy process allowing feedback of existence. Made possible by existence.

    Intelligence (n.): Recognition of patterns in existence and their application for some benefit. Made possible by consciousness/existence.

    Space (n.): Immaterial medium; place, area, volume or position which matter or energy could occupy or be transmitted through. Absence of space signifies presence of matter or energy.

    Thing (n.): An existing, material or immaterial; a part of existence. That which can be observed or interacted with in some way. E.g. a word, an object, space, matter, energy, consciousness, a concept, an event, a process, etc.

    Eternity (n.): Synonymous with existence; eternal phenomena or phenomena ultimately not limited by duration. That which is neither created nor destroyed.


    ---

    Existence exists and nonexistence does not exist.

    Existence exists because nonexistence does not exist.

    Existence is everywhere. Nothing is nowhere. Nothing does not exist, it is no thing. Every thing is something, including space.

    Existence did not begin as a "beginning of existence" would imply a previous state of nonexistence, and nonexistence does not and did not exist. For example, the Big Bang required some sort of catalyst or environment to facilitate it.

    Furthermore existence is not "creation". "Creation" implies a point of being created, a beginning point. Existence would not be "creation" because existence had no beginning point or point of creation.

    Existence is eternal, it was not "created" and therefore was not "intelligently designed". However, existence does concern intelligence as we possess it. At least to a certain degree.

    Existence is eternal. Existence did not begin and existence will not end. Existence was not created, it was not intelligently designed, it is not "needed" and it has no "purpose". Existence just is. We, as conscious individuals, create "purpose". Much like we create "good" and "bad", "right" and "left", "up" and "down".

    Existence is infinite, however, our limited perspective creates an illusion of limitation. From this perspective we are inclined to create measurements of existence although existence is essentially immeasurable.

    Existence is infinite; infinite things in infinite places in infinite ways; things bursting and flying, floating and flowing, flipping and flopping, beating and bouncing, whizzing and whirling around. Life, consciousness, is simply a result of that and isn't necessarily sustained or eternal. Nor was it necessarily deliberately created. The "right" things just happened to come together in precisely the "right" way to allow it. After all we're just beating, pumping hearts, flowing blood, blinking eyes, waving hair and bouncing feet.

    We are parts of eternity.

    We are parts of existence.

    ---

    Further Notes

    - Existence is not needed. Existence is not needed as there is nothing beyond existence to need or require it. Existence is not needed, existence just is.

    - Nothing/Nonexistence does not actually exist. Nothing has no properties or qualities because it does not exist. Space does exist. Space has properties or qualities, for example, space is voluminous, space is accommodating, space is immaterial. Further space can be interacted with. Space can be transferred. When an object is moved into an empty space, the empty space is then transferred to the position said object previously occupied. The space, like the object, was transferred; space was interacted with. Nothing cannot be interacted with because it does not actually exist.
  • Banno
    5.6k
    Nothing is nowheredaniel j lavender

    But I have nothing in my back account.
  • daniel j lavender
    29


    You mean you have no funds in your bank account?

    You should still have "$0.00", or zeros, or digits in your bank account representing that you have no funds. In other words your account would still contain information.

    Wouldn't that be something rather than nothing?

    Often when we use the term "nothing" it's actually in reference to something, we just mean we have none of what is being referenced. But that isn't the same as "nothing", exactly.
  • karl stone
    430
    I thought atoms were mostly empty space, and that 96% of the universe was missing.
  • prothero
    215
    I can not make any sense of the concept being put forward here (help anyone).
  • karl stone
    430
    I can not make any sense of the concept being put forward here (help anyone).prothero

    The OP is a defense of metaphysics before epistemology. Heidegger was obsessed with 'being' - and considered it a fundamental concept. I don't. I think truth is fundamental. Hence my rebuttal of the idea that 'existence is everywhere' with reference to scientific facts. This example shows clearly how metaphysics is merely parsing language, and not reality.
  • daniel j lavender
    29


    Empty space is still part of existence, it is still existent just like the atom and does not serve to limit existence.

    "96% of the universe is missing" is a rather confounding statement to me. How could it be "missing"? Wouldn't it have to be accounted for before it could go missing? And where did it go? What does this even mean?

    Additionally the philosophy put forth here is not limited to the term or idea "universe", thus the use of the term "existence".

    Following the premise of your statement, if part of the universe is indeed "missing" it must have went somewhere, and that somewhere would have to be another area of existence.
  • Kippo
    131
    What are the implications of "existence is infinite"?
  • MindForged
    763
    OP is nothing but arguments by what look like dictionary definitions as well as repeated affirmations of things not argued for and by using sloppy language. Prime examples being:

    Existence exists and nonexistence does not exist.

    Existence exists because nonexistence does not exist.

    Existence is everywhere. Nothing is nowhere. Nothing does not exist, it is no thing. Every thing is something, including space.

    Existence did not begin as a "beginning of existence" would imply a previous state of nonexistence, and nonexistence does not and did not exist. For example, the Big Bang required some sort of catalyst or environment to facilitate it.
    daniel j lavender

    I mean if you try using the definition of existence given from the seeming dictionary definition OP gave, these assertions are rendered as "That which is observed is observed because that which is not observed is not observed". What this is supposed to communicate about the meaning and implications of existence, I do not know. It's not giving me a real understanfing of what you think existence is. It's like using the word "true" in your definition of truth.

    Further, existence having a beginning does not imply there was a state of so called non-existence beforehand. That's a logical doozy because it contradicts itself, but not in the way OP intended. It can easily mean there was a first moment of time. There's no "before" a first moment because "before" is a temporal concept, and clearly someone positing a first moment of existence is not positing a time before time. That's just dumb.

    Existence is infinite, however, our limited perspective creates an illusion of limitationdaniel j lavender

    You do not give an arguments for this at all, this reads almost like an ideological affirmation. And I'm someone who thinks some aspects of reality may well be infinite in a sense. But I've no clue why you think anything is infinite, you're just telling us it is.
  • prothero
    215
    The OP is a defense of metaphysics before epistemology. Heidegger was obsessed with 'being' - and considered it a fundamental concept. I don't. I think truth is fundamental. Hence my rebuttal of the idea that 'existence is everywhere' with reference to scientific facts. This example shows clearly how metaphysics is merely parsing language, and not reality.karl stone

    Actually it was the OP I couldn't make any sense of. The fact that atoms are mostly space, and particles are really transitory events and the missing universe are all very sensible. The purpose of speculative philosophy (metaphysics) as I understand it is to precisely develop concepts to help us talk about and think about our experience of the world.
  • Valentinus
    496
    Existence exists and nonexistence does not exist.daniel j lavender

    Death, look into it. It exists.
  • daniel j lavender
    29


    I am simply asserting that existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration, that there is nothing other than existence, and that we are parts of existence.
  • daniel j lavender
    29
    if you try using the definition of existence given from the seeming dictionary definition OP gave, these assertions are rendered as "That which is observed is observed because that which is not observed is not observed". What this is supposed to communicate about the meaning and implications of existence, I do not know.MindForged

    Actually the implication is closer to "that which exists can be observed because it exists, and that which does not exist cannot be observed because it does not exist".

    That which does not exist cannot be observed (or interacted with). That which does exist can be.

    It's not giving me a real understanfing of what you think existence is. It's like using the word "true" in your definition of truth.MindForged

    As stated above, my points are fairly straightforward. I am asserting that existence is infinite in extent, and eternal in duration. I am also asserting that we are parts of existence.

    Furthermore existence is being. It's difficult to get much simpler than that while remaining coherent. You must keep in mind that human language has its limits. Many things are difficult, some things nearly impossible, to describe with words. This could be viewed as a demonstration of the human brain's limited abilities and the limitations of its concepts.

    Further, existence having a beginning does not imply there was a state of so called non-existence beforehand. That's a logical doozy because it contradicts itself, but not in the way OP intended. It can easily mean there was a first moment of time. There's no "before" a first moment because "before" is a temporal concept, and clearly someone positing a first moment of existence is not positing a time before time. That's just dumb.MindForged

    The idea of a "beginning of existence", or a "first moment of time" suggests that existence just began. How would you explain that? It is essentially a something-from-nothing premise. ("No before" essentially implies nothing.)

    How does something, how does time, just come about? This must be explained.

    How does existence "just begin"?

    Eternal existence requires no such explanation. If existence always existed there would be no event, there would be no occurrence requiring explanation.

    Eternal existence is the simpler explanation. Eternal existence always exists, it does not just pop into being. Eternal existence passes Occam's Razor as it is the simpler explanation of the two. Existence "just coming about" requires further explanation, it concerns a more complicated premise and by extension a more complicated explanation to support it.
  • Banno
    5.6k
    Existence exists and nonexistence does not exist.daniel j lavender

    I'll come out and say what others are thinking: this is nonsense.
  • daniel j lavender
    29


    Nonexistence is not the same as death. Death is the breaking down of a living organism, it is the cessation of vital faculties. Death could be viewed as a process or event. Nonexistence is not a process or event; nonexistence is non-existing, it does not exist.
  • MindForged
    763
    Actually the implication is closer to "that which exists can be observed because it exists, and that which does not exist cannot be observed because it does not exist".

    That which does not exist cannot be observed (or interacted with). That which does exist can be.
    daniel j lavender

    No no, you were giving a definition of existence and then the implications you drew from it seemed incoherent. You quoted a definition saying existence regards things which can be observed and then you said "Existence exists", whatever that means (sounds trivial) and I found any subsequent points to be gibberish.

    Think about it, if "that which exists can be observed because it exists" is elucidating anything, it's that things which exist are observable (and indeed, you outright say this in the above quote). But this a borderline untenable position that I hopefully don't need to explain much (just consider so-called "unobservables" in scientific models, or even just extremely distant objects that no observer will ever see).

    As stated above, my points are fairly straightforward. I am asserting that existence is infinite in extent, and eternal in duration. I am also asserting that we are parts of existence.daniel j lavender

    Oh I know you're saying this, but you aren't actually arguing for it. Even in your OP you don't really provide a logical throughline for thinking existence is infinite, you just misrepresent the idea of a finite past, as I'll show again in a moment.

    The idea of a "beginning of existence", or a "first moment of time" suggests that existence just began. How would you explain that? It is essentially a something-from-nothing premise. ("No before" essentially implies nothing.)

    How does something, how does time, just come about? This must be explained.

    How does existence "just begin"?
    daniel j lavender

    Explain what? If there was a first moment of time then t1 is the first state to exist and was not preceded by anything on pain of contradiction.

    I don't really see how an eternal view of things is somehow more parsimonious. In actual fact, it's infinitely more complicated because it posits an infinite chain of facts to explain one datum (that things exist) and so would in normal circumstances not have the high ground in simplicity. I'm not sure how it's in need of explanation anymore than an infinite past. In fact, the obvious contention against an infinite past is exactly why it is infinite. There's no logical necessity in the past being either finite or infinite specifically. The how question here is framed as if an infinite past is actually understood in full and thus need not explain itself.


    But all that aside, as in my earlier objection, the things your deriving from your notion of existence are practically incoherent and poorly phrased (please never again say "Existence exists", it sounds like objectivist nonsense...).
  • Purple Pond
    557
    I'm not sure about existence, but according to Einstein,"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  • Banno
    5.6k
    Feel free to elaborate.daniel j lavender

    Antigonish.
  • daniel j lavender
    29
    No no, you were giving a definition of existence and then the implications you drew from it seemed incoherent. You quoted a definition saying existence regards things which can be observed and then you said "Existence exists", whatever that means (sounds trivial) and I found any subsequent points to be gibberish.MindForged

    "Existence exists" simply means "existence is". "Nonexistence does not exist" simply means "nonexistence is not".

    Think about it, if "that which exists can be observed because it exists" is elucidating anything, it's that things which exist are observable (and indeed, you outright say this in the above quote). But this a borderline untenable position that I hopefully don't need to explain much (just consider so-called "unobservables" in scientific models, or even just extremely distant objects that no observer will ever see).MindForged

    I'm asserting that existence concerns that which can be observed or interacted with in some way, but doesn't necessarily need to be.

    Something that exists, anywhere, can hypothetically be observed, or at the very least, interacted with in some way, even if in casual discussion. That which does not exist cannot be observed or interacted with at all (hence nothing/nonexistence as a contradictory concept).

    These supposed "unobservables" provide a great example. We cannot observe them, but their existence is known, they exist, and we are able to interact with them, if only in discussion and scientific evaluation.

    Explain what? If there was a first moment of time then t1 is the first state to exist and was not preceded by anything on pain of contradiction.

    I don't really see how an eternal view of things is somehow more parsimonious. In actual fact, it's infinitely more complicated because it posits an infinite chain of facts to explain one datum (that things exist) and so would in normal circumstances not have the high ground in simplicity. I'm not sure how it's in need of explanation anymore than an infinite past. In fact, the obvious contention against an infinite past is exactly why it is infinite. There's no logical necessity in the past being either finite or infinite specifically. The how question here is framed as if an infinite past is actually understood in full and thus need not explain itself.
    MindForged

    If something, such as a "first moment", was not preceded by anything then that implies nothing preceded it.

    Nothing/Nonexistence couldn't possibly precede anything because it does not exist. In other words, it wouldn't really "be before". Your suggestion of a "no before" is indeed alluding to a "nothing before". That's nonexistence.

    To say existence began is to differentiate between existence and "something else". That something else would be nothing, or nonexistence. It's basically alluding to an alternative state and in turn a something-from-nothing premise. It's a magical claim. Something just coming about as if a magician performed some sophisticated magic trick. Poof! A bunny appears! We know such things are nonsensical. The rabbit obviously came from somewhere, it didn't just magically "poof" into existence.

    Again, how does stuff just "pop into being"? It's akin to saying energy simply comes about. We know that's nonsense. Energy must be derived from something, it must come from something. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only converted into different forms. It is the same with existence.

    "Existence just coming about" concerns an occurrence, it concerns an event. Where did the material for the physical universe/existence come from? What catalyzed such an event? How does such an event occur without any previous phenomena? You must explain this. Contrarily, if existence is eternal, it is understood that such things, matter and energy for example, have always existed, they simply change from one form to another. No origin, no beginning point is required and no such explanations are needed.

    I maintain eternal existence is a much simpler explanation than existence just popping into being like a rabbit at a magic show. Eternal existence is a much less magical explanation as well.
  • MindForged
    763
    Existence exists" simply means "existence is". "Nonexistence does not exist" simply means "nonexistence is not".daniel j lavender

    That doesn't explain anything. Is *what*? You're not linking anything to existence here, you're just saying there things which exist and things which don't. You haven't explained what those terms, what those predicates, actually mean. You're simply restating what they entail.

    I'm asserting that existence concerns that which can be observed or interacted with in some way, but doesn't necessarily need to be.daniel j lavender

    But there are things which could not be observed in any way. Unobservables are the obvious examples. We don't interact with them, we postulate them to explain certain data in our best theories.

    If something, such as a "first moment", was not preceded by anything then that implies nothing preceded it.

    Nothing/Nonexistence couldn't possibly precede anything because it does not exist. In other words, it wouldn't really "be before". Your suggestion of a "no before" is indeed alluding to a "nothing before". That's nonexistence.
    daniel j lavender

    You are doing the exact nonsensical thing I mentioned. People who say there is a first moment of time are not saying there was a state before the first moment and that state was nothing. That's the idiotic assessment of their view. There is no *before* the first moment any more than there is a north of the North Pole. It's just a category mistake, there could not be time before time, "before" is a temporal concept that can only be applied to temporal sequences. No one is suggesting there is a "nothing before" the first moment of time because "nothing" is not a state on pain of contradiction, for a state is itself something. It's saying there wasn't anything because there couldn't be.

    You are, hilariously enough, treating nothingness as if it were a state of affairs which is a clear contradiction.


    Again, how does stuff just "pop into being"? It's akin to saying energy simply comes about. We know that's nonsense. Energy must be derived from something, it must come from something. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only converted into different forms. It is the same with existence.daniel j lavender

    How does stuff persist forever when an infinite past would have long ago reduced the universe to a wasteland? Anyone can play these hypotheticals when we're jacking off about a matter that is poorly understood. You're extrapolating natural laws to explain the existence of the subject described by the natural laws. Not sure that's going to make sense.

    Where did the material for the physical universe/existence come from? What catalyzed such an event? How does such an event occur without any previous phenomena? You must explain this.daniel j lavender

    Begging the question. Asking "what material" and "where did it come from" are just importing the assumption of an infinite past into the framing of your question. Again, we know how things work once we have a universe, you cannot extrapolate that back as an explanation of why anything exists in the first place.
  • TheMadFool
    3.4k
    I am simply asserting that existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration, that there is nothing other than existence, and that we are parts of existence.daniel j lavender

    Ok. How do you know that?

    Are you from the future or are you clairvoyant?
  • daniel j lavender
    29
    That doesn't explain anything. Is *what*? You're not linking anything to existence here, you're just saying there things which exist and things which don't. You haven't explained what those terms, what those predicates, actually mean. You're simply restating what they entail.MindForged

    I am linking tangible, observable phenomena with existence. We are able to observe and interact with innumerable things and do so on a daily basis. That is undeniable.

    You seem uncertain about existence. You seem doubtful that things exist.

    To question existence, to question the very being of things we interact with and routinely observe is absurdity; to question that existence is, that things are, that things exist is, to say the least, an irrational extreme.

    But there are things which could not be observed in any way. Unobservables are the obvious examples. We don't interact with them, we postulate them to explain certain data in our best theories.MindForged

    By simply acknowledging "there are things which could not be observed in any way" you are giving such things reality. You are recognizing their existence.

    In order to postulate something its existence must be acknowledged, its existence must be observed in some way.

    You are doing the exact nonsensical thing I mentioned. People who say there is a first moment of time are not saying there was a state before the first moment and that state was nothing. That's the idiotic assessment of their view. There is no *before* the first moment any more than there is a north of the North Pole. It's just a category mistake, there could not be time before time, "before" is a temporal concept that can only be applied to temporal sequences. No one is suggesting there is a "nothing before" the first moment of time because "nothing" is not a state on pain of contradiction, for a state is itself something. It's saying there wasn't anything because there couldn't be.

    You are, hilariously enough, treating nothingness as if it were a state of affairs which is a clear contradiction.
    MindForged

    Declaring "no time", "no matter", "no space", "no motion", etc., is essentially declaring nothing, or nonexistence. What else would such be? Non-existing existence? Your premise simply does not make sense. You are declaring nothing while declaring it is not nothing. You are declaring a state that is not a state. Then declaring something just came about. Nonsense all the way around.

    I am claiming nothing, or nonexistence, does not exist, and that it is not a state because it does not exist.

    How does stuff persist forever when an infinite past would have long ago reduced the universe to a wasteland? Anyone can play these hypotheticals when we're jacking off about a matter that is poorly understood. You're extrapolating natural laws to explain the existence of the subject described by the natural laws. Not sure that's going to make sense.MindForged

    As stated above, the philosophy advanced here is not limited to the term "universe". This philosophy concerns the term "existence". For a reason.

    The universe is likely just a small piece of existence. Its contents could be affected by phenomena external to it, for example, reinvigorating or converting energy and its interactions to refresh its activity.

    As indicated in the original essay, our perspective is greatly limited. As you point out yourself, there are many things we can't even observe. To think we are able to estimate the true size of existence, even with advanced technologies, and actually comprehend it is incredibly arrogant.

    Begging the question. Asking "what material" and "where did it come from" are just importing the assumption of an infinite past into the framing of your question. Again, we know how things work once we have a universe, you cannot extrapolate that back as an explanation of why anything exists in the first place.MindForged

    Poof! Existence! Is too magical to be taken seriously. Furthermore, you have conveniently failed to adequately refute any of my arguments concerning energy, its dynamics and how they relate to an eternal, infinite existence.
  • daniel j lavender
    29


    I do not claim to know. I am asserting. I am sharing these thoughts and ideas here for argument in attempt to demonstrate their validity.

    Some things must be conjecture. If existence is infinite, if existence is eternal, we wouldn't possibly be able to measure it all in order to confirm it.
  • TheMadFool
    3.4k
    I do not claim to know. I am asserting. I am sharing these thoughts and ideas here for argument in attempt to demonstrate their validity.

    Some things must be conjecture. If existence is infinite, if existence is eternal, we wouldn't possibly be able to measure it all in order to confirm it.
    daniel j lavender

    Oh ok.

    Why do you think existence is infinite?

    You are right in the sense that matter and energy follow conservation laws (can neither be created nor destroyed). Is your argument based on this fact?

    But, what if there are a different set of laws governing the beginning of a universe? I'm basing this on the supposed fact that our universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Evidently, there was nothing, neither matter nor energy, before the Big Bang. How do you explain this, Or, are scientists wrong on this one?
  • MindForged
    763
    I am linking tangible, observable phenomena with existence. We are able to observe and interact with innumerable things and do so on a daily basis. That is undeniable.

    You seem uncertain about existence. You seem doubtful that things exist
    daniel j lavender

    No. I made no doubts that things exist. My point, which you didn't even attempt to address, was that you haven't given anything like a useful definition of existence. No one is doubting that there are things which exist, what I'm doubting is how you're going about defining that term.

    Declaring "no time", "no matter", "no space", "no motion", etc., is essentially declaring nothing, or nonexistence. What else would such be? Non-existing existence? Your premise simply does not make sense. You are declaring nothing while declaring it is not nothing. You are declaring a state that is not a state. Then declaring something just came about. Nonsense all the way around.daniel j lavender

    It's isn't anything. What I'm saying is that your intimation that people who suggest a first moment of existence are no suggesting there was a state of nothingness from which the first moment popped into being from. Its a contradiction, you know that. You're essentially begging the question in favor of your own position, namely that there was always some kind of state which is the very thing you're supposed to be arguing for. Even here you're attempting this despite thrice telling you that's not what is meant. It's disingenuous. It's not the suggestion that there was a state of non existence, but that there was no state at all because there wasn't anything.

    As stated above, the philosophy advanced here is not limited to the term "universe". This philosophy concerns the term "existence". For a reason.daniel j lavender

    Call it whatever you want. We understand the existing world, we do not have anything substantial to go on for ascertaining why anything exists. You tried making comparisons to thinking things popping into existence being absurd and suggesting it violates conservation of energy. These are facts about things within the existing world, not explanations for why reality exists.

    Poof! Existence! Is too magical to be taken seriously. Furthermore, you have conveniently failed to adequately refute any of my arguments concerning energy, its dynamics and how they relate to an eternal, infinite existence.daniel j lavender

    I can play this game too. "Oh, you believe in an infinite past? No explanation for the universe at all! Poof! Infinite regress of past explanations, magic!"

    Those are not arguments for an infinite past. This is exactly what I said you were doing. Those are descriptions of the universe, an existing thing. They do not provide an argument for why the universe exists at all.
  • AppLeo
    163
    I agree with everything you said except with the idea of existence being infinite. Existence is finite.
  • daniel j lavender
    29
    Why do you think existence is infinite?TheMadFool

    I assert existence is infinite because I see no evidence of nothing, I see no real evidence of nonexistence.

    Only nothing, or nonexistence could limit existence. Thus it is asserted, since nothing or nonexistence does not actually exist, existence is not limited. Existence is infinite.

    You are right in the sense that matter and energy follow conservation laws (can neither be created nor destroyed). Is your argument based on this fact?TheMadFool

    Yes, my philosophy is partially based on conservation laws.

    But, what if there are a different set of laws governing the beginning of a universe? I'm basing this on the supposed fact that our universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Evidently, there was nothing, neither matter nor energy, before the Big Bang. How do you explain this, Or, are scientists wrong on this one?TheMadFool

    How do scientists explain it? To me it simply does not make sense. How can something come from nothing? Seems a little too magical and incomplete.

    Scientists are limited due to scientific method. Science strives to measure things, to "handle" things in a more tangible way, if you will. This is why my ideas concern philosophy. This is why I express such ideas in philosophical circles. They are more abstract than scientific ideas, and go beyond certain scientific premises.
  • daniel j lavender
    29
    It's isn't anything. What I'm saying is that your intimation that people who suggest a first moment of existence are no suggesting there was a state of nothingness from which the first moment popped into being from. Its a contradiction, you know that. You're essentially begging the question in favor of your own position, namely that there was always some kind of state which is the very thing you're supposed to be arguing for. Even here you're attempting this despite thrice telling you that's not what is meant. It's disingenuous. It's not the suggestion that there was a state of non existence, but that there was no state at all because there wasn't anything.MindForged

    If there was never nothing, if there was never nonexistence, if these were never states as you suggest, then why would existence need a beginning?

    You are saying nothing never existed but something just came about. Nothingness never existed, yet, somethingness had to begin. Preposterous.

    What I am asserting is not really all that complicated. It's comparable to our understanding of energy. Energy is not created or destroyed, it isn't "born" and it doesn't "die". It just changes form. Existence is the same. Things fluctuate. Things interact for a while, then disperse, possibly interacting with other things then they continue on with the process. It's a continuous dynamic. It isn't a difficult concept to comprehend.

    Your assertion, on the other hand, makes magical claims. It concerns a spontaneous event with no substance supporting it or even attempting to explain the mechanics of it. Further you claim to assert that nothing, or nonexistence "does not exist", yet the basis of your premise is that something just came about, essentially from nothing.

    Again, if there was never nothing or never nonexistence, why would something require a beginning?
  • AppLeo
    163


    Everything that exists is everything that exists; it doesn't just go on forever.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment