TAKE HEED: This is NON-RELIGIOUS. This is pure philosophy. I am not proving the Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Taoist, Wiccan, American Indian, et cetera, God, but a God divorced from all religious traditions. This argument is purely from but the august tradition of philosophical theology.

I shall attempt here to offer compelling proof for the existence of something which we might dub with the name of "God", although it might well fall short of what some Theistic traditions have considered God to be. To accomplish this I shall argue for the necessity of the following:

Eternity
Infinity
Immutability
Omnipresence
Omnipotence
Omniscience (or a type of such)
That these are all united in one thing

I shall also be demonstrating the impossibility of certain things, amongst these:

God as a Conscious Being
God and Love
Omnibenevolence
God as a Creator

-

Let's begin with eternity:

Reality may be bisected into two seperate halves, which we might dub with the names of somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence). These halves represent the two sides of reality, by the very reason that one cannot imagine something which cannot be said to exist or not to exist, and thus must fit in one or the other category. These two halves are also, as should be evident, polar opposites. To be something is to be anti-nothing, to be nothing is to be anti-something. Now, it is clear that there cannot have been a time where there was neither something nor nothing, for if there is no something, there is nothing, and if there is no nothing, there is something, and thus we can say for certain that this is so and here we have proof one of eternity. A second proof can be found in that one half of any opposite can only exist with the other, that is to say, if one has long, one immediatly has short, and thus somethingness and nothingness, being opposites, must create one another, and owing to the fact that one can never not have them, they must eternally "co-create" one another.

A question may arise as to why eternity is necessary at all, to which one can simply answer: Eternity must exist because we all ready know of something which is eternal, namely, energy. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and this is the very definition of eternity, having neither the capacity to be created, nor to be destroyed. The two proofs of eternity listed above demonstrate the incapacity for either to be created, but that they must be real eternally, as it is an impossibility that they could ever have not been or that they can cease to be.

We must also realize that the two sides of reality are necessarily absolute, for two reasons: 1. That which is eternal cannot not be absolute, otherwise it could cease to be. 2. Nothingness, by default, cannot be anything but absolute, as there are no degrees of nothingness capable, one is either nothing or...nothing, just as one cannot be "a little pregnant", and the opposite of an absolute must also be absolute lest it cease to be an opposite.

Infinity:

Existence can be, and must be, infinite on two levels: Infinitely large and infinitely small. It can be because, being eternal, it need not incrementally reach either (which is impossible), and it must be because to be finite is to be non-absolute. Moreover, since nothing does not exist - it is, however, a reality and thus has something I call 'noixstence' - something cannot have a boundary, as if there ceased to be somethingness, there must be, by default, nothingness beyond it, as these are the two absolutes anything can be considered being apart of, but since nothingness cannot ever be reached (one cannot reach what does not exist) somethingness must persist forever in all directions.

Immutability:

That which is infinite cannot change, as change is litterally impossible. If it changed, it would not be infinity, and one must ask what it would change to? If it is infinity, and is to remain infinity (which it must as it is linked with the absolute of existence), to change at all would be to violate its own infinity and that is impossible. This, of course, leads us to a problem, which I call The Problem of Temporality and Transcience. This problem reads thus:

How can there be temporal and transient things, if existence is both infinite, eternal, and immutable?

The answer is not as complicated as one thinks, nor does it invalidate the notion of something which is infinite, eternal, and immutable. Temporality and transcience stem from something which has not yet been touched upon, that is, that all opposites must necessarily produce a third thing, that is, the middle-point betwixt the two extremes. To visualize this mathematically, let's assume that 1 and 10 are opposites (they are not, but let's assume). If 1 and 10 are opposites, their average of five, is their mid point. NOw, what would be the mid-point betwixt something and nothing? Something which partakes of somethingness and nothingness to varying degrees, that is to say, exists less then infinitely and eternally, but is not nothing, to be both temporal and transient. MOreover, we see from this midpoint an infinite series of other midpoints, with some partaking nearly exclusively of existence, yet still ultimately temporal and transient, to those which partake nealy exclusively in non-existence and the same. So to be temporal and transient is to partake of both the nature of existence and non-existence simulteneously, but not to both exist and not-exist at the same time, but simply to not be an absolute and thus to be coming into being (existing) and ceasing to be (non-existing) in a relative sense, whilst also only taking up a specific measurable, non-infinite place in space.

Omnipresence:

If all things which exist are part of existence and existence encapsulates the entire scope of infinity, then nothing is seperate from existence (and nothingness is seperate from somethingness!) and thus existence is omnipresent. This is also demonstrated in how everything is made of energy, be it as energy or as matter which is capable of being reduced to energy. This also points to the fact that all is one, on one level, and that we are apart of this one.

Omnipotence:

Since all things are part of existence, then all things which are done, and all which is possible, is done by that which is existence, and hence existence is omnipotent. The question arises, however, as to whether omnipotence also includes the power to do that which is impossible, to which it must be answered clearly: No! For that which is impossible does not exist. A square-circle is impossible precisely because it does not exist, and since omnipotence is something which is part of existence, it cannot partake in something which does not exist.

Omniscience:

Again, since all things are part of existence, existence is privy to all things going on. However, owing to an argument that shall be shown later, this does not mean that what existence is conscious, but were existence conscious, it would know everything, and does "know everything" in the sense that all is within it.

That These Attributes Must be United:

It should be clear that since existence is eternity, infinity, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, that they must necessarily be united in a whole, depending on existence's absolute and eternal nature to be. Something could not be eternal and not at the same time be infinite, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

God as a Conscious Being:

God cannot be a conscious being (a thing which can think) for several reasons:

1. Sense is an emergent property on the macroscopic level, not part of absolute existence, and sense is required for thought (see my "Refutation of Transcendental Idealism" for proof of this).

2. God cannot think as he has all knowledge all ready (omniscience).

3. God cannot think for thinking is a process of change and God is immutable.

God Cannot Love:

Quite simply, as a thing (not a being) God cannot love, as love can only be something a being can participate in.

Omnibenevolence:

God cannot be omnibenevolent because:

1. God is not a being and goodness requires beinghood.

2. Epicurus' Riddle - as well as other arguments - clearly demonstrate that omnibenevolence does not fit into reality.

3. There is no objective standard of good and since God is not a being, he cannot hold even a subjective notion of good.

God as a Creator:

Simply, existence is eternal and thus cannot be created nor destroyed.

Conclusion:

Aside from God's existence being demonstrated to be so through these arguments - albeit in a manner slightly outside the Western Theological model - it has also been demonstrated that the Pantheistic model is essentially right, in that since God is all existence, and all which exists (obviously) is part of existence, we are also God, or rather, a part of God. This is not, and this cannot be stressed enough, in anyway a support of the "mysticism" that some Pantheistic schools of thought ascribe to, as it is just a simple fact that we are part of God, which has no further significance aside from it being a necessary truth of God's existence, and though through this we may be "one with all things", our seperateness as finite beings from other things (aside from God) is pronounced and real.

Prince:
Interesting thread, and one that is sure to draw some discussion and arguement.

I shall respond after some thought however I shall warn you I see many problems that are going to take some doing to sort out.

Can I suggest you number the main points so that reference is easier.....

God cannot be a conscious being (a thing which can think) for several reasons:

1. Sense is an emergent property on the macroscopic level, not part of absolute existence, and sense is required for thought (see my "Refutation of Transcendental Idealism" for proof of this).
Do you base this deduction on your observation of Gods, or of humans? Aren't you extracting your definition of God from human considerations and limitations? Don't you see any problems with doing that?

If sense emerges on a macroscopic level, why should it disappear on a macro-macroscopic level, so to speak? You're working from a reductionist perspective, which is why you end up with "God" being less than "love" (again: something you have only observed from human perspective - as a receptive being). You have a microscopic God, "mere" eternity, and a complex, macroscopic, emergent humanity - who is only "less" than God on the eternal scale... In your model humans are statistically inferior, but not practically.

Quantum Quack:

I shall respond after some thought however I shall warn you I see many problems that are going to take some doing to sort out.

Sounds fine! I look forward to tempering my argument in the furnace of Quantum Quack.

Can I suggest you number the main points so that reference is easier.....

I might do that tomorrow, yes.

Jenyar:

Do you base this deduction on your observation of Gods, or of humans? Aren't you extracting your definition of God from human considerations and limitations? Don't you see any problems with doing that?

If God does not have the same process of thinking as we do, we cannot rightfully claim him as "thinking" at all. There also seems to be no way, logically, that any system of thought could violate the empirical foundation for thought.

If sense emerges on a macroscopic level, why should it disappear on a macro-macroscopic level, so to speak?

Because the organic molecules which, when arranged in such and such a manner, give rise to the organs of sense and thus to consciousness, are not present in the "macro-macroscopic level".

If God does not have the same process of thinking as we do, we cannot rightfully claim him as "thinking" at all. There also seems to be no way, logically, that any system of thought could violate the empirical foundation for thought.
What we term "thinking" could also be a subset that is emergent from what God does. It might not be "thinking" as we perceive it - over a period of time - but it might still be a determined process with a desired result, as God intends it. There's nothing that determines that "thought" should not apply anymore. If the variable doesn't fit, you can't just throw it out - you may have to revise the equation.

Because the organic molecules which, when arranged in such and such a manner, give rise to the organs of sense and thus to consciousness, are not present in the "macro-macroscopic level".
So it's specifically an organic definition of "sense" that you're using? You should specify your definitions more clearly.

Jenyar:

What we term "thinking" could also be a subset that is emergent from what God does. It might not be "thinking" as we perceive it - over a period of time - but it might still be a determined process with a desired result, as God intends it. There's nothing that determines that "thought" should not apply anymore. If the variable doesn't fit, you can't just throw it out - you may have to revise the equation.

We'd certainly have to have some positive proof of this before asserting this. Moreover, we must ask if God can desire anything, being all ready complete?

So it's specifically an organic definition of "sense" that you're using? You should specify your definitions more clearly.

There has been no verified extra-organic senses ever proven and even if they were, one would have to ask at what level they develop and whether or not they'd have an upper limit.

You make some good arguments for eternity, etc... and you also make some good arguments about the nature of God, but I dont' see how they relate. You haven't proved anything about God's existence. In fact, your arguments about God are the some of the same ones I used to support atheism.

Spidergoat:

That is a problem: My Pantheism essentially grinds down to an impersonal God which is equatable to existence, aka, atheism-lite.

Prince:
I thought I might take it a chunk at a time.
I believe there is a major glitch in your reasoning that when ironed out will help solve your logic riddle or puzzle.

Btw I don't expect miracles as I hold no license on a logical truth or the ability to find logic. In other words take my offering or leave it...it's up to you.
please read through the entire post to gain full context before responding if you choose to do so.

Eternity:

Let's begin with eternity:

Reality may be bisected into two separate halves, which we might dub with the names of something ness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence).
There is an immediate and important error in this portrayal of reality being of two halves. Nothingness cannot be a half as it is noixistant, so to claim it is a half is contradictory.

These halves represent the two sides of reality, by the very reason that one cannot imagine something which cannot be said to exist or not to exist, and thus must fit in one or the other category.
Something can not fit into the category of nothingness.

These two halves are also, as should be evident, polar opposites.
Nothingness has no opposite as it can’t because of it’s noixistant nature.

To be something is to be anti-nothing, to be nothing is to be anti-something.
For nothingness to be anti- anything it must exist yes?

Now, it is clear that there cannot have been a time where there was neither something nor nothing,
True if one gives time a value. Nothingness can not exist in time as it is noixistant.
However the equation you are postulating can not be considered as reversible or symmetrical.
Nothingness does not require something ness for it’s noixistance. Nothingness can noixist without something but something can not exist with out nothingness’s noixistance.
So there is not equivalence or symmetry involved in this proposition.

for if there is no something, there is nothing, and if there is no nothing, there is something, and thus we can say for certain that this is so and here we have proof one of eternity. A second proof can be found in that one half of any opposite can only exist with the other, that is to say, if one has long, one immediatly has short, and thus somethingness and nothingness, being opposites, must create one another, and owing to the fact that one can never not have them, they must eternally "co-create" one another.
It is the existence of something ness that allows nothingness to noixist. But even if something ness doesn’t exist nothingness continues to noixist.

A question may arise as to why eternity is necessary at all, to which one can simply answer: Eternity must exist because we all ready know of something which is eternal, namely, energy. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and this is the very definition of eternity, having neither the capacity to be created, nor to be destroyed. The two proofs of eternity listed above demonstrate the incapacity for either to be created, but that they must be real eternally, as it is an impossibility that they could ever have not been or that they can cease to be.

There is a major problem with this contention. Firstly energy is defined as “work performed” or the “potential to do work”. Work in progress can only be achieved by a differential in energy. It is the difference in energy that allows work to be done. The same could be said for forces, if there is a difference then work can be done thus we have energy.

Now as to eternity, if the universe continues to experience entropy and eventual balancing of those potentials then no work can be done thus no movement would occur. Thus no work is being done and thus no energy is existing to do work. NO movement means no time. So whilst you are correct energy cannot be destroyed it can however be rendered neutral, which in my opinion is the same thing. No potential to do work means no potential to create time. No work done means no time....etc

So if we subscribe to current scientific thought the universe will slowly loose the capacity to continue it’s movement. And this includes moving through time. Thus eternity is an unproven possibility only.

However the equation you are postulating can not be considered as reversible or symmetrical.
Nothingness does not require something ness for it’s noixistance. Nothingness can noixist without something but something can not exist with out nothingness’s noixistance.
So there is not equivalence or symmetry involved in this proposition.
This is my main arguement for a trinary polarisation rather than a duality of only two poles.

<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/trinary.gif>
think of the colours as indicative of pole and not colour.

Even if we take a simple bar magnet we often forget that between the two poles is zero attraction. North - Center - South......when you place two bar magnets in a line of attraction and let them come together the new center of non-attraction is the combination of the two attracted poles. Thus when a positive pole comes together with a negative pole it creates nothing. [ except a bigger bar magnet.]

So I see a trinary relationship in reality and not just a duality.
Polarisation must include zero for it all to work.

So zero is not dependant on value but value is dependant on zero.
No symmetry to the relationship exists.
So in this context God must be noixistant for reality to function....funnily enough, this appears to be the case any way.....ha :m: :D

[it is amazing how much philosophy can be gained by playing with two bar magnets - maybe you should try it one day ]

Quantum Quack:

I've read through your entire post, but will respond based in the regular quoted segments.

There is an immediate and important error in this portrayal of reality being of two halves. Nothingness cannot be a half as it is noixistant, so to claim it is a half is contradictory.

I do not mean a physical half here, I mean that it is a "half" in the sense that two absolute categories can be "existence" and "non-existence". Anything which can be imagined must either be part of existence of non-existence.

Something can not fit into the category of nothingness.

Surely it can! All false things fit into this category of nothingness. What is it so say something is impossible? Is it not to say it does not exist (partakes of nothingness)? A square-circle is impossible, it thus cannot exist, and that which does not exist noixsts in nothingness. All truth values are determined by whether it exists (truth) or does not exist (falsehood).

Nothingness has no opposite as it can’t because of it’s noixistant nature.

I would disagree, due to very nature of what nothingness nis (non-is). Something has space, time, energy, tangibility, substance, et cetera, whilst nothing has no space, no time, no energy, no-tangibility, no-substance, et cetera. Since it has these negative-attributes, and something(ness) has the opposite of these negative-attributes, nothingness must remain being an opposite.

For nothingness to be anti- anything it must exist yes?

No, as somethingness has "existence", and thus nothing, to be its opposite, must have non-existence.

True if one gives time a value. Nothingness can not exist in time as it is noixistant.

This is true, but I mean that nothingness must always noixst and could never cease noixisting.

Nothingness does not require something ness for it’s noixistance. Nothingness can noixist without something but something can not exist with out nothingness’s noixistance.
So there is not equivalence or symmetry involved in this proposition.

See my argument from absolutes and their opposites. Also consider this argument: The only way to determine if something does not exist, is to compare it to something which does.

It is the existence of something ness that allows nothingness to noixist. But even if something ness doesn’t exist nothingness continues to noixist.

Again, see my further arguments for dealing with this.

There is a major problem with this contention. Firstly energy is defined as “work performed” or the “potential to do work”. Work in progress can only be achieved by a differential in energy. It is the difference in energy that allows work to be done. The same could be said for forces, if there is a difference then work can be done thus we have energy.

Now as to eternity, if the universe continues to experience entropy and eventual balancing of those potentials then no work can be done thus no movement would occur. Thus no work is being done and thus no energy is existing to do work. NO movement means no time. So whilst you are correct energy cannot be destroyed it can however be rendered neutral, which in my opinion is the same thing. No potential to do work means no potential to create time. No work done means no time....etc

So if we subscribe to current scientific thought the universe will slowly loose the capacity to continue it’s movement. And this includes moving through time. Thus eternity is an unproven possibility only.

Ah, but true entropy can never be reached, as there is necessarily an infinite amount of energy to be had, and thus no matter how much energy becomes unusuable, there is still an infinitely higher amount of energy there. Of course, this may not hold true in the universe, but as the universe is expanding, and had a beginning and will seemingly have some sort of end, we can rightfully conclude that the universe cannot possibly be the sum total of existence.

As to your Trinary Polarization Argument:

Whilst it is certainly true for magnetism and the normal number line, do you think it can truly be made to fit in with reality? What would be on both sides of nothingness?

Just a couple of comments off the top of my head after reading through the first post of this thread.

First, let me say that I understand and agree, for the most part, with your positive assertions (Eternity Infinity Immutability Omnipresence Omnipotence Omniscience That these are all united in one thing), but do not agree with the conclusions of your negative assertions (God as a Conscious Being, God and Love, Omnibenevolence, God as a Creator).

God as a conscious being. While I agree that God is not a conscious, thinking being, I disagree that God is not conscious. I would say that God (based on your definition) is conscious being (note that I did not include the article 'a'). Being, as such, being existence itself. I do not consider consciousness as being relegated entirely and exclusively to the process of thought (idea association). The consciousness of God would be purely intuitive, as God is omniscient. All things considered and concluded simultaneously at once eternally. There is no separation between ideas, but all are eternally present as the totality of existence. Thus, God is conscious being, but not a conscious thinking being. The process of thought (as opposed to pure intuition) is part of the middle path, as it moves from "non-knowledge" (non-science) to "knowledge" (science), but as you clearly state, never reaching all-knowledge (omniscience). Human intuition is not pure intuition, and operates on that same principle of the movement from non-knowledge to knowledge. However, as you have also pointed out, it is on the end of the scale that is closer to pure somethingness rather than pure nothingness. Pure intuition is part of pure somethingness, as it is eternally immediate and full knowledge of all. This can only be an attribute of pure somethingness, and I would argue IS part of pure somethingness. Thus, God is conscious existence, but not a thinking existence.

God and Love. Again, I disagree with your assessment of this. However, before stepping into this topic, I would first propose that we have a working definition of love. As I do not yet have one specific to my mind (but only general and somewhat vague, but intuitively grasped on a basic level) I will refrain from making my argument as yet.

Omnibenevolence. First, I would like to state that this has more to do with love than goodness (as a moral aspect, or even as a state of being). From the Latin words for "all" "good" and "will" it would be more of a reference to All-loving (doing all good toward), than All-good. However, I believe you are using the term in the sense of "all-good" and so I will argue under that understanding.

Again, we need to define how we're using the term "good." Is it meant in the moral sense, or the static sense? I would argue that the moral sense stems from the static sense, and so will argue from this standpoint.

From metaphysics, we identify that all things, as beings, are good (statically). I would argue that this is because they bear the property of somethingness (and I believe this stance is actually supported in metaphysics). God, as all-somethingness, would necessarily be all-good.

Morally speaking, God would not be all-good, but neither would God be all-evil. Moral goodness, as I have said, stems from static goodness. When a thing tends (by choice) toward the end of the spectrum which is pure somethingness, then that thing is becoming "more something," and thus "more good." Thus the action, the tendency, is what we have termed a moral good. Moral evil is merely that tendency toward nothingness, or becoming "less something," since goodness (statically) is rooted in being. Since God does not tend either way, but simply is existence, God cannot be morally good, but simply staticlly "all-good." Thus, if we are to term this omnibenevolence (which I wouldn't, I would merely call it all-good (whatever the latin term may be)), then it can be seen that God is necessarily omnibenevolent.

God as a creator. I do not necessarily disagree with your assessment of this, but neither do I agree with it. By the very nature of somethingness (pure somethingness), juxtaposed against nothingness (which is actualy non-existent, and thus can have no causal effect on anything) are the middle points actuated. Thus, in this sense, the creator of anything, would be pure somethingness, though this creative act would not be temporal, but actually eternal, neither beginning nor ending, merely being.

However, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this stance either... I've got a bit more pondering to do. Something is sneakingly false about a very important part of your theory. I need to think on it more.

Prince :
Do you consider that which is imagined as having existance?
Whilst I cannot visualise a square circle I can certainly use it as an object of discussion. Thus does a square circle exist or not in your opinion?

a square circle does exists in some form IMO

PJ - you have, if I have read this right, in essence said nothing more than "There is existence" and "existence exists".

And you have assigned "existence" the label of "God".
And thus led to "We exist and are thus part of existence - so part of God."

If I have not read this correctly, please can you let me know exactly what you have defined as "God" - as I can find nothing else - as you jump from discussing existence to discussing God - with seemingly no linkage.

If I am correct, however, then this entire discussion has nout to do with religion but everything to do with the nature of existence.

While interesting in itself, I was expecting something more contrary to my agnostic atheism. :D

"Reality may be bisected into two seperate halves, which we might dub with the names of somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence). These halves represent the two sides of reality, by the very reason that one cannot imagine something which cannot be said to exist or not to exist, and thus must fit in one or the other category. These two halves are also, as should be evident, polar opposites."

sorry, i disagree. there is matter, and antimatter. 'nothing' is not a tangible concept, but is simply a situation where there are equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus something can come from nothing, but it will have a biproduct of an equal amount of anti-something


aww crud. quantum quack already beat me to this, oh well

"Reality may be bisected into two seperate halves, which we might dub with the names of somethingness (existence) and nothingness (non-existence). These halves represent the two sides of reality, by the very reason that one cannot imagine something which cannot be said to exist or not to exist, and thus must fit in one or the other category. These two halves are also, as should be evident, polar opposites."

sorry, i disagree. there is matter, and antimatter. 'nothing' is not a tangible concept, but is simply a situation where there are equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus something can come from nothing, but it will have a biproduct of an equal amount of anti-something


aww crud. quantum quack already beat me to this, oh wellUnfortunately Anti-matter and matter both "exist" - and the resultant combination of the two is still matter - albeit 100% converted into energy.
So both halves still exist.

[it is amazing how much philosophy can be gained by playing with two bar magnets - maybe you should try it one day ]

trinity... Man!.. that's what I said!!... you can solve the most mysteries of the universe simply by playing with a couple of magnets!!!!! the whole world.... rests on this balance... it is everything...

you know... this is what the trees in the garden of eden means!! the lifetree is nothingness/oneness, which gives the life streaming into the tree of knowledge of the good and evil (the visible world of illusional duality)...

Something can not fit into the category of nothingness.

But nothingness can fit into something?

Nothingness has no opposite as it can’t because of it’s noixistant nature.

Gray is similar... it is the manifestation of "nothingness", balance, on color level, it has no opposite color!!

Whilst I cannot visualise a square circle I can certainly use it as an object of discussion.

it's a friggin play of words.

What would be on both sides of nothingness?

What? "Nothingness" has no sides. It is the relation!!

Spidergoat:

That is a problem: My Pantheism essentially grinds down to an impersonal God which is equatable to existence, aka, atheism-lite.
Otherwise known as Tao.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

Tao Te Ching vs. 4

beyondtimeandspace:

God as a conscious being. While I agree that God is not a conscious, thinking being, I disagree that God is not conscious. I would say that God (based on your definition) is conscious being (note that I did not include the article 'a'). Being, as such, being existence itself. I do not consider consciousness as being relegated entirely and exclusively to the process of thought (idea association). The consciousness of God would be purely intuitive, as God is omniscient. All things considered and concluded simultaneously at once eternally. There is no separation between ideas, but all are eternally present as the totality of existence. Thus, God is conscious being, but not a conscious thinking being.

An interesting idea. But I have a hard time concluding that such could be possible without the capacity for thought. Tell me, in what way do you use the term "intuition" here? Perhaps with a clarification on that we might agree.

Human intuition is not pure intuition, and operates on that same principle of the movement from non-knowledge to knowledge. However, as you have also pointed out, it is on the end of the scale that is closer to pure somethingness rather than pure nothingness. Pure intuition is part of pure somethingness, as it is eternally immediate and full knowledge of all. This can only be an attribute of pure somethingness, and I would argue IS part of pure somethingness. Thus, God is conscious existence, but not a thinking existence.

-Very- interesting line of thought. I look forward towards a bit of clarification on the idea of intuition, in order that I might see whether or not I agree. But thank you for this -great- input.

God and Love. Again, I disagree with your assessment of this. However, before stepping into this topic, I would first propose that we have a working definition of love. As I do not yet have one specific to my mind (but only general and somewhat vague, but intuitively grasped on a basic level) I will refrain from making my argument as yet.

I would say to love is to value something, specifically to value something in oneself or in another. For instance, if I value intellectual debate (which I do) I tend to love (to one extent or another) someone who can give me said debate. I would also argue, as I have argued in the past, that in order to love something, you must:

Care for it.
Respect it.
Know it.
Value its existence.

Omnibenevolence. First, I would like to state that this has more to do with love than goodness (as a moral aspect, or even as a state of being). From the Latin words for "all" "good" and "will" it would be more of a reference to All-loving (doing all good toward), than All-good. However, I believe you are using the term in the sense of "all-good" and so I will argue under that understanding.

Yes, I use the definition of "allgood", as in, perfect moral goodness.

Again, we need to define how we're using the term "good." Is it meant in the moral sense, or the static sense? I would argue that the moral sense stems from the static sense, and so will argue from this standpoint.

What would be the static sense?

From metaphysics, we identify that all things, as beings, are good (statically). I would argue that this is because they bear the property of somethingness (and I believe this stance is actually supported in metaphysics). God, as all-somethingness, would necessarily be all-good.

Ah, the argument that being = goodness. This is something the Catholic Church often uses, no? I seem to recall reading something about that at www.newadvent.org. Hmmm, I think it is a wee bit of a bastardization of the term, though. I do not see how one can say "being = goodness", as surely a murderer participates in being, no?

Morally speaking, God would not be all-good, but neither would God be all-evil. Moral goodness, as I have said, stems from static goodness. When a thing tends (by choice) toward the end of the spectrum which is pure somethingness, then that thing is becoming "more something," and thus "more good." Thus the action, the tendency, is what we have termed a moral good. Moral evil is merely that tendency toward nothingness, or becoming "less something," since goodness (statically) is rooted in being. Since God does not tend either way, but simply is existence, God cannot be morally good, but simply staticlly "all-good." Thus, if we are to term this omnibenevolence (which I wouldn't, I would merely call it all-good (whatever the latin term may be)), then it can be seen that God is necessarily omnibenevolent.

Hmmm, but again, it would seem that to use being = good is a bit of a bastardization. In what way is it good to be?

God as a creator. I do not necessarily disagree with your assessment of this, but neither do I agree with it. By the very nature of somethingness (pure somethingness), juxtaposed against nothingness (which is actualy non-existent, and thus can have no causal effect on anything) are the middle points actuated. Thus, in this sense, the creator of anything, would be pure somethingness, though this creative act would not be temporal, but actually eternal, neither beginning nor ending, merely being.

But it wouldn't create in the traditional sense, of a conscious God creating something out of nothing. Nothing would ever "come out of nothing", but would eternally be, as a necessity and not as an act.

However, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this stance either... I've got a bit more pondering to do. Something is sneakingly false about a very important part of your theory. I need to think on it more.

Take your time! I look forward to more input! Thank you for the wonderful points.

Quantum Quack:

a square circle does exists in some form IMO

How so? In terms of perception? Because I am not speaking of perception, but an actual square which would be, simulteneously, a circle, in violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Sarkus:

PJ - you have, if I have read this right, in essence said nothing more than "There is existence" and "existence exists".

I try to give reasons for -why- existence exists, so I would disagree that I am basically reitterating that existence exists.

And you have assigned "existence" the label of "God".
And thus led to "We exist and are thus part of existence - so part of God."

I give it the title of God because the qualities of it are united in one thing and are traditionally held to be part of God. They contain all the possible absolute perfections.

If I have not read this correctly, please can you let me know exactly what you have defined as "God" - as I can find nothing else - as you jump from discussing existence to discussing God - with seemingly no linkage.

No, you read it correctly, but my link is that this existence is God.

If I am correct, however, then this entire discussion has nout to do with religion but everything to do with the nature of existence.

While interesting in itself, I was expecting something more contrary to my agnostic atheism.

Pantheism tends to be pretty disappointing as regards that, yes. One ends up getting a God which is not, as I noted, very much akin to Theistic conceptions.

alain:

sorry, i disagree. there is matter, and antimatter. 'nothing' is not a tangible concept, but is simply a situation where there are equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus something can come from nothing, but it will have a biproduct of an equal amount of anti-something

Anti-matter and matter do not produce "nothing" when they annhilate, but produce energy. Moreover, see my proof for how nothingness is quite a part of reality, in that all false things partake of it.

Sarkus:

Unfortunately Anti-matter and matter both "exist" - and the resultant combination of the two is still matter - albeit 100% converted into energy.
So both halves still exist.

Good response.

c7ityi:

What? "Nothingness" has no sides. It is the relation!!

I was asking what his conception of nothingness, which was placed in the middle of two poles, would have on each side.

spidergoat:

Otherwise known as Tao.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

Tao Te Ching vs. 4

So funny you should mention this, as I strongly believe my system is in line with Taoist thought. In my version of the Tao Teh Ching, there is a passage that goes something like:

The one begets the two
The two begets the three
And the three begets the myriad things

In my system: The one is somethingness or nothingness, the two is somethingness or nothingness, the three is the mid-point, and the mid-point produces all the other infinite mixed states.

I would also argue that the Yin Yang symbol can be used to illustrate my point that existence and non-existence, by virtue of being opposites, create one another, the dot of the other in each representing this relation.

Also, I should note that my theory originally began in Taoism. Lao Tzu's ideas sparked mine.

Do you base this deduction on your observation of Gods, or of humans? Aren't you extracting your definition of God from human considerations and limitations? Don't you see any problems with doing that?

So, how does one go about observing gods?

Thanks for all this, PJ.
I've never really thought about Pantheism.
Admittedly, I can't really see a point in needing to label "existence" as GOD, as to do so, to me, offers no new insight into it, no new meaning or advancement. - Much like saying "God did it" offers nothing new to scientists.
i.e. there is nothing you gain by saying "existence is God".

I think I might have to read the full extent of your original post, though, as I openly admit to not reading much.

Sarkus:

I look forward to your replies once you read the full extent of my arguments. But yes, I do agree with you that Pantheism doesn't give too much as regards what normally would be construed as God, the proofs for certain aspect of Gods are found only in the Pantheistic model, and thus it is atleast semi-proper to still call such a thing God. If it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck. In this case, existence smells like God, looks like God, and sounds like God, hence it is God, although it ends up cutting out one or two things which many people take for granted.

So funny you should mention this, as I strongly believe my system is in line with Taoist thought.
The existence and belief in God all depend on how we choose to define it. The definition can be as vague and subtle as the Tao, (which is fundamentally different from the standard western model of God) or as rigid and dogmatic as an evangelical Christian's.

Unfortunately to me, to define something as "God" implies worship.
Even if this Pantheistic labelling of existence as God has merits - it is still just existence - and existence itself is nothing to worship - as doing so adds nothing to me.
Maybe understanding more about the nature of existence is worth considering and philosophising about, but it is not something I could associate with worship.
Am I being harsh? Or misunderstanding of Pantheism here?

Quite so, unless you define worship differently, as I think Jesus did. Worship could be as simple as fufilling your potential, living a good life, enjoying the sunshine and the rain, ect...

beyondtimeandspace:
An interesting idea. But I have a hard time concluding that such could be possible without the capacity for thought. Tell me, in what way do you use the term "intuition" here? Perhaps with a clarification on that we might agree.[...]
-Very- interesting line of thought. I look forward towards a bit of clarification on the idea of intuition, in order that I might see whether or not I agree. But thank you for this -great- input..

My understanding of intuition derives from the two basic operations of the cerebral cortex, divided into the seperate hemispheres; sequence and holistic. While the holistic operations of the brain are not purely so, they provide the basis for my understanding of intuition. The processes of logic, science, philosophy, etc, within the brain, are processes of sequence, and operate within the left (I believe is the most common) hemisphere. These processes deal with specific detail (premises), which are sequenced together to produce the whole (conclusion). The processes of intuition, art, religion, etc, within the brain, are processes of holism, and operate (most commonly, I believe) within the right hemisphere. The holistic processes deal with the big picture (immediate sum of premises), which very quickly produces a sense of the whole (conclusion). Sequenced thought produces more than a mere sense, it provides assertive knowledge, each part is understood, thus the conclusion is understood. However, this form of thought takes time, and indeed this is usually the primary mode of cognitive thought. Holistic thought (in humans), only usually provides a sense of a conclusion (unless this mental capacity is excercised and honed regularly), and is often less accurate than logic. However, it produces a conclusion very quickly, and is usually the mode of thought that takes over in immediate survival issues (ie, you get bad "vibes" from the person you just met (who, in fact, happens to be a serial killer)). The intuitive process in humans, however, is exactly that, a process. Since we, as finite, changing and time-oriented creatures, operate in sequence, so too does this function of intuition operate sequentially within us. However, pure intuition would not be sequenced in any way. In effect, it would be an immediate and instantaneous knowledge of all (observed (and in existence as such, all is observed)), the premises and conclusions are understood both simultaneously and immediately. Furthermore, the premises and the conclusion are perfectly identical, since the premises envelop all, and the conclusion is all. Realistically speaking, the consciousness of "existence" would be "existence," since consciousness of pure being is purely intuitive, and thus envelops purely and solely "existence."

I would say to love is to value something, specifically to value something in oneself or in another. For instance, if I value intellectual debate (which I do) I tend to love (to one extent or another) someone who can give me said debate. I would also argue, as I have argued in the past, that in order to love something, you must:

Care for it.
Respect it.
Know it.
Value its existence..

I will yet refrain from commenting on this section yet. I'm still considering how to properly define love.


Yes, I use the definition of "allgood", as in, perfect moral goodness.
[...]
What would be the static sense?
[...]
Ah, the argument that being = goodness. This is something the Catholic Church often uses, no? I seem to recall reading something about that at www.newadvent.org. Hmmm, I think it is a wee bit of a bastardization of the term, though. I do not see how one can say "being = goodness", as surely a murderer participates in being, no?
[...]
Hmmm, but again, it would seem that to use being = good is a bit of a bastardization. In what way is it good to be?


Ok, I can understand why you have trouble with this. Basically, I'm arguing that there is a distinction to be made about the terms "good" and "evil." This distinction is that they can refer to morality, and they can refer to being. Actually, as I'm typing this I want to edit it. Good can refer to being (state), but evil cannot. Good and evil can refer to processes.

Now, it seems that when we talk about goodness, we're talking about value. If this is the case, then nothingness has no value, and somethingness has all-value. Any existing thing, then, has value, and thusly any existing thing is good.

We can further subdivide this notion of value into two kinds, positive value and negative value (by the way, I'm speaking of intrinsic values. However, even if I weren't, and value is only relegated to a conscious entity that gives a thing value, then what value can a conscious entity give to nothingness? Surely, a conscious entity places value on anything that it observes. Theoretically, a conscious entity can potentially observe everything, thus all things, potentially, have value). Positive values are values that posit, or add to the existence of a thing, thus making a thing closer to "pure somethingness," rather than close to "pure nothingness." Negative values are values that negate, or take away from the existence of a thing (thus making it closer to nothingness). These two kinds of values are good and evil as processes (positive and negative).

We can liken this to the number line. On the left side of the number line we have negative numbers, while on the right we have positive numbers. Instead of considering the number line as a scale, simply consider it as denoting processional values. Any positive number can be denoted in two ways, either by simply writing the number (5, for example), and by writing the number with the additive symbol beside it (+5). If we are to simply write 5, then we are referring to a static number, a state (a numeric state). However, when we write +5 we are referring to the process of addition, or position (act of positing). This cannot be said of the left side of the number line. Negative numbers do not exist as such, they can never refer to a numeric state. Negative numbers can only be denoted as -n (n being any number), and refer only to the process of negation (unless you're talking about the number line as a scale, which I'm not... 0=nothingness).

Likewise, being, as such, we can term as good (or of positive value), but we would not call non-being (nothingness) evil. Only actions (or possibly even simply occurrances) can be evil, as well as good. This refers to the negative and additive processes. This is where moral goodness, and moral evilness come in. When we discuss morality, we're talking about actions, and thus processes. Beings cannot be statically morally good or evil, they can only perform morally good or evil actions. Beings can only be statically good (as opposed to morally), and never statically evil (that would be impossible). However, morality doesn't simply refer to processes of addition and negation, since we know that these are naturally processes of the universe. Moral goodness and evil refer to actions performed by a conscious entity, that either add to or take away from the nature of another thing, or even principle (degress of understanding and will alter the degree of responsibility or culpability). For example, it is part of the nature of things to be transient, or passing. However, part of that nature is for that transient thing to produce other transient things (either by living acts, or possibly even through natural death). To attack the nature of that natural transience by either killing it before it's designed to die, or by sustaining its life past its natural life span, you are not adding to the nature of it, but taking away from it. This is what we would call a moral evil. Likewise, when we attack principles of truth, principles of existence, are we committing a moral evil (ie, To lie is to deny the reality of truth, and also to deny reality as it is... it is an attack against the principle of truth, and it is a detraction, a taking away from the truth of reality by instilling a false idea).

Thus do I say that pure somethingness must be, necessarily, an all-good being. Not in the moral sense (since that implies sequence, process, and change), but merely in the static sense (state of being, which in this case is pure and full). God would then be Amoral. Furthermore, nothingness is not all-evil, but merely non-valuable, non-good, not un-good (or dis-good).


But it wouldn't create in the traditional sense, of a conscious God creating something out of nothing. Nothing would ever "come out of nothing", but would eternally be, as a necessity and not as an act.

Take your time! I look forward to more input! Thank you for the wonderful points.

I'm going to refrain from commenting on the creation yet. I have the sense, call it intuition :p, that there is something wrong in your theory which will properly validate creation, and I have a few ideas what it might be, but as I said, I need to mull on it.

Prince prince prince,
A square circle exists, ok....I'll type it again.....a square cirlce exists.....nope that wont do....hmmmmm....square circle ....square circle.....maybe if I put it in inverted commas...ok..."SQUARE CIRCLE"

ha................tell me that my square circle doesn't exist.... :D

A (BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I) exits, a (BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I) exists.

Tell me that my (BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I) exists.

Quantum Quack, do you think my (BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I) exists?

Just because your random sequence of letters produces something readable and mine doesnt, why would mine exist any less than yours?

C7,
trinity... Man!.. that's what I said!!... you can solve the most mysteries of the universe simply by playing with a couple of magnets!!!!! the whole world.... rests on this balance... it is everything...

you know... this is what the trees in the garden of eden means!! the lifetree is nothingness/oneness, which gives the life streaming into the tree of knowledge of the good and evil (the visible world of illusional duality)...

However I am very careful in finding correlations with metaphor and literature as I find this to be a labrynth of speculation and leads to misleading conclusions.

But yes a couple of bar magnets can be very enlightening but must be kept in perpsective.



But nothingness can fit into something?
Nothingness needs not to fit any where. It is as james is postulating but I would cleaarly disagree that it is a symmetrical proposition in that nothingness does not require something for it's noixistance. However somethingness requires nothingness for it's existance....thus we have a trinity of polarisations. [ BTW even these words are misleading ]



Gray is similar... it is the manifestation of "nothingness", balance, on color level, it has no opposite color!!

The only opposite to a colour is nothingness. Nothingness is not even black.
I ask: "What is the colour Empty?"




it's a friggin play of words.
yep, as most dialogue is, just a play on words.

A (BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I) exits, a (BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I) exists.

Tell me that my (BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I) exists.

Quantum Quack, do you think my (BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I) exists?

Just because your random sequence of letters produces something readable and mine doesnt, why would mine exist any less than yours?

well you know it certainly exists for me.....(BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I)

I woud however make one small change to it:
(BGJDSHFKDJFK/O"I$/"$I)...... see if you can pick the difference? :)

The point is we can I hope agree that a square circle exists purely as an object of imagination. It can not be visualised but it certainly can be imagined. Thus it exists. [ even as an impossibility]

Prince:
I wont go into any more detail as to why I find problems with your thread question as I see it would serve no valid purpose to do so.

Just one comment that is worth saying now and leave others to be discussed later, is that when dealing with concepts of infinity it is easy to start with the whole picture and then rapidly finitize infinity as the dialogue progresses. Starting from the premise if infinity and then argueing it from a finite perspective, therefore reducing the notion of infinity to something less than infinite.
Infinity is an absolute concept and can't be reduced or expanded.

Infinite change
Infinite diversity
Infinite [anything you choose to put here]
Your thesis I feel does this inadvertantly reducing infinity to a biased state.
If infinity is a true concept:
What isn't infinite?
Even asking this question is an absurdity.....


I personally prefer to use the term "Infinitely finite" but that is another story and another thread

However I am very careful in finding correlations with metaphor and literature as I find this to be a labrynth of speculation and leads to misleading conclusions.

I don't need to be careful
I don't learn things, I remember
I even remember the giants and Atlantis
Why have you forgotten them?
It makes me sad :(

But you created me
To say this
Because you already know it
But refuse to recognize it inside yourself

When you make it a part of yourself
It is no longer outside you

Don't try to find out
Just empty yourself
Don't defend yourself
Just wait for it to come to you

Save yourselves from yourselves

spidergoat:

The existence and belief in God all depend on how we choose to define it. The definition can be as vague and subtle as the Tao, (which is fundamentally different from the standard western model of God) or as rigid and dogmatic as an evangelical Christian's.

This can be so, yes.

Sarkus:

Unfortunately to me, to define something as "God" implies worship.
Even if this Pantheistic labelling of existence as God has merits - it is still just existence - and existence itself is nothing to worship - as doing so adds nothing to me.
Maybe understanding more about the nature of existence is worth considering and philosophising about, but it is not something I could associate with worship.
Am I being harsh? Or misunderstanding of Pantheism here?

I'm not suggesting worship at all. In fact, it would be rather silly to worship existence, wouldn't it? It's more of a "philosophical truth" than an "object of worship". If anything, one could "worship it" by simply being, as one participates in its reality.

beyondtimeandspace:

My understanding of intuition derives from the two basic operations of the cerebral cortex, divided into the seperate hemispheres; sequence and holistic. While the holistic operations of the brain are not purely so, they provide the basis for my understanding of intuition. The processes of logic, science, philosophy, etc, within the brain, are processes of sequence, and operate within the left (I believe is the most common) hemisphere. These processes deal with specific detail (premises), which are sequenced together to produce the whole (conclusion). The processes of intuition, art, religion, etc, within the brain, are processes of holism, and operate (most commonly, I believe) within the right hemisphere. The holistic processes deal with the big picture (immediate sum of premises), which very quickly produces a sense of the whole (conclusion). Sequenced thought produces more than a mere sense, it provides assertive knowledge, each part is understood, thus the conclusion is understood. However, this form of thought takes time, and indeed this is usually the primary mode of cognitive thought. Holistic thought (in humans), only usually provides a sense of a conclusion (unless this mental capacity is excercised and honed regularly), and is often less accurate than logic. However, it produces a conclusion very quickly, and is usually the mode of thought that takes over in immediate survival issues (ie, you get bad "vibes" from the person you just met (who, in fact, happens to be a serial killer)). The intuitive process in humans, however, is exactly that, a process. Since we, as finite, changing and time-oriented creatures, operate in sequence, so too does this function of intuition operate sequentially within us. However, pure intuition would not be sequenced in any way. In effect, it would be an immediate and instantaneous knowledge of all (observed (and in existence as such, all is observed)), the premises and conclusions are understood both simultaneously and immediately. Furthermore, the premises and the conclusion are perfectly identical, since the premises envelop all, and the conclusion is all. Realistically speaking, the consciousness of "existence" would be "existence," since consciousness of pure being is purely intuitive, and thus envelops purely and solely "existence."

This is a very interesting line of thought. But let me be sure I get this right: Since existence envelops all, its intuition would envelop all and be perfect. It would not have to think, but have immediate knowledge. Yes?

Ok, I can understand why you have trouble with this. Basically, I'm arguing that there is a distinction to be made about the terms "good" and "evil." This distinction is that they can refer to morality, and they can refer to being. Actually, as I'm typing this I want to edit it. Good can refer to being (state), but evil cannot. Good and evil can refer to processes.

Go on.

Now, it seems that when we talk about goodness, we're talking about value. If this is the case, then nothingness has no value, and somethingness has all-value. Any existing thing, then, has value, and thusly any existing thing is good.

Interesting.

We can further subdivide this notion of value into two kinds, positive value and negative value (by the way, I'm speaking of intrinsic values. However, even if I weren't, and value is only relegated to a conscious entity that gives a thing value, then what value can a conscious entity give to nothingness? Surely, a conscious entity places value on anything that it observes. Theoretically, a conscious entity can potentially observe everything, thus all things, potentially, have value). Positive values are values that posit, or add to the existence of a thing, thus making a thing closer to "pure somethingness," rather than close to "pure nothingness." Negative values are values that negate, or take away from the existence of a thing (thus making it closer to nothingness). These two kinds of values are good and evil as processes (positive and negative).

Similarly interesting.

We can liken this to the number line. On the left side of the number line we have negative numbers, while on the right we have positive numbers. Instead of considering the number line as a scale, simply consider it as denoting processional values. Any positive number can be denoted in two ways, either by simply writing the number (5, for example), and by writing the number with the additive symbol beside it (+5). If we are to simply write 5, then we are referring to a static number, a state (a numeric state). However, when we write +5 we are referring to the process of addition, or position (act of positing). This cannot be said of the left side of the number line. Negative numbers do not exist as such, they can never refer to a numeric state. Negative numbers can only be denoted as -n (n being any number), and refer only to the process of negation (unless you're talking about the number line as a scale, which I'm not... 0=nothingness).

Interesting...interesting.

Likewise, being, as such, we can term as good (or of positive value), but we would not call non-being (nothingness) evil. Only actions (or possibly even simply occurrances) can be evil, as well as good. This refers to the negative and additive processes. This is where moral goodness, and moral evilness come in. When we discuss morality, we're talking about actions, and thus processes. Beings cannot be statically morally good or evil, they can only perform morally good or evil actions. Beings can only be statically good (as opposed to morally), and never statically evil (that would be impossible). However, morality doesn't simply refer to processes of addition and negation, since we know that these are naturally processes of the universe. Moral goodness and evil refer to actions performed by a conscious entity, that either add to or take away from the nature of another thing, or even principle (degress of understanding and will alter the degree of responsibility or culpability). For example, it is part of the nature of things to be transient, or passing. However, part of that nature is for that transient thing to produce other transient things (either by living acts, or possibly even through natural death). To attack the nature of that natural transience by either killing it before it's designed to die, or by sustaining its life past its natural life span, you are not adding to the nature of it, but taking away from it. This is what we would call a moral evil. Likewise, when we attack principles of truth, principles of existence, are we committing a moral evil (ie, To lie is to deny the reality of truth, and also to deny reality as it is... it is an attack against the principle of truth, and it is a detraction, a taking away from the truth of reality by instilling a false idea).

This is extremely intriguing, but let me ask you this. Suppose I desired to kill someone out of revenge for say...murdering my wife. I went, committed the deed, and then satisfied said vengeful impulse. Now, I've reft from him his life, but at the same time I've added to myself. Since the act of killing this man was the only thing that could satisfy me, one could say that the full value of killing him was transmitted to me, and thus the exchange is very much like an even trade. In this case, would not I be keeping things neutral and not moving towards nearer to nothingness?

Thus do I say that pure somethingness must be, necessarily, an all-good being. Not in the moral sense (since that implies sequence, process, and change), but merely in the static sense (state of being, which in this case is pure and full). God would then be Amoral. Furthermore, nothingness is not all-evil, but merely non-valuable, non-good, not un-good (or dis-good).

I can agree with you on this level, yes. But I would still retain the normal definition of omnibenevolence being improper in terms of moral goodness, as God clearly is not a being which can act and change things for moral goodness, even if he would be "pure being" or "pure existence".

I'm going to refrain from commenting on the creation yet. I have the sense, call it intuition , that there is something wrong in your theory which will properly validate creation, and I have a few ideas what it might be, but as I said, I need to mull on it.

I look forward to that! Although, at the same time, I would find it very difficult to allow for an actual creation, due to the fact that we all ready have infinity, eternity, immutability, et cetera. Since God is existence and infinite, for him to bring anything further into existence would be impossible, not to mention that infinity can only be and not be reached, thus it must be eternal, as well as the other proofs I gave.


Quantum Quack:

ha................tell me that my square circle doesn't exist....

You double dirty devil, you. :P

Quantum Quack:

The point is we can I hope agree that a square circle exists purely as an object of imagination. It can not be visualised but it certainly can be imagined. Thus it exists. [ even as an impossibility]

If it cannot be visualized, and only spoken about as an absurdity, then I would argue it does not exist at all. Better that we say an impossibility noixsts, as we know that it is an impossibility, but it is an impossibility because it could never be, nor could it be visualized, nor could it be used for anything. Just as one can know that something is a lie, but that lie's claim does not exist, so too can we can we speak of a square-circle even if it noixsts.

Just one comment that is worth saying now and leave others to be discussed later, is that when dealing with concepts of infinity it is easy to start with the whole picture and then rapidly finitize infinity as the dialogue progresses. Starting from the premise if infinity and then argueing it from a finite perspective, therefore reducing the notion of infinity to something less than infinite.
Infinity is an absolute concept and can't be reduced or expanded.

This is true. We'll make sure not to do that.

I wont go into any more detail as to why I find problems with your thread question as I see it would serve no valid purpose to do so.

Hmm, are you sure? Because you are specifically great to debate with. I always feel that both you and I come away with something of worth once we depart from the debate.

Infinite change
Infinite diversity
Infinite [anything you choose to put here]
Your thesis I feel does this inadvertantly reducing infinity to a biased state.
If infinity is a true concept:
What isn't infinite?
Even asking this question is an absurdity.....

Infinite change being an infinite process of changes? Infinite diversity being an infinite amount of things?

Hmmm, how does it reduce infinity to a biased state?

c7ityi_:

You know why Atlantis was destroyed, C7? They called upon Crom.

If it cannot be visualized, and only spoken about as an absurdity, then I would argue it does not exist at all. Better that we say an impossibility noixsts, as we know that it is an impossibility, but it is an impossibility because it could never be, nor could it be visualized, nor could it be used for anything. Just as one can know that something is a lie, but that lie's claim does not exist, so too can we can we speak of a square-circle even if it noixsts
Prince:
This is what I mean by limiting infinity.

If our square circle doesn't exist then what are we discussing a triangular circle maybe or a rectangular circle or a ...and so on....we are talking about something are we not even if it is an absurdity or an impossibility.

The logic is that in some form a square circle exists just as a halucination exists or a fantazy exists etc.....they have a value so they exist.

This is very different to the arguement for the noixistance of nothingness.
As nothingness has no value. Certainly our square circle does as does unicorns and pigs that fly. [ admitidley not much value but certainly some value]
When dealing with the infinite one must also include the infinite nature of imagination. And imagination is not limited to logic or rational. So anything that is imagined exists as an imagination. So there fore our square circle exists. I tend to believe that it is in the imagination that infinity finds it's unlimited expression. For everything we observe in reality appears to be finite or infinitely finite.

Prince:
This is what I mean by limiting infinity.

If our square circle doesn't exist then what are we discussing a triangular circle maybe or a rectangular circle or a ...and so on....we are talking about something are we not even if it is an absurdity or an impossibility.

The logic is that in some form a square circle exists just as a halucination exists or a fantazy exists etc.....they have a value so they exist.

This is very different to the arguement for the noixistance of nothingness.
As nothingness has no value. Certainly our square circle does as does unicorns and pigs that fly. [ admitidley not much value but certainly some value]
When dealing with the infinite one must also include the infinite nature of imagination. And imagination is not limited to logic or rational. So anything that is imagined exists as an imagination. So there fore our square circle exists. I tend to believe that it is in the imagination that infinity finds it's unlimited expression. For everything we observe in reality appears to be finite or infinitely finite.

Since anything that can be tought of, exists, only things that cannot be tought of don't. So by your own logic you made the argument undecidable.

Since anything that can be tought of, exists, only things that cannot be tought of don't. So by your own logic you made the argument undecidable.
Fair enough, but if infinite combinations of every thing exist in imagination then the only limit is the realisation of those infinite combinations by our desire for the finite.

If it hasn't been thought of by any one then I guess it doesn't exist until it is thought of or experienced.

You know why Atlantis was destroyed, C7? They called upon Crom.
Hm. I heard it was destroyed in an earthquake.

Ok, I've thought about it, and I think I've discovered the problem. The problem lies with your treatment of the non-existent, the mutable, and the immutable as a scale.

You have set up as a set as such: [nothingness...all mutable things...the immutable] and this set is reasoned thusly: Somethingness (the immutable) is infinite and unchanging and eternal. Nothingness is anti-somethingness, and is also eternal, and infinite (as nothing), as well as immutable. The mutable is the middle points, the points between somethingness and nothingness, which are composed of partial nothingness and partial somethingness in varying degrees.

There are a number of things wrong with this. Firstly, nothingness, as nothing, cannot, by necessity, be part of anything, including a scale. You call nothingness the extreme of the scale, but, in reality, as soon as something reaches nothingness (in theory), that something would cease to be, and would drop off the scale. It is logically false to say that nothing can be an extremity of a scale. Nothing is nothing.

Furthermore, and secondly, if something is something, it isn't part nothingness, it just simply isn't purely somethingNESS. It is definitely a something, but simply not somethingness itself. It cannot be said to be nothing, but simply not nothingness, as it can be said to be something but not somethingness. Mutable things are thusly not something and nothing, they can only be something. And something is not consisted of somethingness and nothingness, it is only partially somethingness. Thus, to place nothingness as the extremity of the scale of reality is false.

So far I have shown how nothingness cannot be an extremity of reality, in two ways. I will now show how the infinite, the somethingness (pure existence), the eternal, can also not be an extremity of the scale of reality. The actually infinite, by definition, being unlimited in reality, is all-encompassing. It couldn't possibly be an extremity of the scale, because it would, by default, be composed entirely of the scale. It could not be an end of a scale toward which a something tended, both because that something could never reach it, and because the scale itself would be the entirety of it. Thus, it is false to say that pure somethingness is an extremity of the scale of reality.

Finally, and this has already been touched upon in basic terms by other posters, your treatment of nothingness as a "half" of reality is also false. Firstly, it is false merely by definition of reality, since reality is that which is, and since nothingness cannot "be," then it cannot be a part of reality.

Secondly, you have claimed that all things are categorized as either existing or not existing, and thus we can see that nothingness is a part of reality. This claim is actually false. There is a very crucial idea that you have not considered, and this is potential. While it might be said that purple dragons do not exist, they can potentially exist. That is, matter and energy may be constructed in a particular way so as to form a purple dragon. In actuality, things exist, but things are merely constructs of matter/energy, which are (as Eistein demonstrated) the same thing. The point is, all things exist in potentiality, but only certain things exist in actuality. Energy, as such, takes two forms, potential energy and kinetic energy. What is actual is energy in kinetic form, and what is potential is energy in potential form. Both exist, but in different states. Thus, it may be said that all things exist, but only some things exist actually. When we say "such and such doesn't exist," what we normally mean is that it is potential, but not actual. In some cases, when we say "such and such doesn't exist" we can mean it belongs to the realm of nothingness. Such a case would be the case of the square circle.

Let me say a bit on this subject to clarify things. The square circle, as some here have said, exists as an imaginary thing. I assert that this is false. Firstly, try to imagine a square circle. You cannot. A square, by definition, is a 2D geometric shape that has four equal sides, and four corners which each form ninety-degree angles. A circle, by definition, is a 2D geometric shape that has only one side, no corners, which forms a three hundred and sixty degree angle, and who's outer edge is exactly the same distance away from the center at every point. When you say "square circle" you are verbalizing a logical contradiction, and actually conveying no idea. Nothing is actually being said when you say "square circle." Nothing is being said because when words are pronounced, they convey ideas. Words are merely tools toward this end. The sounds produced by the voice box when saying "square circle" exist. The light being emitted by this computer moniter that form the words "square" and "circle" exists. However, the idea, the notion, the concept, of a square circle does not exist, nor does it have the potential to exist. And where there can be no potential for an idea to exist (in any mind), then there can be no potential for it to actually exist. Thusly, a square circle belongs to the realm of nothingness, since nothing is actually being said by "square circle" no idea conveyed. If one wishes to argue, "what if it is a square that is circular," that is, with rounded sides. If that is the case, the we aren't actually talking about a square, since the corners do not form ninety degree angles, and we're not talking about a circle, since there are several sides. Thus, a "circular square" cannot be said to be the same thing as a "square circle" (nor is such terminology actually accurate). If someone says, "what if the corners and edges of the square are circles. Again, this isn't the same thing as a "square circle." Those ideas of circular squares (in slang), or squares with circles for corners (again, improper terminology), can potentially exist. A square circle cannot.

Thus, it is that the scale is not actually between "nothingness" and "somethingness," rather, the scale of reality is between the "potential" and the "actual." The non-existent would not be nothingness, rather it would be the purely potential. As well, pure existence would really be pure actuality.

I would like to state at this point that God has been deemed "Pure Act," by some Catholic theologians.

Now, this pure actuality would have all those same properties that you have delineated for pure existence, since that is exactly what it is. However, I would like to again reiterate the fact that, as an infinite, it cannot be part of the scale of reality (if it were, it would actually encompass all of reality).

I would like, now, to focus on pure act as an infinite. Infinites come in two forms, according to Aristotle, the potential and the actual. The actual infinite is a complete set, while the potential is an incomplete set that progresses endlessly. It should be noted that if a thing is a potential infinite, it can never be an actual infinite, and vice versa. There has been much discussion concerning actual and potential infinites. Needless to say, absurdities and contradictions arise if we try to apply actual infinity to the real world. We can thus see that things are not actual infinites, but rather potential infinites. Furthermore, aside from the logical contradictions that arise from trying to apply actual infinity to the real world, we can see that things are not actually infinite, for if they were, they would actually all be identical and all-encompassing. This is clearly not the case. In actual infinities, each part is equal to the whole, since each part is actually unlimited, and thus is actually infinite. In potential infinities, each part is not equal to the whole, only the summation of the parts is equal to the whole.

Potential infinites are things that move from potentiality to actuality.

Actual infinities are immutable.

It is possible to negate from an actual infinity, without actually changing the infinity.

Pure potentiality is actually infinite, and pure actuality is actually infinite. Thus the scale of reality is potential infinity set between two actual infinities: the Void (pure potentiality), and God (pure actuality). Only Act is cause, and Act draws from Potential. Effect is the change from potential to actual. Thus, our whole universe operates on the principle of cause and effect, all things coming out of Void and entering Actuality.

This is the basis of Morality. This is the basis of Justice. This is the basis of the notions of heaven and hell (heaven being an endless, uninterrupted progression toward pure actuality, but never reaching it because that is impossible, pure actuality being actually infinite, and hell being an endless, uninterrupted regression toward pure potentiality, but never reaching it because that is impossibly, pure potential being actually infinite.). This is why evolutionary theory is viable. This is why big bang theory is viable.

Time is merely the measure of change, and change merely being the movement from potential to actual. Energy is eternal, neither created nor destroyed. Energy exists in two states, the actual (kinetic) and the potential. The creation of THINGS did not mark the creation of energy, it marked the "taking out of" the void, the total amount of energy that exists in the universe, and can potentially exist. The universe will potentially extend forever, since the void (the potential), is actually infinite, and the universe does not actually reduce the void in size. The cause of the creation of the universe can only have been pure act, since potentiality cannot produce effect in and of itself. However, since pure actuality, both as an infinite and as eternal, is holistic in nature, and thus the creation of the universe happened from eternity, since all actions of pure act occur immediately and simultaneously (just as it's knowledge), and thus does have definite beginning within the universe and in time, but has always existed from the perspective of the eternal.

Hmm... yeah.

Kinda interesting, but irrelevant, since PJ made no connection between these concepts and the existence of God.

Also, space (nothingness) is a thing that exists. It must be present before there can be matter or energy. Matter and energy probably ARE space, just balled up really small.

Yes, precisely.

Quantum Quack:

This is what I mean by limiting infinity.

Infinity does not violate the laws of existence itself, so I see no reason not to limit in a manner befitting logic.


If our square circle doesn't exist then what are we discussing a triangular circle maybe or a rectangular circle or a ...and so on....we are talking about something are we not even if it is an absurdity or an impossibility.

We're discussing the concept of an absurdity that we cannot even visualize or speak of. The word "square-circle" is meaningless, although we realize that it would be a circle that is also a square, which we know to not be possible.

The logic is that in some form a square circle exists just as a halucination exists or a fantazy exists etc.....they have a value so they exist.

It could never exist as a hallucination, even. Nor even as a fantasy, as we cannot picture it, and can only speak of connecting two concepts that cannot be at all connected. It essentially becomes a word speaking of something that cannot exist.

This is very different to the arguement for the noixistance of nothingness.
As nothingness has no value. Certainly our square circle does as does unicorns and pigs that fly. [ admitidley not much value but certainly some value]

To nitpick: Technically a pig that can fly and unicorns, being empirical claims, cannot be invalidated or validated until positive proof is demonstrated of their existence, A square-circle violates logic and thus is capable of being known to not exist. There is no value to it aside from it being a phrase.

When dealing with the infinite one must also include the infinite nature of imagination. And imagination is not limited to logic or rational. So anything that is imagined exists as an imagination. So there fore our square circle exists. I tend to believe that it is in the imagination that infinity finds it's unlimited expression. For everything we observe in reality appears to be finite or infinitely finite.

But the imagination -cannot- think of what is irrational truly. It cannot imagine contradiction, nor something which violates the Law of Identity, and other such things.

Fair enough, but if infinite combinations of every thing exist in imagination then the only limit is the realisation of those infinite combinations by our desire for the finite.

But does the combination even -have- an existence in that mind?

c7ityi_:

Hm. I heard it was destroyed in an earthquake.

Crom produced the Earthquake, enraged that they'd not strive themselves for what they sought.

beyondtimeandspace:

You have set up as a set as such: [nothingness...all mutable things...the immutable] and this set is reasoned thusly: Somethingness (the immutable) is infinite and unchanging and eternal. Nothingness is anti-somethingness, and is also eternal, and infinite (as nothing), as well as immutable. The mutable is the middle points, the points between somethingness and nothingness, which are composed of partial nothingness and partial somethingness in varying degrees.

That's a fair assessment.

There are a number of things wrong with this. Firstly, nothingness, as nothing, cannot, by necessity, be part of anything, including a scale. You call nothingness the extreme of the scale, but, in reality, as soon as something reaches nothingness (in theory), that something would cease to be, and would drop off the scale. It is logically false to say that nothing can be an extremity of a scale. Nothing is nothing.

I beg to differ. If somethingness is to have an opposite (which it can by virtue that all its attributes can be demonstrated to have to), this surely would be nothingness. We can imagine something with pure somethingness, something with mixed somethingness (finitehood), and then something which does not exist.

Furthermore, and secondly, if something is something, it isn't part nothingness, it just simply isn't purely somethingNESS. It is definitely a something, but simply not somethingness itself. It cannot be said to be nothing, but simply not nothingness, as it can be said to be something but not somethingness. Mutable things are thusly not something and nothing, they can only be something. And something is not consisted of somethingness and nothingness, it is only partially somethingness. Thus, to place nothingness as the extremity of the scale of reality is false.

Tell me: In a relative sense, you had a beginning, and you, in all likelyhood, will have an end, yes? That is to say, your existence is ephemeral, yes? In a relative sense do you not partake then of nothingness? You were once nothing and will return to nothing once your "somethingness" runs out. In such a manner do I refer to finite things, all of which are fated to be destroyed.

So far I have shown how nothingness cannot be an extremity of reality, in two ways. I will now show how the infinite, the somethingness (pure existence), the eternal, can also not be an extremity of the scale of reality. The actually infinite, by definition, being unlimited in reality, is all-encompassing. It couldn't possibly be an extremity of the scale, because it would, by default, be composed entirely of the scale. It could not be an end of a scale toward which a something tended, both because that something could never reach it, and because the scale itself would be the entirety of it. Thus, it is false to say that pure somethingness is an extremity of the scale of reality.

My response: Pure somethingness must surely be considered part of the scale precisely, again, because it is the diametric opposite of nothingness. But as an infinite thing, it can never be reached, you are surely right, and it is composed of the entire scale excluding nothingness (as infinity only stretches from the infinitely small to the infinitely large). But the "extremity of the scale" would remain at "infinitly large" even if it could never be reached, precisely because nothing can be larger than infinitely large. THink of it this way: On a ruler, twelve inches is one end of the extreme, zero the other. 12 would be the extreme of infinity, encompasing all else but superior in number to all else, whilst zero would be nothing.

Finally, and this has already been touched upon in basic terms by other posters, your treatment of nothingness as a "half" of reality is also false. Firstly, it is false merely by definition of reality, since reality is that which is, and since nothingness cannot "be," then it cannot be a part of reality.

I use the term "reality" as a term to encompase all which is real, either really existent, or really non-existent. Forgive any confusion that my usage of reality as such might have produced.

Secondly, you have claimed that all things are categorized as either existing or not existing, and thus we can see that nothingness is a part of reality. This claim is actually false. There is a very crucial idea that you have not considered, and this is potential. While it might be said that purple dragons do not exist, they can potentially exist. That is, matter and energy may be constructed in a particular way so as to form a purple dragon. In actuality, things exist, but things are merely constructs of matter/energy, which are (as Eistein demonstrated) the same thing. The point is, all things exist in potentiality, but only certain things exist in actuality. Energy, as such, takes two forms, potential energy and kinetic energy. What is actual is energy in kinetic form, and what is potential is energy in potential form. Both exist, but in different states. Thus, it may be said that all things exist, but only some things exist actually. When we say "such and such doesn't exist," what we normally mean is that it is potential, but not actual. In some cases, when we say "such and such doesn't exist" we can mean it belongs to the realm of nothingness. Such a case would be the case of the square circle.

I agree with this statement, but only as regards empirical thing (as you seem to agree with, too). Only empirical things can have potential to exist or not, logical necessities (such as the square-circle you mention) can only necessarily exist or necessarily non-exist. Whilst it is true that all empirical things potentially exist, this potentiality is rooted in energy, which as it is the very fabric of existence, is necessarily eternal, so that potentiality can be said to be linked with said eternity in that, since it is possible, it could at any time exist. But we must also remember that all potential things are finite, thus their nature is in the mid-point betwixt somethingness and nothingness, and that is why they are potential before they exist, and do not exist perpetually.

Let me say a bit on this subject to clarify things. The square circle, as some here have said, exists as an imaginary thing. I assert that this is false. Firstly, try to imagine a square circle. You cannot. A square, by definition, is a 2D geometric shape that has four equal sides, and four corners which each form ninety-degree angles. A circle, by definition, is a 2D geometric shape that has only one side, no corners, which forms a three hundred and sixty degree angle, and who's outer edge is exactly the same distance away from the center at every point. When you say "square circle" you are verbalizing a logical contradiction, and actually conveying no idea. Nothing is actually being said when you say "square circle." Nothing is being said because when words are pronounced, they convey ideas. Words are merely tools toward this end. The sounds produced by the voice box when saying "square circle" exist. The light being emitted by this computer moniter that form the words "square" and "circle" exists. However, the idea, the notion, the concept, of a square circle does not exist, nor does it have the potential to exist. And where there can be no potential for an idea to exist (in any mind), then there can be no potential for it to actually exist. Thusly, a square circle belongs to the realm of nothingness, since nothing is actually being said by "square circle" no idea conveyed. If one wishes to argue, "what if it is a square that is circular," that is, with rounded sides. If that is the case, the we aren't actually talking about a square, since the corners do not form ninety degree angles, and we're not talking about a circle, since there are several sides. Thus, a "circular square" cannot be said to be the same thing as a "square circle" (nor is such terminology actually accurate). If someone says, "what if the corners and edges of the square are circles. Again, this isn't the same thing as a "square circle." Those ideas of circular squares (in slang), or squares with circles for corners (again, improper terminology), can potentially exist. A square circle cannot.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Thus, it is that the scale is not actually between "nothingness" and "somethingness," rather, the scale of reality is between the "potential" and the "actual." The non-existent would not be nothingness, rather it would be the purely potential. As well, pure existence would really be pure actuality.

Ah! But you yourself admit to the impossibility of certain things, and it is here that I claim the true nothingness is. When we discuss potential, on the other hand, we're discussing something which is related to the mid-point betwixt something and nothing, by the very fact that it does not have existence at one point, and will not have existence at another, but does have the potential for existence and will exist for a period of time.

Now, this pure actuality would have all those same properties that you have delineated for pure existence, since that is exactly what it is. However, I would like to again reiterate the fact that, as an infinite, it cannot be part of the scale of reality (if it were, it would actually encompass all of reality).

I just thought of a good way to present my point: An extreme is the totality of something and its end point. The infinitely large would be this.

I would like, now, to focus on pure act as an infinite. Infinites come in two forms, according to Aristotle, the potential and the actual. The actual infinite is a complete set, while the potential is an incomplete set that progresses endlessly. It should be noted that if a thing is a potential infinite, it can never be an actual infinite, and vice versa. There has been much discussion concerning actual and potential infinites. Needless to say, absurdities and contradictions arise if we try to apply actual infinity to the real world. We can thus see that things are not actual infinites, but rather potential infinites. Furthermore, aside from the logical contradictions that arise from trying to apply actual infinity to the real world, we can see that things are not actually infinite, for if they were, they would actually all be identical and all-encompassing. This is clearly not the case. In actual infinities, each part is equal to the whole, since each part is actually unlimited, and thus is actually infinite. In potential infinities, each part is not equal to the whole, only the summation of the parts is equal to the whole.

I shall attempt to demonstrate this is not necessarily so when I write up my refutation of Zeno's Paradox, which deals with something similar.

Potential infinites are things that move from potentiality to actuality.

In what way? If a potential infinity, as described by Aristotle, is something which endlessly progresses, it can never be "moving from potentiality to actuality" unless it is indefinitely existent once real.

It is possible to negate from an actual infinity, without actually changing the infinity.

How?

Pure potentiality is actually infinite, and pure actuality is actually infinite. Thus the scale of reality is potential infinity set between two actual infinities: the Void (pure potentiality), and God (pure actuality). Only Act is cause, and Act draws from Potential. Effect is the change from potential to actual. Thus, our whole universe operates on the principle of cause and effect, all things coming out of Void and entering Actuality.

In what way is pure potentially actually infinite? In that all which is possible can, will, and will an infinite amount of times over, be produced?

This is the basis of Morality. This is the basis of Justice. This is the basis of the notions of heaven and hell (heaven being an endless, uninterrupted progression toward pure actuality, but never reaching it because that is impossible, pure actuality being actually infinite, and hell being an endless, uninterrupted regression toward pure potentiality, but never reaching it because that is impossibly, pure potential being actually infinite.). This is why evolutionary theory is viable. This is why big bang theory is viable.

HOw is this the basis of morality and justice? And in what way is Heaven pure potentiality?

Time is merely the measure of change, and change merely being the movement from potential to actual. Energy is eternal, neither created nor destroyed. Energy exists in two states, the actual (kinetic) and the potential. The creation of THINGS did not mark the creation of energy, it marked the "taking out of" the void, the total amount of energy that exists in the universe, and can potentially exist. The universe will potentially extend forever, since the void (the potential), is actually infinite, and the universe does not actually reduce the void in size. The cause of the creation of the universe can only have been pure act, since potentiality cannot produce effect in and of itself. However, since pure actuality, both as an infinite and as eternal, is holistic in nature, and thus the creation of the universe happened from eternity, since all actions of pure act occur immediately and simultaneously (just as it's knowledge), and thus does have definite beginning within the universe and in time, but has always existed from the perspective of the eternal.

I would argue against this claim that the universe has existed from the perspective of the eternal from all time, but rather, that as a potentiality, it only had the potential to exist until it did, even though its position in eternity, like all other positions in eternity, are infinitely away in time from the start and beginning of eternity.

spidergoat:

Also, space (nothingness) is a thing that exists. It must be present before there can be matter or energy. Matter and energy probably ARE space, just balled up really small.

But as we've found, space is -not- nothingness. Space in a scientific sense is always filled with energy and, in fact, is energy. Moreover, in terms of existence, space is existence. Nothingness can never be filled, as it is not simply a void, but rather, nothing.

BeyondTimeAndSpace:

I just had to say: You bringing up potentiality was absolutely great. It is something which I had not tackled fully within my theory and has just given me a very, very interesting theory, as relates to Realism v. Phenomenalism. I'll be posting that soon.

Shall we try another approach?

If Nothignness is the absence of pressure does that make it an infinite low pressure?

If nothingness is an absoute vacuum [ infinte low pressure ] does this not make nothingness the greatest force there is from a perspective of something- ness.
To say that nothingness has a pressure would be invalid yes?
So therefore nothingness must have no pressure.
If it has absolutely no pressure then it is an absoute vacuum [ infinte low pressure ].

Now if we have an infinitely low pressure in a universe that is pressure nothingness is the greatest attractive force there is. Thus gravity can be derived from the attraction of everything towards this low pressure. [ nothingness ] mass forms as a way of governing a singularity that is absolute vaccum. Space folds around nothingness and performs this governing function. Thus mass exists as a default function of nothingness.

To accept that nothingness has absolutely no pressure allows us an understanding into gravity. Thus the effect of nothingness on the universe of somethiingness is very profound. In fact without it there would be no universe or reality.
But of course one has to accept the primary premise of absolute vacuum first.



Nothingness is then an inverse particle [ higgs ]
When including time - energy [ mass ] we have a moving universe.
In this contect ---zero =mc^2

beyondtimeandspace:

I beg to differ. If somethingness is to have an opposite (which it can by virtue that all its attributes can be demonstrated to have to), this surely would be nothingness. We can imagine something with pure somethingness, something with mixed somethingness (finitehood), and then something which does not exist.

Tell me: In a relative sense, you had a beginning, and you, in all likelyhood, will have an end, yes? That is to say, your existence is ephemeral, yes? In a relative sense do you not partake then of nothingness? You were once nothing and will return to nothing once your "somethingness" runs out. In such a manner do I refer to finite things, all of which are fated to be destroyed.

OK, the only way I'm going to be able to agree with you on this is if what you mean by "nothing(ness)" is equivalent to what I mean by potential(ity). Let me explain my reasoning. It comes out of the terms themselves. What is "something?" What is "nothing?" When we talk about a thing, what do we mean? If we are to say that energy/matter is the basis of reality, then "things" are constructs of matter/energy. Thus, when we say "something" we're referring to some particular construct of matter/energy. It is a thing. When we say to "nothing," we're referring to that which is not constructed. This doesn't necessarily refer to non-existence (as such), but rather, it could simply refer to matter/energy in its native (and basic unconstructed) form. Thus, no thing, construct, is being referred to. This is potentiality. When I say that a square circle "belongs to the realm of nothingness" I don't mean it in the sense of potentiality, but rather... it simply isn't (this is the only way I can really think to say it, but even this isn't really accurate). The opposite of somethingness is indeed nothingness, just as surely as the opposite of something is nothing. However, I postulate that what is being referred to in such terms is this duality of potentiality and actuality. So, yes, I, as constructed matter/energy, will at some point cease to be (or at least at some point in the past did not exist) and thus partake in nothingness (or rather, potentiality). I firmly assert that the scale is between potentiality and actuality.

And, actually, just thinking about this now... by my reasoning of the meanings of the terms something and nothing... pure somethingness would actually really be nothing, since, if it weren't, it would be something, and then finite. Thus, pure somethingness and pure nothingness would actually be the same thing. This would then mean that pure potentiality and pure actuality would also be the same thing.

Crap. I was going to do a step-by-step response to all of your comments, but now I need to think about this some more. Hmm... Beginning and End. Liminocentricity. Yes, if both are actually infinite, then this fits properly. Hmm hmm hmmm....

Quantum Quack:


If Nothignness is the absence of pressure does that make it an infinite low pressure?

If nothingness is an absoute vacuum [ infinte low pressure ] does this not make nothingness the greatest force there is from a perspective of something- ness.
To say that nothingness has a pressure would be invalid yes?
So therefore nothingness must have no pressure.
If it has absolutely no pressure then it is an absoute vacuum [ infinte low pressure ].

The notion of pressure no longer exists in nothingness. It is not simply infinitely low pressure - which would have an infinitely low value - but the absence of pressure all together.

Now if we have an infinitely low pressure in a universe that is pressure nothingness is the greatest attractive force there is. Thus gravity can be derived from the attraction of everything towards this low pressure. [ nothingness ] mass forms as a way of governing a singularity that is absolute vaccum. Space folds around nothingness and performs this governing function. Thus mass exists as a default function of nothingness.

It would be interesting, but nothingness does not have a space, therefore nothing for somethingness to twist around under, nor for anything to speed towards.

To accept that nothingness has absolutely no pressure allows us an understanding into gravity. Thus the effect of nothingness on the universe of somethiingness is very profound. In fact without it there would be no universe or reality.
But of course one has to accept the primary premise of absolute vacuum first.

It's -definitely- an interesting idea, but I think it not valid.

beyondtimeandspace:

OK, the only way I'm going to be able to agree with you on this is if what you mean by "nothing(ness)" is equivalent to what I mean by potential(ity). Let me explain my reasoning. It comes out of the terms themselves. What is "something?" What is "nothing?" When we talk about a thing, what do we mean? If we are to say that energy/matter is the basis of reality, then "things" are constructs of matter/energy. Thus, when we say "something" we're referring to some particular construct of matter/energy. It is a thing. When we say to "nothing," we're referring to that which is not constructed. This doesn't necessarily refer to non-existence (as such), but rather, it could simply refer to matter/energy in its native (and basic unconstructed) form. Thus, no thing, construct, is being referred to. This is potentiality. When I say that a square circle "belongs to the realm of nothingness" I don't mean it in the sense of potentiality, but rather... it simply isn't (this is the only way I can really think to say it, but even this isn't really accurate). The opposite of somethingness is indeed nothingness, just as surely as the opposite of something is nothing. However, I postulate that what is being referred to in such terms is this duality of potentiality and actuality. So, yes, I, as constructed matter/energy, will at some point cease to be (or at least at some point in the past did not exist) and thus partake in nothingness (or rather, potentiality). I firmly assert that the scale is between potentiality and actuality.

When I use the term "something" and "nothing", I refer to the "it simply isn't" which a square-circle is part of. Something which has no-space, no-existence, no-length-, no-energy, no-matter, no-time, and in every single way is the opposite of pure somethingness.

Okay, here's something: Would not you say that both that which exists currently and that which can exist can only be part of existence? That is to say, the idea of true non-existence, in the sense of the square-circle, is utterly removed from this?

And, actually, just thinking about this now... by my reasoning of the meanings of the terms something and nothing... pure somethingness would actually really be nothing, since, if it weren't, it would be something, and then finite. Thus, pure somethingness and pure nothingness would actually be the same thing. This would then mean that pure potentiality and pure actuality would also be the same thing.

I fail to see how that is possible? For something can be something and not finite, if it has always existed and never will cease to exist and is infinitely large and small.

Crap. I was going to do a step-by-step response to all of your comments, but now I need to think about this some more. Hmm... Beginning and End. Liminocentricity. Yes, if both are actually infinite, then this fits properly. Hmm hmm hmmm....

I look forward to your arguments soon!

Ok, just a really quick question while I have a few minutes here.

You have said that all mutable things (the points on the scale between somethingness and nothingness) are partially somethingness and partially nothingness. Explain how this is possible.

What I want you to do is to give an example of a mutable thing. Indicate in what ways that things is partial somethingness, and in what ways that thing is partially nothingness. Please bear in mind that, as partaking in nothingness (patially), there would be some aspect of that mutable thing that has equivalence to the meaning of a square circle.

beyondtimeandspace:

You have said that all mutable things (the points on the scale between somethingness and nothingness) are partially somethingness and partially nothingness. Explain how this is possible.

What I want you to do is to give an example of a mutable thing. Indicate in what ways that things is partial somethingness, and in what ways that thing is partially nothingness. Please bear in mind that, as partaking in nothingness (patially), there would be some aspect of that mutable thing that has equivalence to the meaning of a square circle.


When something has a beginning and an end, as a specific thing, it has some of the qualities of existence, whilst also having some of the qualities of non-existence. This is to say, it is made up of energy, it has dimension, et cetera, but it is not infinite, immutable, or eternal, but instead fades away relatively. This is not to say that something actually exists which is a true mix of somethingness and nothingness, that is to say, mixing something with nothing as if it were salt in water, but rather that as a finite thing, in a relative sense its existence's ephermeral nature points towards a connection with non-existence by virtue of not being permanent. This satisfies the requirement for a mid point/series of infinite mid-points betwixt the two extremes, as well as presenting a reason why eternal, immutable, infinite existence, can nonetheless have transient things. Moreover, it is not to say that it has "qua