Hi-D, all you seem to be doing is espousing the Kalam Cosmological Argument, right? At least in a roundabout way and not particularly clearly. If so, I'm probably just going to refer you to the previous threads on the matter in future. This doesn't follow: if non-existence is solely an impossible idea, how would you define everything that does not exist? Sure, existence is all that is created, so, by definition, anything that is not created does not exist... and the concept of such a thing must have the property of being non-existent. For example, my other two brothers, Tom and Dick... they don't exist: the idea of them has the property of non-existence. So how is non-existence an impossible idea? You might think it not necessary, because you know what you mean. Unfortunately we can only go by what you write, and to avoid confusion and ambiguity, and for general clarity, some appropriate "lingo" is often required. That would be nice, for you to take me through your logic? Sure. So now you introduce "conscious" to the matter. Why? What logic has led you to this conclusion? The rock started with a conscious idea? Or was it merely the labelling and understanding by a conscious entity of what already existed that started with that conscious entity? Again, your logic, your argument that led you to this position would be helpful. A book is clearly a creation of a conscious entity, though. We can trace it back to the specific entity that created it. But not everything can be evidenced as beginning from a conscious entity. A rock is such evidence, a rock that existed prior to any conscious entities existed on earth. Before any life whatsoever. Thus our "evidence" is that not all creations begin with a conscious idea. Even human breath that we exhale is not really based on an idea. Our understanding of it is, sure. So here is an example of you extrapolating from a small and biased sample, to a claim of the nature of reality. Sure, it may well be that all creations are the result of a conscious idea, but the evidence you have does not logically lead to that: your "evidence" is a sample of chairs that have four legs, and thus you're concluding that anything with four legs is a chair. Do you follow? Sure. Or perhaps it always existed, perhaps, and just cycles through changes. But you're still implying a "source of creation" that is conscious, and without valid reason.
My response to your first question...not sure who that is, but I claim an eternal consciousness forms what is created. Second question...as ideas, all unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated ideas are the otherness that allows for multiplicity. Non-existence defies the logic of the actual...existence. Non-existence can only ever be an idea. Unicorns another unsubstantiated, never to be actual, never to become more than an idea. I can’t do diddly on this phone so I will respond further later.
Everything you brought up is based on theories never to be proven. I am offering proof in as simple a form as I can. Science and its notions keep people blinded by their addition to its "unresolvability."
Sarkus, "anything that is not created does not exist... and the concept of such a thing must have the property of being non-existent." It is only another idea rather than an actuality. As an idea, all that is not created, exists, as a reality, nope. I need to name this concept and define it better so it is more easily understood.
Addition should read as addiction in another of my answers elsewhere regarding science. Geesh, not much time to edit here. Editing is my friend.
Sarkus, I love your questions, but can you shoot only one at a time? I'll answer, then wait on your understanding or rehash it another way until you do understand. When I litter the thread with concepts that run counter to what is currently believed the cognitive dissonance is a lot then confusion overwhelms the conversation.
This is the story of why I decided to examine the nature of reality and our human understanding of it. The world around me seems too chaotic and crazy right now, overwhelmed with fear and anger that exacerbates nihilism. Nihilism helps no one. So, due to not sleeping and having an abundance of mental energy, I began processing all the ins and outs, the quandaries, surrounding existence. These quandaries always end in a paradox, logical fallacies, or trippy infinite loops. I thought to myself, is understanding the immediate world around me and its order that messy? No, I understand the order I find in my basic daily observations with most things being constant rather than inconsistent. With simple logic and reasoning, I can expect the sun to rise, a dog to bark, a chair to hold the seated, so where does understanding reality get so messy? Science. I despise reading and have never invested my understanding in the religion of science, so it was not a stumbling block for me to overcome the current beliefs it espouses. Currently, I frequent two philosophy websites, ilovephilosophy.com and knowthyselforumotion.net, to expand my horizons regarding thought through the use of reasoning and the application of alternative perspectives. The poster, Satyr, over at knowthyselforumotion.net hammered home the need for me to use my basic observations of reality, the actual, before my head goes up in the clouds of purely abstract ideas that have no concrete foundation, no verifiability. So I did just that and formulated a new understanding of reality, existence. From my observations, I understand the simple consistency or constant that existence provides. I am sure a typical chair will hold the typical seated. I am sure a dog will bark. I am sure the sun will rise again. But where's the foundation underneath what my typical comprehension? By recognizing the simple understanding of my immediate surroundings, essentially knowing what to expect typically, I wondered could that simplicity apply to the overarching umbrella that is known as existence? Yes. It can. Instead of spinning my wheels on paradoxes, logical fallacies, and the rest of the confusing nonsense, I decided to take a bold approach. Existence is...everything actual. No matter what galaxy or dimension or universe. Everything falls under the umbrella of existence, all that exists. That means there is only one, overarching existence. Now I asked myself, I reasoned, if everything exists, how can anything not exist? It can't. Non-existence denies the actual...existence. So, that leaves non-existence as purely an idea, a concept.
Only 30 minutes to edit? Seriously? Boo hiss. Well, I lost my next paragraph and it was most informative. Bummer. I'll write the rest of my process out on the PC's notepad and come back with it later.
Would you agree that the space, the nothingness between the stars exists or not? How is it that we can observe non-existence?
Nothingness does not exist. It is observably something. Sorry, but I haven't covered all the concepts yet. I mean I did earlier, but nobody understood. So now I'm giving everyone a look into my mind as best as I can. We use nothing and non-existence as practical place holders in our daily affairs, but on the largest scale of reality, nope, both are purely concepts, ideas only.
He's not claiming it; he's merely stating fact. Even the hard vacuum between galaxies is chock full of electromagnetic radiation (otherwise their light wouldn't reach us), and is positively seething with vacuum energy. The fact that baryonic matter (such as atoms) is relatively rare (yet still present) is hardly its most interesting trait.
Exactly, space is observable by the naked eye, telescopes, probes, etc. Everything in space is of space, all equaling something et al. existence.
I promise that my words are not a salad. I observe nature, reality, existence then reason it out with what makes the most verifiable sense.
OK, that may be true, but I was referring to the vacuum of space. It sounds like the better term for what you're describing is 'the universe' or 'the observable universe'.
I'm afraid 'observing', and 'reasoning' and 'sense' are insufficient to ward off word salad. For example 'nothing' is a poorly-defined term. It is a weasel word, meaning it can have different meanings to different people, and even different meanings at different times in different contexts. Likewise 'creation' - as exemplified by the number of times you have to clarify what you mean, and even at that, your definitions are circular, paradoxical or specious. What you might want to do is to take a basic course in philosophy, to see how it can be effectively navigated.
There are not many words that don't have more than one meaning. What paradox? What is specious? The source of creation (creation for short) creates eternally. Simple. Can comprehension of what I just wrote be taught? The educational system is vastly overrated and most people are educated beyond their intelligence. Probably why they cannot take off their blinders, comprehend, and apply new concepts. If you cannot understand my thought processes, please refer someone more capable to make an attempt.
Some people who don't understand science prefer to make up their own. I would suggest going outside and yelling into the wind.
Well, this meets all three: Ah. Everything clicks into place. So. Without knowing anything about the people you are talking to, you have already decided that the problem is with their over-education, and not with your under-education. If you had led this thread with this assertion, you would have saved lot of time. No one would have bothered trying to argue with your uneducated opinions. I wouldn't have used words such as 'paradox' and 'specious'. And 'philosophy'. And, while we're at it, 'creation', since you have not learned what these words mean. Reporting to have this thread moved to a more appropriate place
Can you even explain what the paradox is? Tick tock. I can see you love word salad labels, but how is what I wrote specious? tick tock Another poster already offered two definitions of creation and I chose one. Or perhaps all that edumacation didn't amount to reading comprehension.
