WHY does anything exist?

Well, either 1) there's literally nothing to make the basic types of things of or 2) there is only one basic possible type of thing that was around forever, it being unbreakable since it is unmakable (from which all composites can be made).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did the dark side of the moon exist before anyone witnessed it?
Did it change in any way while it was being witnessed?
Does it look the same now, while no-one is witnessing it,
even though we know what it looks like?

Or does it just exist as it is, regardless of whether anyone is looking at it or not?

Please have a long think about this before answering.
I don't know if you are religious, but the level of Idealism (in the philosophic sense) which you are proposing usually
requires some external being to store the apparent reality while it is not being observed.
Bishop Berkeley, who originally espoused it, went out of favour for a a couple of centuries after his death in 1753, but I believe he has a few modern adherents.

Philosophy is a bit like chess, and you must study your opening gambits.
If you study Idealism hard enough, even though it is an unfashionable opening, you may give Dywyddyr a hard game.
At the moment you are playing like a novice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just wish that when people speculate they say so rather than presenting it as fact like John99 was doing before ge finally got his ban!

Edid:- I finally put John99 on my ignore list! Couldn't take it anymore!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so all this talk of nothing existing is related to before the big bang?

if nothing existed before the big bang and nothing is unstable, it became stable by the big bang (was big bang cause or effect?)

 

if you wait long enough (and there is the time of all eternity), then low probability events, such as bangs, could happen from the quantum fluctuations about the zero-point. Perhaps some rare type of chain reaction, too.

Nothing never sleeps, but is ever up to something, jiggling as loose 'change'.


(If 'nothing' became stable, there would be a total lack of anything)

 

Since there is no definition time for forever stuff, there would have to be no other 'choice'. Some regard the photon as the basic thing, yet a photon can become an electron and a positron, which can then reform into a photon.

 

Note in this very statement nothing is unstable not something is unstable, nothing is being defined as something here.

 

This is still a question of perception, if there is no perception it means no one knows how it looks or what is the particular object being perceived.

 

Not knowing what it looks like or what it is is not the same as it not existing (or changing appearance).

 

:bravo:
:roflmao:

um..and what was your response when a theist said this?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Very funny.
This guy's effectively claiming that we have to see (with our own eyes) something before we can say definitively that it exists. No other senses count.
I.e. it's only there because we look.

Not quite the same case you're implying, but I grant the parallel.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting, since atheists say God doesn't exist because there are no observable evidence for God. :bravo:

 

And you're another that's misreading the argument (both of them). Is that deliberate?
But never mind.

 

I mean all senses count that's what perception is and I also mean someone doesn't matter who has to see it.

 

If you'd bother to read the thread you will find that the argument that Captain Kremmen is referring to (in the post to which you replied) is purely about vision.

See?
THAT is what Kremmen was replying to, and also note that in each case Kremmen referred specifically to vision.

 

That may be but I was referring to the entirety of perception.

 

And you were therefore off-topic and irrelevant to the point that was under contention.

 

If I misread the post I still got to make a play on it.

 

That's the third and not even needed "beyond reasonable doubt' approach, which is only useful for a Theity.

The first two disproofs are in the science/religion thread, where I just summed them up again a minute ago.

No God proofs have shown up as yet.

 

The seer is the perceiver of *all knowledge* (even the "absence of knowledge - ex: I don't know logic). We all know that the dark side exists - because we understand the shape of the moon, and provided we are not morons, we can "infer" the dark side exists regardless of whether it is physically perceived or not. It's similar to drawing the inference that a fire must have existed when one sees smoke.

These are *inferences* drawn from using our senses and cannot be contested. If you take the pains to understand - I am pointing to the *entity* which perceives all this and in the in the absence of which - being or non-being would become inconsequential and useless. I hope you are not going to hang me for maintaining an opinion - howsoever naive it may sound to your reformed intellect.

I do usually think long and hard before writing a single letter here. Sadly none of the comments so far has made much sense to me - but hey - I don't have enough gray cells yet.

You bet I am.

The above basically summarizes what I have been saying so far - viz. an entity is required to *store* these apparent realities - which if I may add are in a state of constant flux - only the perceiving entity never changes - for all changes require a *changeless background* for them to be perceived.

Well - point taken. But I wanna play and learn.

Let me ask you and Dywyddyr this:

In a deep dreamless sleep - we are NOT *aware* of *anything*. Even though you guys would kill me if I were to say that absolutely *nothing* exists in deep dreamless sleep - even though when you wake up, everything is intact and we all go about our daily lives as usual.

My point is however this: Though the waking up on the next day proves it beyond a shadow of doubt that we existed while we were perceiving *nothing* - tell me one simple way to determine the truth of our existence whilst we were in that deep sleep state.

It's only upon waking up and getting the possession back of our bodies as it were - does the rest of the worldly play come back in full force. So the world is seen only when the body is seen and not in deep dreamless sleep. If the world were real - it should have been perceivable even in that deep dreamless sleep.

I am talking about the *continuity* of that one changeless entity. It could be soul, divinity - whatever - names are names afterall - but there must exist an entity. When we perceive *nothing* we cannot be perceiving anything - that's what the *nothingness* implies - and yet - the perceiver can never be disregarded.

After a certain point - words fail to impress the reality. That's my firm conviction.

Regards