Existence...

[DaveC426913]

Can you even explain what the paradox is?

Have done so more than once. See posts 23 and 24 for example.
Please review the thread before responding.

"tick tock"

I can see you love word salad labels, but how is what I wrote specious?

You call something creation that you claim to be eternal. Superficially, that might make sense if you're not analytical, but once you tease out the weasel words - such as creation versus Creation - then it's apparent that it's nothing more than poorly-constructed logic that exploits ambiguity of terms.

Another poster already offered two definitions of creation and I chose one.

And then, when it suits you, you take advantage of the ambiguity of the term. That's not a basis for a meaningful discussion.


Look, walking, talking Dunning Kruger examplars are a dime-a-dozen around here. You don't know what you don't know, and that's not enough to sustain intelligent discussion. Feel free to hurl your objections at my receding back. :unsub:

 

[WendyDarling]

Have done so more than once. See posts 23 and 24 for example.
Please review the thread before responding.

"tick tock"

Like you can understand the difference between Creation and creation. I called existence the source of creation which never began and will never end. Creation(if you can understand that but I have my doubts) was never created. Creation cannot create itself. It is a constant that has always been creating other somethings. There are no other Existences(with a capital E), only this one we occupy and it simply is...

Simple alludes most. There is no paradox in Creation being eternal. Creation never being created.




You call something creation that you claim to be eternal. Superficially, that might make sense if you're not analytical, but once you tease out the weasel words - such as creation versus Creation - then it's apparent that it's nothing more than poorly-constructed logic that exploits ambiguity of terms.


And then, when it suits you, you take advantage of the ambiguity of the term. That's not a basis for a meaningful discussion.


Look, walking, talking Dunning Kruger examplars are a dime-a-dozen around here. You don't know what you don't know, and that's not enough to sustain intelligent discussion. Feel free to hurl your objections at my receding back. :unsub:

Love how this site operates. If you take too much time, your post disappears before you can send it?

Whatevs.

Creation(Capital C)? What is that to you?

 

[Sarkus]

My response to your first question...not sure who that is, but I claim an eternal consciousness forms what is created.

Aye - you definitely need to have a look

Second question...as ideas, all unsubstantiated.

Unsubstantiated ideas are the otherness that allows for multiplicity.

You'll have to explain what you mean by this, please?

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.

You said the non-existence was an impossible idea... but we know what it means for something to be non-existent, surely? It is possible for something to not exist, right? Just ask my two brothers Dick and Harry!
What you seem to mean is that something that is non-existent can not exist, because if/when it exists it is no longer non-existent; "non-existence" (i.e. that which is non-existent) can not exist, right? This is a truism, and a logical truth: X is not not-X. But this then says nothing about creation, any creator, only that something can not both exist and not-exist.

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.

Okay.
But bear in mind that merely saying something along the lines of "that which does not have the property of existence does not exist", or "that which is non-existent does not exist" is not saying anything new, or even particularly meaningful.

Sarkus,

I love your questions, but can you shoot only one at a time?

Apologies, but if you post something that warrants two or more questions, I will raise them in the same reply. Simply quote the one you're answering, answer it, then quote the next one, and answer that. If you think a subsequent question is based on a misunderstanding of what you have said, and you feel a clarification is required, simply say as much, and clarify etc. That's not a problem.

 

[WendyDarling]

Sarkus,

Hmmm. There are actual somethings, in whatever observable form they take, then there are ideas, non-existence is solely an idea.
If non-existence occurred, existence would cease, all of it. Non-existence is the antithesis of existence, and it is not a selective process, it is a totalitarian process.

When we use the idea of non-existent, we are holding the place of an actual thing that is not in our presence. Example, I've looked everywhere and the book is non-existent. What we are describing, the book, is an actual observable object so it is not actually non-existent. Another example, my great, great, great grandchildren are non-existent. No, my great great great grandchildren are only an idea, not an actual existing thing in reality. Example, well death is non-existence. No, it is existence transformed, but the life that was represented was real, actual, and it doesn't disappear, only changes form.

Had to edit out a sentence for it was not clear enough.

Is anything making sense?

Existence is actual stuff and ideas.
Non-existence is no stuff, no ideas, no existence.

The tricky thing about ideas is we accept them, the abstraction, as if they are an actual tangible something.

 

[Sarkus]

Reporting to have this thread moved to a more appropriate place

DaveC, I think it's in its appropriate place: a discussion on "existence" is at home in the philosophy forum, is it not?
Hi-D may not be conveying his position as clearly as some may like, but perhaps give some slack: we all start somewhere on these journeys, do we not? Or at least those of us foolish enough to even question such matters?

 

[WendyDarling]

Questions?

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC, I think it's in its appropriate place: a discussion on "existence" is at home in the philosophy forum, is it not?

I've already recused myself from this thread (unsubbed), so nothing more should need to be said, but, since you asked, I can't say it better than I did in post 39:

There is a squidge more to philosophy than laying out a word salad of self-referential declarations full of ambiguously defined words, like 'something cant come from nothing' and 'creation can't create itself'.

If you review the thread, you'll see the OP plays with the words 'nothing', and 'creation' (or 'Creation') like they're play dough.

That's fine for free thoughts, it's just not philosophy. No philosophical methods will work here - you'll be 'playing chess with a pigeon'.

... perhaps give some slack:

I am. In fact, I'm facilitating.

1. I'm reporting the thread be moved to a forum where it won't be constrained by the rigours of philosophy. If constrained here, it will run afoul of all sorts of fallacies associated with the discipline of philosophy that will only confound free-association discussion.
2. I've unsubbed, so as not to handcuff the thread with such inconveniences as asking for well-defined terms we can all agree on. Unsubbing is an infinite amount of slack.

Carry on. you don't need me.

 

[WendyDarling]

Love how this site operates. If you take too much time, your post disappears before you can send it?

Whatevs.

Creation(Capital C)? What is that to you?

If this poster was interested in the rigors of philosophy, he would provide answers not all referrals to a newbie about post number 23, 24, and 39. That means nothing to a newbie who’s no idea how to find such nuisances.

What is that even? Not a direct answer. A game of referral.

He would provide the very definition he was accusing me of lacking when asked as well? If you know what Creation is and creation is, let’s see it.

Best wishes on your rigors of philosophical referrals and avoidance measures.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Questions?

Discussion?
How can this be when there is "nothing" to discus?
In fact the discussion called for is non-existent... lol

 

[WendyDarling]

Discussion?
How can this be when there is "nothing" to discus?
In fact the discussion called for is non-existent... lol

People who actually practice philosophy discuss. Not my problem if you choose to exclude yourself from practicing philosophy. But by all means, continue as the peanut gallery, which will equal your contribution to this thread.

 

[Yazata]

Thank you for the welcome.

I'll try to be clear and simple.

Existence is...

no beginning,

no end.

Discuss?

You sound like the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. He basically argued that 'existence exists' and 'nonexistence doesn't exist', then used those ideas to argue against beginnings and ends.

That's exceedingly counterintuitive since it seems to me that countless things come into and go out of existence. Tables, chairs, people, cities, mountains, oceans, planets...

I think that your point might have some plausibility if you are talking about 'Reality' in its totality. I don't think that I want to endorse that idea without further argument though.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Dysfunction double-check

People who actually practice philosophy discuss. Not my problem if you choose to exclude yourself from practicing philosophy. But by all means, continue as the peanut gallery, which will equal your contribution to this thread.

So, just to make sure I understand what's going on, here: An account dormant since its creation in 2016 wakes up and starts posting incoherent nonsense, apparently for the thrill of telling people off?

It's not exactly an everyday thing around here, but, sure, sounds about right.

Mostly this seems an ad campaign↑ for some website, so perhaps you should probably try something a little less ... ah, what's the word ... oh, right, stupid. You might want to try something a little less stupid. People might get the impression that the "I Love Philosophy" philsophy forums are nothing more than crank bottery and nonsense.

In any case, there should probably be something more to it than humiliating "I Love Philosophy" dot com. The admins there ought to be embarrassed.

Or is that it, that you're just so pissed off at the other site you just can't help yourself; in truth, we don't care. As it is, posting incoherent, self-glorifying nonsense for the sake of lashing out at anyone who makes the mistake of trying to take you seriously, is not appropriate behavior. A genuis like you, Wendy, ought to be able to figure that part. Really. It's not hard.

 

[Yazata]

Creation, at least the way I understand the term, is either an action, or "that which is created" - i.e. the result of the act. Are you saying the action is eternal, or that which is created is eternal?

It seems to me that the word 'creation' might have at least two rather different meanings.

1. Temporal origin

2. The reason why something exists

One can imagine an infinite timeline extending infinitely into the past and into the future. By doing that we have ruled out #1 ex hypothesi.

But we can still ask why the infinite timeline (without any origin) exists rather than nothing at all.

This idea seems to address Dave's post #23 as well.

 

[Yazata]

Sarkus, I observe nature and evaluate off of that. Can nothing become something? If you believe that possible, give me an example rather than a theory or an example based on theory.

You seem to be suggesting the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason' there. This is the idea that...

For all X, if X exists, then a sufficient reason for X's existence exists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason

So, if we accept the premise that everything that exists requires a sufficient reason why it exists, and if we acknowledge that reality as a whole exists, then we seem to need a reason why reality as a whole exists. In my opinion that's the Fundamental Metaphysical Question. I don't think that anyone has an answer at this point, or even whether an answer is possible. Humans may never know.

And I agree with you that nothing, in the strong sense of absolute non-existence, can't be the reason for anything.

I find no evidence of nothing becoming something. So something, all somethings equal creation('THE' source of creation, rather than 'a' creation),which has always existed to create what we observe and have yet to observe. Eternal meaning omni-present, also immutable meaning indivisible, with no beginning or end. So non-existence is solely an idea, and an impossible one at that for existence is all that is created. And there is only one logical existence encompassing everything. Thus existence, the absolute singularity.

You really do sound like Parmenides. (That's not a bad thing.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

I don't claim to know the essence of creation, the 'it' factor that binds all, only that it is conscious ordering, conscious understanding.

Parmenides probably would have agreed, but I'm not willing to go that far. Reality certainly seems to display order, what physics tries to uncover and what the ancient Greeks called "logos". But order isn't the same thing as consciousness nor does it necessarily imply it.

Is anything I'm saying making sense?

Yes, to me it does. It's actually pretty good.

I'm not willing to follow you in what appears to be a pantheistic direction, but Parmenides probably would have agreed with you. And he's one of history's greatest philosophers.

 

[WendyDarling]

You sound like the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. He basically argued that 'existence exists' and 'nonexistence doesn't exist', then used those ideas to argue against beginnings and ends.

That's exceedingly counterintuitive since it seems to me that countless things come into and go out of existence. Tables, chairs, people, cities, mountains, oceans, planets...

I think that your point might have some plausibility if you are talking about 'Reality' in its totality. I don't think that I want to endorse that idea without further argument though.

Thank heaven almighty, you have joined the discussion with some understanding.

"You really do sound like Parmenides. (That's not a bad thing.)"
Thank you.

Counter-intuitive to the max. Parmenides was right but perhaps not clear. That is the trick here, my ability to be clear.

Existence=perceivable stuff and ideas. All we have is existence.
There is no non-existence

Earlier I gave Sarkus examples of the way in which we use non-existent(non-existence) as if the idea of a perceivable thing represents the actuality of a perceivable thing.

"When we use the idea of non-existent, we are holding the place of an actual thing that is not in our presence. Example, I've looked everywhere and the book is non-existent. What we are describing, the book, is an actual observable object so it is not actually non-existent. Another example, my great, great, great grandchildren are non-existent. No, my great great great grandchildren are only an idea, not an actual existing thing in reality. Example, well death is non-existence. No, it is existence transformed, but the life that was represented was real, actual, and it doesn't disappear, only changes form."

Existence=perceived phenomena or imaginings/ideas.

Are you with me?

 

[WendyDarling]

It seems to me that the word 'creation' might have at least two rather different meanings.

1. Temporal origin

2. The reason why something exists

One can imagine an infinite timeline extending infinitely into the past and into the future. By doing that we have ruled out #1 ex hypothesi.

But we can still ask why the infinite timeline (without any origin) exists rather than nothing at all.

This post seems to address Dave's post #23 as well.

Yes, two different functions. 'Creation' and what it creates as a 'creation'(not to be confused with itself as Creation(capital C).

 

[WendyDarling]

You seem to be suggesting the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason' there. This is the idea that...

For all X, if X exists, then a sufficient reason for X's existence exists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason

So, if we accept the premise that everything that exists requires a sufficient reason why it exists, and if we acknowledge that reality as a whole exists, then we seem to need a reason why reality as a whole exists. In my opinion that's the Fundamental Metaphysical Question. I don't think that anyone has an answer at this point, or even whether an answer is possible. Humans may never know.

And I agree with you that nothing, in the strong sense of absolute non-existence, can't be the reason for anything.



You really do sound like Parmenides. (That's not a bad thing.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides



Parmenides probably would have agreed, but I'm not willing to go that far. Reality certainly seems to display order, what physics tries to uncover and what the ancient Greeks called "logos". But order isn't the same thing as consciousness nor does it necessarily imply it.



Yes, to me it does. It's actually pretty good.

I'm not willing to follow you in what appears to be a pantheistic direction, but Parmenides probably would have agreed with you. And he's one of history's greatest philosophers.

"So, if we accept the premise that everything that exists requires a sufficient reason why it exists, and if we acknowledge that reality as a whole exists, then we seem to need a reason why reality as a whole exists. In my opinion that's the Fundamental Metaphysical Question. I don't think that anyone has an answer at this point, or even whether an answer is possible. Humans may never know."

To think and feel. That is why we exist so it would only make sense that is why the conscious Absolute Singularity known as Existence exists.

 

[WendyDarling]

Mod Hat — Dysfunction double-check



So, just to make sure I understand what's going on, here: An account dormant since its creation in 2016 wakes up and starts posting incoherent nonsense, apparently for the thrill of telling people off?

It's not exactly an everyday thing around here, but, sure, sounds about right.

Mostly this seems an ad campaign↑ for some website, so perhaps you should probably try something a little less ... ah, what's the word ... oh, right, stupid. You might want to try something a little less stupid. People might get the impression that the "I Love Philosophy" philsophy forums are nothing more than crank bottery and nonsense.

In any case, there should probably be something more to it than humiliating "I Love Philosophy" dot com. The admins there ought to be embarrassed.

Or is that it, that you're just so pissed off at the other site you just can't help yourself; in truth, we don't care. As it is, posting incoherent, self-glorifying nonsense for the sake of lashing out at anyone who makes the mistake of trying to take you seriously, is not appropriate behavior. A genuis like you, Wendy, ought to be able to figure that part. Really. It's not hard.

Will you please change my name to WendyDarling if it's at all possible? Thank you.

 

[WendyDarling]

It seems to me that the word 'creation' might have at least two rather different meanings.

1. Temporal origin

2. The reason why something exists

One can imagine an infinite timeline extending infinitely into the past and into the future. By doing that we have ruled out #1 ex hypothesi.

But we can still ask why the infinite timeline (without any origin) exists rather than nothing at all.

This idea seems to address Dave's post #23 as well.

What is temporal(time) in terms of the eternal? I view it as a gift to keep us relative conscious beings less confused "day to day."

Sorry, if I missed any of your points. If you reassert what you feel is important, I'll try to cover it.

 

[Yazata]

Thank heaven almighty, you have joined the discussion with some understanding.

Counter-intuitive to the max. Parmenides was right but perhaps not clear.

I'm not willing to write Parmenides a blank check. But he was one of history's most influential philosophers. Many other ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and the atomists constructed their philosophies in part in reply to Parmenides. So I have great respect for him, even if I don't always agree with him. Part of the problem with Parmenides is that today we only possess a fraction of what he wrote. He divided reality into the world of appearance (the tables and the chairs... and us) and reality as he thought it really was (an unchanging One). The problem is that his account of how the world of appearance is related to and emanates from the One is lost. Plotinus and the later neoplatonists supplied their own accounts of that. Today the block-theories of time seem to me to revisit some of the same ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

Existence=perceivable stuff and ideas.

I don't know what the limits of existence are. Personally, I'm reasonably certain that human perception (and powers of conceptualization) come nowhere near exhausting the inventory of reality. So I can't agree with any "existence=" formulation at this point. (I'm too much of an agnostic for that.) I'm not convinced that human beings will ever be in any position to do that.