Is Existence the Ultimate Power Over God?

[Sintwar]

This is my first post here. I am glad I found this forum.

Ok about that subject.

I was thinking to myself this weekend about the idea of god. (I am an atheist)

And thinking like an atheist/science fan (I say "fan" because I am definitely no guru), I am always trying to come up with ideas to dis-prove gods existence. Although it is pretty hard to dis-prove something that has never been proven to begin with.

I am sure this has been thought of before, but I thought of it myself this weekend.

It includes 3 elements: Existence - god - everything else

Existence. The essence of all that is, was and shall be. Existence is the purest form of any force, because without it, nothing would exist. Including existence its self.

Because of this, I have a theory that the force of existence is infinite. This theory is based on the fact that existence could not exist without existence.

With that in mind, let's move onto the god thing.

If god exists, he exists under the rules of existence. Meaning that even god cannot exist without the force of existence.

God cannot have created existence, because he would have to exist first to create it. And because he cannot exist without existence, he is not the ultimate power. Existence is above him.

If existence were to cease to exist, so would everything else. Including god.

So my conclusion is that if existence could create god ->

(I use the term "create" loosley. Much in the same way that gravity (and a series of other factors) "creates" diamonds from coal. It is simply an "effect" of its presence.)

It could also create the universe, everything in it, and then some without the need of "god".

This theory of course does not dis-prove god. It does however render him useless in a sense. The idea of god is that he is all powerful. If god has no power over his own existence, he is not all powerful.

The problem with this theory is of course:

The idea that "God IS existence"...(Those theists have an answer for everything don't they! Its too bad its always the same answer!)

I am still working on thinking of a theory for that one. If anyone has any input, please feel free to add to this.

 

[Royce]

Maybe it is always the same answer because it is always true, the right answer.
Start from "God is", Then go from there. To start with "God is not." leads nowhere but to paradoxes, contradictions and undecideable questions. There is a reason for this.
"If your logic is correct and your conclusion is impossible, check your premises; one or more must be false."

 

[Sintwar]

I am sorry Royce,

I cannot blindly accept something that has never been proven, and which holds no solid ground to stand on.

The answer "God did it" is not logical, it is not rational, and is unacceptable.

My philosophy is this: (And you can quote me on this.)
"My "proof" that god does not exist is your "lack of proof" that he does.
Afterall, why should I have to prove there is no god? You are the one that invented him."
-Me

It is actually quite aggrivating that intelligent, civilized people of the modern world have to "dis-prove" something that was never proven to begin with, and unwind an ancient myth that was started by "practically cave men" thousands and thousands of years ago.

Personally, I think that the idea of god should just be completely dropped from existence until someone can actually come up with the proof that one actually exists.

And I can assure you I am not alone on that one.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

My philosophy is this: (And you can quote me on this.)
"My "proof" that god does not exist is your "lack of proof" that he does.
Afterall, why should I have to prove there is no god? You are the one that invented him."
-Me

First, I am as it is defined, a strong antitheist atheist
I completely agree. It's not about dis-proving god, but about proving him. As nobody has, me, as a pseudoscientific and phylosfizer person, can't belief in god without empirical, mathematical or philosofical proves.

I think your demostration is a good one. But there are many others, thousands that dis-prove god without any good real demostration or even definition of god, not even defined!

The only problem of your demostration is that it states that there IS a complete power over all: Existence. It is hard to not use that, or to prove that it isn't, but it has to be possible.

 

[Sintwar]

The only problem of your demostration is that it states that there IS a complete power over all: Existence. It is hard to not use that, or to prove that it isn't, but it has to be possible.

I can definitely see where you are coming from. I think my brain would explode if I tried to dis-prove that existence is the highest form of.. well.. anything.

Anyone could use the same arguments that are used against god, against that demonstration. Such as, "existence couldn't have always existed. Something must have created it! It came from somewhere, etc..."

Of course the difference is, in order for something to create something, wether it be by plan or chaos, it must exist in order to do so.

Although I do know that "something from nothing" is possible, and has already been proven it happens.

Which is why I say that I have a theory that existence is infinite. My brain could explode just trying to fully explore that theory.

Why does existence exist? I could say "because it must", but then I will sound like a theist blindly guessing at something that I probably can't even begin to imagine.

One thing I do know. Existence does exist. I can prove that. Hell, I don't even need to prove that. The fact that you are reading this post right now proves that.

I don't know if we will find the answers to our questions in this generation or the next, or the one after that.

I think we are headed in the right direction (at least a hadfull of us are.)

I also think that the more theists there are in this world blindly believing in hocus poscus, the less likely the human race is to ever finding the truth.

Hell, more than 90% of our thought resources (theist minds) are being drained by laziness, ignorance and stubbornness, rather than actually thinking about what might really be.

 

[Fliption]

It could also create the universe, everything in it, and then some without the need of "god".

The problem with this argument is that it is based purely on semantics. There are tons of paradoxs that can be created with language and the concepts that we use and yet somehow that doesn't stop nature from humming right along as if everything is working consistently and in harmony. This type of argument isn't convincing to me.

Personally, I think that the idea of god should just be completely dropped from existence until someone can actually come up with the proof that one actually exists.

And what do you consider to be proof? The problem here is that you are holding everyone to your standard of proof. It's an easy position to suggest that everyone conform to an objective standard of proof but the fact is that many people who believe in god believe that they have all the proof they need. The fact that they cannot prove it to you is simply because god is not subject to your objective standards of proof. This is not unlike consciousness. You can't even prove to anyone that you are conscious so it too seems to escape your objective standards of proof. Yet I'm sure you'll argue that you are indeed conscious. What's to stop me from calling you an idiot for believing something like this that you cannot prove?

And I can assure you I am not alone on that one.

Yes, you're in safe company going with the 10% side.

Although I do know that "something from nothing" is possible, and has already been proven it happens.

This is nonsense. This isn't possible, by definition. If someone is claiming that this has happened then they aren't using the understood definitions for the word "nothing".

I also think that the more theists there are in this world blindly believing in hocus poscus, the less likely the human race is to ever finding the truth.

Hell, more than 90% of our thought resources (theist minds) are being drained by laziness, ignorance and stubbornness, rather than actually thinking about what might really be.

No offense but this is some of the most close minded writing I've seen in this forum. And I'm not even a theist! To suggest that the opponent view is "lazy, stubborn, and ignorant" is just being intellectually dishonest. Sure those people exists, but to assume that this is the driving force behind the entire view is just lazy in itself. I am very critical of myself when I find that I am calling the rest of the world a bunch of idiots because they have a different opinion from me. In these cases, I find that there is usually something I don't understand. Judging from this post, I am almost certain this is the case here as well.

 

[Sintwar]

And what do you consider to be proof? The problem here is that you are holding everyone to your standard of proof. It's an easy position to suggest that everyone conform to an objective standard of proof but the fact is that many people who believe in god believe that they have all the proof they need. The fact that they cannot prove it to you is simply because god is not subject to your objective standards of proof. This is not unlike consciousness. You can't even prove to anyone that you are conscious so it too seems to escape your objective standards of proof. Yet I'm sure you'll argue that you are indeed conscious. What's to stop me from calling you an idiot for believing something like this that you cannot prove?

Proof is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. Proof cannot be dis-proven if it has truly been proven. Proof is fact not opinion as you would have it. Yes if something has been proven and I am denying it, then I am an idiot. As well as anyone else denying it. Until that moment, anyone claiming that something is fact without proof is an idiot.

Of course your argument would probably be, how can I prove that they are an idiot? Maybe you are an idiot? Maybe red is actually blue and water is thinner than air? Those are not a factors in my demonstration, and until those issues reveal themselves to be of any relevance to this discussion, I will ignore them.

My argument is a theory, not my belief. I do not have proof, and I explicitly and thoroughly stated that throughout the entire message. I lay no claims, and I do not "bare false whines". I do not claim my theory to be the one true "fact".

The idea of god is also a theory, and one with an extremely poor foundation of evidence if I do say so myself.

Yes, you're in safe company going with the 10% side.

I agree. It is pathetic. In fact it makes me sick to know that I am surrounded by as many mindless zombies as I am.

This is nonsense. This isn't possible, by definition. If someone is claiming that this has happened then they aren't using the understood definitions for the word "nothing".

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010544.html
Of course I am sure you will say that by me believing in this, (or anything I read for that matter), I am just as bad as a theist believing in religious writings. Fair enough. But I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that if I were to perform the experiments that I read about in scientific writings, I would find just about every word of it to be true.

No offense but this is some of the most close minded writing I've seen in this forum. And I'm not even a theist! To suggest that the opponent view is "lazy, stubborn, and ignorant" is just being intellectually dishonest. Sure those people exists, but to assume that this is the driving force behind the entire view is just lazy in itself. I am very critical of myself when I find that I am calling the rest of the world a bunch of idiots because they have a different opinion from me. In these cases, I find that there is usually something I don't understand. Judging from this post, I am almost certain this is the case here as well.

If this post is "closed minded", then I would love to see you on a theist forum. Pick one. Any one. You will have a field day.

There is nothing closed minded about my post, with perhaps the exception of the "lazy, stubborn, and ignorant" part. Yes I am very "closed minded" when it comes to people being brainwashed, and mindlessly accepting things to be fact, and actually killing people over it when they can't even prove it!

Yes. I am closed minded about that. I am also anti theist, and have been labeled by friends and family to be an "Atheist Extremist".

Although I haven't burnt any churches down. So I would not consider myself to be an extremist.

 

[TheDonk]

Hi, I like your first post Sintwar.
I have a few questions and comments:

"I have a theory that the force of existence is infinite" - sounds cool but what do you mean?

There are very different ideas about what God is. There is the miracle God from the Bible and other religious stories and other religions, and then there is the more simple, logical God that is dealt with in philosophy where people are dealing with certain properties that God could have, like knowing everything, that would lead to certain conclusions about the world. All I really mean to say is that God is a very ambiguous word that means different things to defferent people.

As for the whole proof problem, it's generally accepted that nothing can be absolutely proven (except maybe that "I" exist or something exists). It is obvious that people are not idiots that accept something that isn't absolutely proven. All you can hope for, is a general feeling that it is right, an absolute proof based on fundamental facts that you chose to be fundamental, a testable prediction that ended up being right, many different methods showing one result, and stuff like that. Like Flipton said, it comes down to what you or others want to consider proof.

As for the nothing from something problem, there are quite a few threads on this subject so I won't get into too much detail, but I have some thought about it that may apply to the "disproving" certain types of concepts. The concept of nothing is negatively defined. It's based on what it isn't. These theories are generally, in my opinion, weaker, worse, and less likely to be true, though good thought experiments. Theories in the negatively defined category is the Mind in dualism, completely made up of non-matter stuff, free will based on non-determined and non-randomness, nothing based on non-something. Obviously because they are negatively defined doesn't mean that they don't exist, but I think it is a good rule kind of like Occum's Razor.
Is the proof of God slipping into the negatively defined category?

 

[Pengwuino]

In my opinion, the only people who know if there's a God are dead so unless anyone has a plan on bringing them back from the dead, i don't think this idea is very debatable.

 

[cronxeh]

so what if there is god in afterlife?

he is going to punish you?

think in terms of logic. what if i don't want to live more than i would (say.. 75-85 years - right now I am 20)

what if i don't want to live more than 80? did anyone bother asking about my opinion? who does god think he is that i would live eternally??

 

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

http://www.altelco.net/~churches/ProofOfGod.htm
the above link if you read it all will lead you to some interesting scientific measurements about the Earth that coincidence are less than the the chance
of winning the lottery of having occurred in forming the Earth to be habitable for
life as we know it as far as scientific measurements are concerned.

the holy bible states that God is the Alpha-Omega! He always existed and always
will exist. He was NOT created! He is infinite. We cannot and will never comprehend
everything about God as we have finite minds; His is infinite in ways we will Never
understand. One way is He exists at ALL times, and Any time.

the last reader states that he does not want to live past 75-85 years! Well,
I suppose THAT could be arranged!

Who does God think He is that I would live eternally? Well, I for one accept His Son,
Jesus Christ as my Savior, God's only Son, which God gave us in His grace as my
Savior and by faith I have eternal life guarenteed!

Faith you say?

Yes Faith. We accept by faith all kinds of axioms or postulates all the time in
proving all kinds of theories in mathematics and physics as well as reaching
any kind of decision in life! No matter if we are atheists or not!

Read Hebrew Chapter 11 to get some idea of what Faith is all about!

Actually Read and Re-read the entire Holy Bible and apply it to your life for
a while to see it reap rewards before you decide that you want to go to hell!

its pretty hot there from what i read!

And believe whether you want to believe it or not. Do you really want to take the
chance. Besides, can you imagine, if no one believed and applied the principles
as described and taught in the Holy Bible? Let us just take one as taught by Jesus.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Would it not be nice if everyone just did this?

I really do NOT want anyone to go to hell!

Heaven is NOT a boring place. YOU will live in BLISS there and NEVER be bored,
with a perfect body and mind with many brothers and sisters and have
a truly great time! Do join me someday, when I am truly nice! You will NOT
be in an aged or sick or painful in anyway body as you might be in your
Earthly life!

love and peace,
and,
peace and love,
(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai
owner/ceo
Heaven Sense
http://HeavenSense.WS
http://Czuhai.WS
http://Allendale.WS
http://LittleHoney.WS

 

[Bladibla]

Yes Faith. We accept by faith ...ut of context. I suggest you read more books.

 

[Sintwar]

http://www.altelco.net/~churches/ProofOfGod.htm
the above link if you read it all will lead you to some interesting scientific measurements about the Earth that coincidence are less than the the chance
of winning the lottery of having occurred in forming the Earth to be habitable for
life as we know it as far as scientific measurements are concerned.

The problem with the whole "our environment is perfect for us" idea, is that it practically draws the assumption that if Earth did not exist the way that it does, "nothing" would exist the way that it does. Of course this is true for us, because if the Earth was not the way that it is, we would not exist. At least not the way that we do.

OF COURSE the Earth "seems" perfect to us. We have adapted to its environment. We are a result of this environment. The fact that a life sustaining planet is "near" impossible, does not mean that it is in fact "impossible". It is very possible that there are billions of other life sustaining planets in our universe. Maybe even our own galaxy. They might not even sustain life "as we know it". but I can assure you, if the life on another planet has intelligence equivalent to ours, they probably believe that their planet is "near impossible" and that another life sustaining planet cannot exist.

This alone renders the whole "our planet is perfect for us" theory useless.

Just because I like my coffee with sugar and creme does not mean that some god created coffee, cows and sugar cane for the sole purpose of me grinding the coffee beans, the sugar cane and milking the cow, only to mix them up into a delightful cup of Joe.

I simply take something that is already there, and take advantage of it. This is what we do. We take the environment that is here, and we take advantage of it.

It only makes sense that if our existence depended on inhaling large quantities of carbon monoxide, that we would likely not exist. At least not on this planet.

 

[infidel]

Beautifully put, Sintwar.

 

[infidel]

Read Hebrew Chapter 11 to get some idea of what Faith is all about!

Kirk, just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I don't know what faith is all about. That's a mistake believers make frequently in these discussions. I was a seeker for many years and studied many belief systems. I daresay I know more about religion than you do. Hebrews 11 is not the final word on 'what faith is all about.' It is after years of study and thought (certainly more than most believers) I've come to my position.

 

[DeepThunker]

Here is what blows my mind. Some people base their atheism solely because it is unfathomable and they believe it can't be. Some of these people believe though that, due to quantum mech., an elctron in their body could be orbiting around the moon. Also a car could hit a wall, but its particles miss every other particle in the wall. It could then appear unscathed on the other side of the wall. Also their beleif in the Big Bang. How do you fit all of the matter in the universe into a neutron sized space? There can't be a "zero time" in the Universe can there? The "Blob" could not appear at (1/infinity) seconds with all the matter, can it? If this is what you believe happened how does it seem so impossible that there can be a god?
Also God (in the christian belief, maybe Jew and Muslim as well), does not want to give complete, undenieble proof. If He did where would the faith be? All the proof that the respective religons need are the Bible, Torah, and Quran.
Personally I believe God works His wonders through science. Obviously physics is a part of our everyday life. But He needs something to govern His works. He simplified his creation of the universe for early man. They would have been confused if he had told them about the chemical reactions needed to create amino acids and organic compounds. He told them it took six days. In what I understand of Hebrew, a day can stand for any amount of time.

 

[Sintwar]

Here is what blows my mind. Some people base their atheism solely because it is unfathomable and they believe it can't be.

Here is what blows my mind. every theist bases his/her/its theism solely on a book/scroll/tablet, etc. written by man thousands of years ago, preached by man and force fed by man.

If I may ask you. Do you still believe in santa clause? If you do not, can you please explain to me why you do not? If your anwser is no, can you also please explain to me why you still believe in god as well?

If you answered yes... well... good luck to you with that one...

Atheists do not base their lack of belief on the idea that there is something "unfathomable and they believe it can't be". They base it on the lack of evidence that there is pointing to that unfathomable something.

Not to mention the history of the theistic ways. Brutality to force people to believe in something they don't. Amazing things that supposedly happened in front of everyone a mere few thousand years ago, but all of the sudden technology explodes, TV, radio and the internet are born, and BAM. all of the amazing miracles stop. coincidence? Perhaps it is that now we have more than story books to base our beliefs on.

Some of these people believe though that, due to quantum mech., an elctron in their body could be orbiting around the moon. Also a car could hit a wall, but its particles miss every other particle in the wall. It could then appear unscathed on the other side of the wall. Also their beleif in the Big Bang. How do you fit all of the matter in the universe into a neutron sized space? There can't be a "zero time" in the Universe can there? The "Blob" could not appear at (1/infinity) seconds with all the matter, can it?

Some people will not believe ANYTHING that you tell them no matter what it is. Those kind of people will argue with you to the death that "a red light might not really mean stop."

Most atheists will ultimately settle on believing "something" if there are enough facts backing it up. Like the fact that a red light does in fact mean "stop".

If this is what you believe happened how does it seem so impossible that there can be a god?

I can very easily turn that around on you. What is more believable about god going *poof* than the universe going bang? The biggest difference here is that we can see the universe. We cannot see god.

Also God (in the christian belief, maybe Jew and Muslim as well), does not want to give complete, undenieble proof. If He did where would the faith be? All the proof that the respective religons need are the Bible, Torah, and Quran.

If the religious writings are such great "proof" as you would have it, then why is it that their writings are constantly being proven wrong? They actually have to keep modifying the religious writings to keep up with science!

The Earth is flat : Wrong!
The entire Earth was flooded : Wrong!
A man fit 2 of every animal in the world on a tiny wooden ship. : ROFL This isn't even worth arguing about.
The Earth is the center of the universe : VERY Wrong.
The sun, moon and stars were placed in the sky to light the Earth : Extremely Wrong!

The list goes on, and it gets longer almost every day.

The bible, and every other religious writing out there is nothing more than fairy tales, and there is more than enough "proof" to back that up.

My suggestion would be to throw away your 2,000 year old fairy tale book, and start writing your own based on your own personal experiences and miracles from god.

Personally I believe God works His wonders through science. Obviously physics is a part of our everyday life. But He needs something to govern His works. He simplified his creation of the universe for early man. They would have been confused if he had told them about the chemical reactions needed to create amino acids and organic compounds. He told them it took six days. In what I understand of Hebrew, a day can stand for any amount of time.

The people 2,000 years ago were not stupid by any means. You suggest that they were complete bumbling idiots. They were just as intelligent as us, just not educated. They had not invented the tools needed to aid our understanding of the world as it truly is. And of course anyone who DID realize this, and tried to explain it, was commonly executed for being a witch or a scorcerer sent by the devil.

I can tell you that I used to be a die hard christian. I preached the word of god everywhere I went, and I have been "saved" several times.

I know what it means to be a theist. And now that I know what it means to be free, I cannot believe how ignorant I was. Of course it didn't help that I was raised and forced to go to church as a child. My entire life I have had god shoved down my throat.

The difference now is that I can think for myself, and realizing what I have, my mind has opened to an infinite amount of possibilities. I no longer feel enslaved, powerless and weak. I no longer live my life in fear, feeling like I have to walk on eggshells, or be punished for eternity. I also no longer base my beliefs on brainwashing mumbo jumbo.

I am an atheist, and my life is a billion times more beautiful than it ever was as a theist. My existence has a billion times more meaning than it did when I was a theist.

As an atheist, my existence is the most amazing thing that I can possibly imagine. The existence of 1 tiny grain of sand sparks my imagination and I am amazed that it exists.

There is no true happiness for the theist. There is only hatred, fear, war, violence, slavery and judgement.

 

[infidel]

If the religious writings are such great "proof" as you would have it, then why is it that their writings are constantly being proven wrong? They actually have to keep modifying the religious writings to keep up with science!

The Earth is flat : Wrong!
The entire Earth was flooded : Wrong!
A man fit 2 of every animal in the world on a tiny wooden ship. : ROFL This isn't even worth arguing about.
The Earth is the center of the universe : VERY Wrong.
The sun, moon and stars were placed in the sky to light the Earth : Extremely Wrong!

The list goes on, and it gets longer almost every day.

Oh, let's not forget the fun things like:

--it's okay to own slaves and pass them on to your children
--it's okay to sell you daughter into slavery
--if someone works on the sabbath he should be killed
etc.

Kirk said read Hebrews to learn what faith is all about. I say read Leviticus to see just how screwy your faith is.

Oh, wait...I guess it's okay to choose *which parts* of the sacred text you pay attention to. My bad...

 

[Math Is Hard]

Here is what blows my mind. every theist bases his/her/its theism solely on a book/scroll/tablet, etc. written by man thousands of years ago, preached by man and force fed by man.

It shouldn't blow your mind because it's just not true. Not everyone who is a theist is a member of a religion.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Kirk, just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I don't know what faith is all about. That's a mistake believers make frequently in these discussions. I was a seeker for many years and studied many belief systems. I daresay I know more about religion than you do. Hebrews 11 is not the final word on 'what faith is all about.' It is after years of study and thought (certainly more than most believers) I've come to my position.

True. The theists belief that atheists don't know what faith is. Yes, we do. The proble,m is that one, that we know so much what it is, that we realize it is ilogical and incoherent. Believing your friend (example) died because god said so, isn't going to give you your friend back, or to help you push forward, if humanity isn't further thatn it is, it obviously the guilt of the roman chirtina church.

and if this is going to become a thread about who is more bad: science or religion. I can already asure you all that church is way worst.

 

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

well, the article makes it a point enough that it was a near "miracle" that even atoms more complicated than hydrogen could form and it would be hard to imagine a life form based strictly on hydrogen! Or even actually that atoms could form AT ALL!

And physics has been competely unable (at least so far) unable to come up with any
theory to describe why the "big bang" occured, when time and space became as we
know it, what over 95% of the universe is "made of" and it seems for every question
it answers many more come about.

Faith, hope, and Love have proven themselfs again and again, would you not agree?

I for one am not holding my breath thinking that any "intelligent" life is going to be
found on some other place than the Earth in my lifetime and actually have some
doubts now whether it ever will despite my scientific background and knowing the
vast number of planets in the universe! AND often, unfortunately I wonder just
how "intelligent" life is on Earth!
peace and love,
and,
love and peace,
(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai
http://HeavenSense.WS
http://Czuhai.WS
http://Allendale.WS
http://LittleHoney.WS

 

[infidel]

well, the article makes it a point enough that it was a near "miracle" that even atoms more complicated than hydrogen could form and it would be hard to imagine a life form based strictly on hydrogen! Or even actually that atoms could form AT ALL!

I understand. You're using religion to explain things you don't understand. Nothing wrong with that. That's why it was invented.

And physics has been competely unable (at least so far) unable to come up with any theory to describe why the "big bang" occured, when time and space became as we know it, what over 95% of the universe is "made of" and it seems for every question it answers many more come about.

And physics is still striving to find out. Not having all the answers doesn't mean throwing your hands up and invoking magic. Who would have guessed before the 19th Century that we would have any hope of finding out what the stars are made of from lightyears away?

Faith, hope, and Love have proven themselfs again and again, would you not agree?

And so has physics, would you not agree? And hope and love, in any case, do not depend on religion.

I for one am not holding my breath thinking that any "intelligent" life is going to be found on some other place than the Earth in my lifetime and actually have some doubts now whether it ever will despite my scientific background and knowing the vast number of planets in the universe!

How is this relevant to the discussion? I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime either, but wouldn't it be exciting!

Personally I've found the true story of science is infinitely more interesting and awe-inspiring than the fables human societies have come up with to explain the same phenomena.

 

[Bladibla]

well, the article makes it a point enough that it was a near "miracle" that even atoms more complicated than hydrogen could form and it would be hard to imagine a life form based strictly on hydrogen! Or even actually that atoms could form AT ALL!

And physics has been competely unable (at least so far) unable to come up with any
theory to describe why the "big bang" occured, when time and space became as we
know it, what over 95% of the universe is "made of" and it seems for every question
it answers many more come about.

Faith, hope, and Love have proven themselfs again and again, would you not agree?

I for one am not holding my breath thinking that any "intelligent" life is going to be
found on some other place than the Earth in my lifetime and actually have some
doubts now whether it ever will despite my scientific background and knowing the
vast number of planets in the universe! AND often, unfortunately I wonder just
how "intelligent" life is on Earth!
peace and love,
and,
love and peace,
(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai
http://HeavenSense.WS
http://Czuhai.WS
http://Allendale.WS
http://LittleHoney.WS

Again, this is anthropomorphic ignorance.

Science doesn't necessarily explain 'why' things happen, it just gives a best description to us human beings with our somewhat 'feeble' minds to understand.

So can we say we will prove you wrong if a single bacteria is found in a ET planet?

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I understand. You're using religion to explain things you don't understand. Nothing wrong with that. That's why it was invented.

It's true that it was that why it was invented, to explain in a quaick way the most basic questions, but I disagree when you say it's fine. I think that if people belief in god they are mental esclaves of religious dogmatisation and can't thionk by them selves.

The wrong thing about religion, god, and belief, is that they domgmatise morals, ethics and logics, which are the three basic things of our mind works, and what means that it is the dogmatisation of our lifes.

 

[infidel]

I was being sarcastic. Guess I should have included a winky. ;)

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Existence. The essence of all that is, was and shall be. Existence is the purest form of any force, because without it, nothing would exist. Including existence its self." - Sintwar


Prove that for me... how can you make such a claim with no solid graound to stand on?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Theists, and atheists are both dogmatic, as long as they're full of themselves. Just keep an open mind, when you look at others in blame, you don't make a comfortable home for yourself. I realize that all of us deal with these feelings, what I do is try to let myself relax and back up my viewpoint, over and over and over... maybe if I back up far enough, I can see more of the picture... Both theism and atheism are roads, but egnosticism is an open plane... but I digress, I shouldn't make such a rash statement. I apologize for any incoherence, I'm not perfect. I could be described as on the fence, but from this vantage point, I see both theists and atheists running around in circles. Which one wants to be right the most? whichever one that is is not the one I would affilliate myself with.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Not to mention the history of the theistic ways. Brutality to force people to believe in something they don't. Amazing things that supposedly happened in front of everyone a mere few thousand years ago, but all of the sudden technology explodes, TV, radio and the internet are born, and BAM. all of the amazing miracles stop. coincidence?" - Sintwar

Ya, that's what can happen when people take their beliefs to the limit... you must've forgotten about WW2, there were more people killed in that war than all of the crusades times 10. Was the war started by theists, or by atheists? Do you agree with the philosophy of Eugenics? That philosophy (in the dogma of atheism) was taken to it's limit by Hilter and Stalin, two of the most evil (dare I use the word) atheists in history (it's just my opinion). They really wanted to be right, but it turned out that their philosophy was a little bit to "cruel" in the eyes of the world (my opinion again).

Hows about we all say what we really believe about the universe and ourselves, rather than say what we believe to be true about the viewpoints held by members of our species? What about respect for each other rather than being at each other's throats because we can't understand each other? Why do we catagorize viewpoints the way we do? Stereotyping leads to misunderstanding. I can say whatever about some ideal viewpoint that I'd like to bash and try to disprove, but whose to say that anybody on Earth actually fits the exact stereotype I've created in my persuit to point my finger and pass blame to someone else? When I start off on a rant about "these people think this..." all I'm really doing is trying to distract you from finding my own faults.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Because of this, I have a theory that the force of existence is infinite. This theory is based on the fact that existence could not exist without existence." - Sintwar

I'm sorry, but I just had to post this quote...

Is it a fact that existence can't exist without the existstance of existence? hmm,

existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence... see my point?

It's okay Sintwar, I like you. You're entertaining. I'm sorry for poking fun at your quote, but I do so in respect because I find it aestetically pleasing. It's just my way of saying "You're alright kid!" Please don't take it negatively.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"what if i don't want to live more than 80? did anyone bother asking about my opinion? who does god think he is that i would live eternally??" - Cronxeh

I know what you mean, I never signed any contract or anything, so why am I asked to comply? why would god create life in order to punnish it eternally? It's hard to answer, but then ask yourself, how are people in the Bush administration able to get away with the things they do if god exists? If god exists, then why does he let all these paranoid, eccentric knowitalls (similar to hitler and stallin) run the world? well, if you believe in free will, then this problem goes away. You understand that they all brought themselves into that position, and THAT is why there is a hell. There must be some way to provide justice from all the injustice in the world (injustice being caused by people choosing to take advantage of other people). I'm not trying to prove anything one way or the other, just offer both viewpoints on this subject in a complimentary way. btw, sorry for so many posts in a row, I'm a very inconclusive man, so I tend to add on and on. Also, I don't really have any social life to speak of...

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"There is no true happiness for the theist. There is only hatred, fear, war, violence, slavery and judgement." - Sintwar

Look whoose talking! I again apologize but your quote sounds a lot like the attitude best described in this quote: "I hate people who hate people". Well then you've backed yourself into a corner and you're forced to hate yourself... if you regard yourself as a person. Come on mang? drop the baggage and free yourself. Becaue you've been judging others this whole time.

"it's okay if you had a bad childhood, we all did" - Scott Thompson from the Kids in the hall

"People you hate will get their hooks into you
They'll pull you down
You'll frown
They'll tar you and drag you through town
But you still don't like to leave before the end of the movie
No you still don't like to leave before the end of the show
People you hate will get their hooks into you
They'll pull you down
You'll frown
They'll tar you and drag you through town
But you still don't like to leave before the end of the movie
No you still don't like to leave before the end of the show" - Cake (the band)

 

[DeepThunker]

I like the discussion, but I really think we should tone down the slamming of peoples beliefs. The theists aren't going to back from their position, and the atheists aren't either. We should discuss the topic in an informative, and not based solely on opinions.

There I said it, now here is something I thought of earlier it was said Existence-God-everything else. Is it possible for existence to be God(enter your god here)? As a human being I am merely a very complex machine. I Have organic compounds, proteins, and Amino acids combined to make my body and brain. The brain then fires elctrical impulses from neuron to nueron, many synapses along the way. In this mess an "Intelligent thought" is created.

How do I know, though, that I am the only person who isn't a "machine", only capable of doing prethought, preplanned, programs when encountered with certain situations? How do I know I'm not?

What I am trying to say is, With all of the elements, and molecules in the Universe is it possible that "Existence" itself can have "intelligent" thoughts? Then if "Existence" had an infinite amount of power it could easily change itself and laws of physics.

Is what I'm saying Anywhere close, or should I back off of the Mountain Dews?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Existance itself is conscious? I don't know, sounds kinda neat. It would work well in a poem or something... do thoughts exist? I would say yes, thoughts are part of existence even though they doen't take up space or time in the physical world. If you define the space that thoughts exist within as "thought space" or "trancendance", then existence is all thought at once, so no existence couldn't have thoughts because it would be aware of all thoughts at once and there would be no need for time to construct a "stream of consciousness". Now here's the opposite viewpoint: Since you define existence as all powerful, then why would existence have any limitations? Existance is a pickle.

 

[Sintwar]

I like the discussion, but I really think we should tone down the slamming of peoples beliefs. The theists aren't going to back from their position, and the atheists aren't either. We should discuss the topic in an informative, and not based solely on opinions.

I agree with DeepThunker. I did not start this thread with the intention to feed the fire of the never ending theist/atheist struggle.
Although I know all too well how easily a topic like this one can veer into that direction.

Prove that for me... how can you make such a claim with no solid graound to stand on?

That is why I called it a theory.
That is also why I call "god" a theory. And in my theory, god is a redundant theory.

existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence could not exist without existence...

I love it! Here I have simplified it for you in C#:

for(existence=i;existence==i;i=i){
existence=i;
}

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

In order for your "theory" as a whole to be taken seriously, you must back it up with facts, not other "theories". So if you really want to make the claim that what you have is a theory, you must explain:

"Existence. The essence of all that is, was and shall be. Existence is the purest form of any force, because without it, nothing would exist. Including existence its self."

in terms of facts. You can't just rely on the individual you're talking with to overlook your lack of proof as easily as you do. When you define any word with that same word, the word no longer has any meaning.

For example, I'll prove that eating is redundant. Food is food, and since it is, food is nothing else other than food, without food there is no eating, so since food must have come first, there is no need to eat it.

The above "theory" uses the same allowances you give to your reasoning. Now suppose I better defined food based entirely on facts, the overall theory suggests that there is no reason to eat food. Suppose that were actually true... Am I going to give up experiancing something that I enjoy simply because it makes no logical sense? of course that question is rhetorical because different people will answer differently accoarding to their liking. So even if god is redundant, that doesn't offer anything of practical use. If a theory offers no practical use, or experimantability, there is no use for it. Ultimately, if you did reformulate your "theory" to be based entirely on facts, we would be able to verify it with an experiment or two.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

btw, here is the program that you probably meant to write in C, unless of course you were really only testing me to see if I would correct you. In that case, your program is correct, as you have defined it to work in the "C#" programming language, which doesn't exist yet, and is entirely your creation.

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
int n;
for(n=1;n==1;printf("existance can't exist without "))
;
}

 

[Fliption]

Proof is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. Proof cannot be dis-proven if it has truly been proven. Proof is fact not opinion as you would have it. Yes if something has been proven and I am denying it, then I am an idiot. As well as anyone else denying it. Until that moment, anyone claiming that something is fact without proof is an idiot.

This seems to beg the question. You haven't explained what proof is and why that is the best form of proof. You seem to be making assumptions that proof has to be objective or inter-subjective. Does this mean that a person cannot "prove to themselves" anything? As I said before, many people have all the proof they need. The fact that they cannot prove it to you is not their concern. The fact that you are claiming "proof" requires objective verification makes certain assumptions about reality. As I said before(and you didn't respond), your own consciousness cannot be objectively proven yet I'm sure you won't deny that you are conscious. Why are you not an idiot for believing in something that you cannot prove to others, like your own consciousness?

The idea of god is also a theory, and one with an extremely poor foundation of evidence if I do say so myself.

It very well may have an extremely poor foundation of evidence. But that fact has not been shown in this post. This post makes assumptions that the world is a physicalist world and follows physicalist rules. I see no good reason to accept these assumptions over any other. Even though I have pointed out at least one example of something that does not fit those rules, that has not stopped you from clinging to this philosophy and making these assumptions.

I agree. It is pathetic. In fact it makes me sick to know that I am surrounded by as many mindless zombies as I am.

I actually did not post in this thread because of your view. Your view is a valid one to have if it can be effectively argued. I did post here because of the attitude I saw in statements like the one above. This just isn't a healthy attitude if you wish to remain objective in the philosophy forum. I would consider what I said earlier very carefully. Whenever I find myself calling the rest of the world idiots because they disagree with me, I should take pause because there is probably something that I do not understand.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010544.html
Of course I am sure you will say that by me believing in this, (or anything I read for that matter), I am just as bad as a theist believing in religious writings. Fair enough. But I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that if I were to perform the experiments that I read about in scientific writings, I would find just about every word of it to be true.

I followed the link and didn't see anything to read, but I can assure you that if they are claiming that something comes from nothing, then they aren't using the same definition of nothing that gets used in the philosophy forum. Most people here would claim that their "nothing" is actually something and so their conclusion is actually "something comes from something". No one would disagree with that. There are lots of threads on this topic here. I posted one below to start with.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=64806

If this post is "closed minded", then I would love to see you on a theist forum. Pick one. Any one. You will have a field day.

I'm sure that's correct. But I'm posting in this thread right now.

There is nothing closed minded about my post, with perhaps the exception of the "lazy, stubborn, and ignorant" part. Yes I am very "closed minded" when it comes to people being brainwashed, and mindlessly accepting things to be fact, and actually killing people over it when they can't even prove it!

Yes. I am closed minded about that. I am also anti theist, and have been labeled by friends and family to be an "Atheist Extremist".

It isn't necessarily closed minded to have any particular view. But when you call everyone else "brainwashed" because they don't have your view and you haven't done a sufficient job arguing why your assumptions are superior, this is clearly close minded.

 

[loseyourname]

http://www.altelco.net/~churches/ProofOfGod.htm
the above link if you read it all will lead you to some interesting scientific measurements about the Earth that coincidence are less than the the chance
of winning the lottery of having occurred in forming the Earth to be habitable for
life as we know it as far as scientific measurements are concerned.

You know, this is a pretty terrible argument. Many people have managed to win the lottery and no one claims that it took a miracle.

 

[Fliption]

You know, this is a pretty terrible argument. Many people have managed to win the lottery and no one claims that it took a miracle.

This of course makes the assumption that the conditions for life have a 100% chance of existing somewhere in the universe.

While the odds of a single person winning the lottery may be 1 in 70,000,000. The odds of someone eventually winning the lottery is 100%.

Your analogy is probably fair though.

 

[Sintwar]

For example, I'll prove that eating is redundant. Food is food, and since it is, food is nothing else other than food, without food there is no eating, so since food must have come first, there is no need to eat it.

Food is food because we make it food. Anything could be considered "food" as long as something exists to "eat" it. This entire planet could be called "food" if there were a giant planet eating dragon flying around in space. And hey who am I to say that there isn't? I have just never seen evidence that there is one. By our definition of "food" anyway. Coal is "food" for fire, but I think you would be hard pressed to attempt to eat some coal.

The problem with your statement is that in order for food to be considered food, there must be something in existence to eat it. Of course how could something that depends on eating in order to exist, exist without something to eat? Evolution. <-- "hypothesis" Perhaps some primitive form of life that did not need food to exist started somehow eating things for whatever reason, and ultimately over billions of years became dependant on it.

The main thing here is that "food" in any form would not exist without existence. Could I be wrong? Maybe existence would not exist without food! But then again, if food existed in order to create existence, it would still already exist, and therefor, it exists because existence exists. Without existence, food could not exist. NOTHING can --->"EXIST"<--- without existence. At least not by our definition of existence.

Perhaps I should change my words from "theory" to "hypothesis".
As I mentioned before I am no science guru. Whatever!

This seems to beg the question. You haven't explained what proof is and why that is the best form of proof. You seem to be making assumptions that proof has to be objective or inter-subjective. Does this mean that a person cannot "prove to themselves" anything? As I said before, many people have all the proof they need. The fact that they cannot prove it to you is not their concern. The fact that you are claiming "proof" requires objective verification makes certain assumptions about reality. As I said before(and you didn't respond), your own consciousness cannot be objectively proven yet I'm sure you won't deny that you are conscious. Why are you not an idiot for believing in something that you cannot prove to others, like your own consciousness?

To make it very simple. I read this in a book "The Atheists debators handbook", so most of these are not my words.
If you were to take me to court, claiming that I am in breech of a contract, you will need to produce this so called contract in order to prove that I did in fact sign it and that I am breeching that contract. If you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this contract exists, and it has my signiture, your claim is worthless.

You can convince anyone you want that this contract exists. Hell you could convince the whole world. But without that contract, you have no case.

btw, here is the program that you probably meant to write in C, unless of course you were really only testing me to see if I would correct you. In that case, your program is correct, as you have defined it to work in the "C#" programming language, which doesn't exist yet, and is entirely your creation.

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
int n;
for(n=1;n==1;printf("existance can't exist without "))
;
}

No, I wrote it in C# (See Sharp). A child of C. C# .Net to be exact.

And I sure hope it already exists, I get payed to code it 5 days a week. :/

for(existence=i;existence==i;i=i){
existence=i;
}

really I should have declared i first, but ultimately in this example existence=i and i=existence.

The point was really just to make an infinite loop. Although It can't really be infinite as it had a beginning. Then again so does "existance can't exist without existence can't exist without..."

probably should have been more like this: (if I really wanted to make it functional), and adding your string to it:

int i;
int existence=0;
string print;
for(i=existence;existence==i;i++){
print += "existance can't exist without ";
}

of course if I really wanted to optimize the server load, I would use a string builder Vs. += but for the sake of keeping it short, and because it is infinite and will ultimately crash anyway, += will do.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

"Food is food because we make it food." - Sintwar

yes! and we make the definition of existence also. It doesn't make itself.

"The main thing here is that "food" in any form would not exist without existence... Without existence, food could not exist." - Sintwar


You use the word "existence" very often, to describe many different things. At some points it can be taken to mean "space-time" or "the universe" other times it could be taken to mean "a state of being". You are still saying the same thing you said at the beginning, that existence came first. One must be alive in order to understand what existence is, so why didn't "being alive" come first? I think you may even agree with that statement because you probably define existence as being alive, because you use the word "existence" synonymously with "a state of being". You just say that food can't exist without existence, and you leave it there. If you then refuse to change your arguments, then you are no different then a Theist (ouch! the people you hate). They would just say "Food can't exist without God", and leave it there. God to a Theist is existence to you. You both make unfalsifiable claims in the eyes of objective proof. I won't note you as a typical atheist though, I've noticed they are usually really nice people because to them, this moment on Earth is all there is so they make lemonade out of lemons.

"The fact that you are claiming "proof" requires objective verification makes certain assumptions about reality. As I said before(and you didn't respond), your own consciousness cannot be objectively proven yet I'm sure you won't deny that you are conscious." -Fliption

he's got a point Sintwar, you can't have your cake and eat it too. This has nothing to do with a "contract", it has to do with the fact that you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[FrogPad]

If we break proof down into its foundations, the axioms... then where is our proof that those axioms are true? We have to accept some things on faith. If you choose to accept your axiom as: because god has not stood next to me, levitated a car, transported me to Mars and drank a beer with his mind, then god does not exist... then so be it. But if that actually happened to you and you came on this forum and stated it, I wouldn't believe you for a second. I cannot accept that on faith. You may not like the word faith, but I think its an appropriate word for something in between proof and not-proof.


It seems you have this assumption that in order for something to exist it must be proven. So proof gives means to existence.
That is to say:

If we have proof of god, then god exists.

Which is the same thing as saying:
If we have (the existence of)proof of god, then god exists.

Which is the same thing as saying:
If we have ((the existence of)the existence of)proof of god, then god exists.

Which is the same thing as saying:
Ok, I hope you get my point...

If we NEED proof for something to exist, then we need proof of that proof in order for the proof to exist. It's circular reasoning, and it goes nowhere.

 

[FrogPad]

By the way, with regards to:

int i;
int existence=0;
string print;
for(i=existence;existence==i;i++){
print += "existance can't exist without ";
}

What happens when the allocated space for the spring overflows because there is no more memory left for your "existance can't exist without " print command.

Or are you saying existence is cyclic, since the integer will overflow at some point and start over also?

Better yet, let's forget all the little nuances and say that all you are expressing with the code is that existence just occurs, it will continue to occur, it is an "endless loop" if you will. Well how can we prove that the loop is actually running if we cannot examine it infinitely? Sure we can say its running in a interval of time, but that interval is not infinite... so should we just accept that the loop will run forever?

 

[loseyourname]

This of course makes the assumption that the conditions for life have a 100% chance of existing somewhere in the universe.

While the odds of a single person winning the lottery may be 1 in 70,000,000. The odds of someone eventually winning the lottery is 100%.

Your analogy is probably fair though.

I was thinking more along these lines:

Let us say there are exactly 1 million possible worlds (just for the sake of helping us conceptualize). Which world becomes an actual world is purely a matter of chance and depends on the way in which physical constants network to create natural laws. Each world has an equal probability of occurring. For the sake of argument, let's just that 25 of these possible worlds are constructed such that the evolution of intelligent life can take place in them. Sure, because of that, it's more probable that a universe will exist that cannot support intelligent life - in fact, it is quite a bit more probable. However, the probability of any given possible world becoming an actual world is equal. To bring it back to the lottery analogy, let's say each ticket has a 1 in 1 million chance of being the winning ticket. Only 25 ticket-holders are between the ages of 27 and 29. In fact, the probability of any person within any given three-year age span eligible to play the lottery winning is 25 in 1 million. Would we be surprised to find that a 28 year-old wins? What about a 35 year-old?

That's the thing. Any possible world has an equally low a priori probability of being an actual world. There is no more reason to be surprised that our world is the one that exists than there would be over the existence of any possible world, whether or not it could support intelligent life.

 

[Canute]

You seem to be suggesting that the universe exists as a superposition of states, each actualised by an act of sentient observation. John Wheeler uses this argument to suggest that consciousness is required in order to actualise probable states of the universe, and is thus required to be in existence at t=0 in all universes. This is not a strong argument for the non-existence of God.

I know nothing about programming languages but the infinite loop that arises in programming for existence, as demonstrated above, is dispensed with in the logical calculus of George Spencer-Brown, who uses imaginary values to solve the problem. Thus he presents his calculus as a mathematical model of how form arises from formlessness in all universes. Not as an act of God, but as the natural outcome of the fundamental existence of a 'causeless cause', aka the Void, the Tao, emptiness etc., as suggested by Lao-tsu, Chuang Tsu, the Buddha, Richard Gere, Schrodinger and the rest.

The God issue is a mess in my opinion. It results from a naturalisation or objectification of God as a concept, which began with the early Greek philosophers and culminates in the work of people like Ayn Rand and Dan Dennett, and in the sort of shallow happy-clappy Christianity that has evolved in recent times. It is often forgotten, for instance, that in Sufism, which is equivalent to Taoism, Buddhism and the Christian mystics in its cosmology, great efforts are made to make it crystal clear that Allah is not God, and that to think of Allah as God is is to make a serious and very misleading mistake. Similarly there is a profound difference between the God of TV evangalists and the 'Godhead' of Evagrios, Merton or Meister Eckhart.

To argue that the God of modern Christianity does not exist is to pick on an easy target. It is not hard to show that this notion of God is incoherent and requires the possibility of divine miracles in order to overcome its internal contradictions. The question is, is there a inevitable gap in all our consistent accounts of cosmogenesis, if so is there something in it, and if so what might it be, assuming it needs to be something consistent with physics. To the first I'd say yes, to the second yes and no, depending on how you look at it, and to the last I'd agree with Spencer-Brown.

 

[Sintwar]

I use the word existence with abundance because if you really boil it down, nothing can exist without existence.

You can argue that to the death, but it is a fact. It is a fact because the moment that anything comes into existence (no matter what form of existence it is), it exists.

I do not hold "existence" to only physical forms of existence. For example. I am imagining 5 billion dollars in my bank account right now. It is a nice thought, and although it is not physical reality, the thought of it exists in my mind. And now that I have said it to you, and you are reading it, it now exists in your mind.

In this sense, yes god does very much exist. god exists in the mind of just about every single living human being on this planet.

Although, this "thought" is more or less electrical signals in my brain, so the only thing that really exists (as far as that thought is concerned) is some electrical activity in my brain.

In that sense, perhaps we are not "really" intelligent beings at all. In fact, if you REALLY want to boil it down, we are nothing more than a chemical reaction.

Who knows. Maybe the only actual thing that physically exists is a single cell, something like a brain cell. It floats in a void of absolute nothingness and emptiness, and our "existence" is nothing more than an electrical signal in that cell. It doesn't even have to understand it. It just is.

And then we are not even a chemical reaction. We simply become a "thought" induced by a chemical or electrical reaction.

But... even if that were the case. That single cell still exists.

Wether existence existed before that cell, or they both popped into existence at the same time... Well... We might never know. At least I probably wont.

The point is, it could not exist without the existence of existence.


I know I know. If NOTHING can exist withough existence, then how can "existence" exist without existence? hmmmm?

THAT is why I think that it is just possible that existence is infinite.

What would happen if absolutely nothing existed, not even existence its self, and then all of the sudden BAM it did exist?

Maybe a giant explosion... hmmm kind of like a Big Bang!

At the end of the day, the fact that I am typing this message right now , and you are reading it, means that existence already exists. And wether I am really a physical being, or just a thought coming from an electrical signal in a single brain cell. Something exists.

 

[infidel]

I was with you up to a point Sintwar, but I'm afraid all this makes no sense to me. "Nothing can exist without existence" is a tautology and essentially meaningless. The "existence of existence" is similarly without meaning. And what does it mean to say "nothing exists"? Does it exist if it is nothing?

There is a world of difference between the perception of something existing and the thing existing. One is a thought, incorporeal, a set of chemical reactions which we perceive as a mental image or idea. As such it is a thing itself, a thought, that has existence. Very little to do with the thing itself existing.

Usually when one debates whether a god exists, there is little doubt among the participants that we mean external existence in a real sense. There is no debate as to whether the idea of god exists.

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe you have a very good idea or explanation in there somewhere but it's not coming across, at least to me, very well. But that's just me, and I think it's why I find the subject of philosophy so uninteresting.

 

[PIT2]

I only read the first post, but here's what i thought:

Replace the word 'existence' with 'God' and u can start all over again.

 

[PIT2]

Although I do know that "something from nothing" is possible, and has already been proven it happens.

Im afraid this has never been witnessed, let alone proven.

The idea that everything came from nothing, is just as fantastical as that of a God. Actually, it makes even less sense...

 

[Fliption]

To make it very simple. I read this in a book "The Atheists debators handbook", so most of these are not my words.
If you were to take me to court, claiming that I am in breech of a contract, you will need to produce this so called contract in order to prove that I did in fact sign it and that I am breeching that contract. If you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this contract exists, and it has my signiture, your claim is worthless.

You can convince anyone you want that this contract exists. Hell you could convince the whole world. But without that contract, you have no case.

I'm not sure I understand this response. Are you saying that the "atheists debators handbook" advocates making statements without having to defend them?