I can not make any sense of the concept being put forward here (help anyone). — prothero
Existence exists and nonexistence does not exist.
Existence exists because nonexistence does not exist.
Existence is everywhere. Nothing is nowhere. Nothing does not exist, it is no thing. Every thing is something, including space.
Existence did not begin as a "beginning of existence" would imply a previous state of nonexistence, and nonexistence does not and did not exist. For example, the Big Bang required some sort of catalyst or environment to facilitate it. — daniel j lavender
Existence is infinite, however, our limited perspective creates an illusion of limitation — daniel j lavender
The OP is a defense of metaphysics before epistemology. Heidegger was obsessed with 'being' - and considered it a fundamental concept. I don't. I think truth is fundamental. Hence my rebuttal of the idea that 'existence is everywhere' with reference to scientific facts. This example shows clearly how metaphysics is merely parsing language, and not reality. — karl stone
Existence exists and nonexistence does not exist. — daniel j lavender
if you try using the definition of existence given from the seeming dictionary definition OP gave, these assertions are rendered as "That which is observed is observed because that which is not observed is not observed". What this is supposed to communicate about the meaning and implications of existence, I do not know. — MindForged
It's not giving me a real understanfing of what you think existence is. It's like using the word "true" in your definition of truth. — MindForged
Further, existence having a beginning does not imply there was a state of so called non-existence beforehand. That's a logical doozy because it contradicts itself, but not in the way OP intended. It can easily mean there was a first moment of time. There's no "before" a first moment because "before" is a temporal concept, and clearly someone positing a first moment of existence is not positing a time before time. That's just dumb. — MindForged
Existence exists and nonexistence does not exist. — daniel j lavender
Actually the implication is closer to "that which exists can be observed because it exists, and that which does not exist cannot be observed because it does not exist".
That which does not exist cannot be observed (or interacted with). That which does exist can be. — daniel j lavender
As stated above, my points are fairly straightforward. I am asserting that existence is infinite in extent, and eternal in duration. I am also asserting that we are parts of existence. — daniel j lavender
The idea of a "beginning of existence", or a "first moment of time" suggests that existence just began. How would you explain that? It is essentially a something-from-nothing premise. ("No before" essentially implies nothing.)
How does something, how does time, just come about? This must be explained.
How does existence "just begin"? — daniel j lavender
No no, you were giving a definition of existence and then the implications you drew from it seemed incoherent. You quoted a definition saying existence regards things which can be observed and then you said "Existence exists", whatever that means (sounds trivial) and I found any subsequent points to be gibberish. — MindForged
Think about it, if "that which exists can be observed because it exists" is elucidating anything, it's that things which exist are observable (and indeed, you outright say this in the above quote). But this a borderline untenable position that I hopefully don't need to explain much (just consider so-called "unobservables" in scientific models, or even just extremely distant objects that no observer will ever see). — MindForged
Explain what? If there was a first moment of time then t1 is the first state to exist and was not preceded by anything on pain of contradiction.
I don't really see how an eternal view of things is somehow more parsimonious. In actual fact, it's infinitely more complicated because it posits an infinite chain of facts to explain one datum (that things exist) and so would in normal circumstances not have the high ground in simplicity. I'm not sure how it's in need of explanation anymore than an infinite past. In fact, the obvious contention against an infinite past is exactly why it is infinite. There's no logical necessity in the past being either finite or infinite specifically. The how question here is framed as if an infinite past is actually understood in full and thus need not explain itself. — MindForged
Existence exists" simply means "existence is". "Nonexistence does not exist" simply means "nonexistence is not". — daniel j lavender
I'm asserting that existence concerns that which can be observed or interacted with in some way, but doesn't necessarily need to be. — daniel j lavender
If something, such as a "first moment", was not preceded by anything then that implies nothing preceded it.
Nothing/Nonexistence couldn't possibly precede anything because it does not exist. In other words, it wouldn't really "be before". Your suggestion of a "no before" is indeed alluding to a "nothing before". That's nonexistence. — daniel j lavender
Again, how does stuff just "pop into being"? It's akin to saying energy simply comes about. We know that's nonsense. Energy must be derived from something, it must come from something. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only converted into different forms. It is the same with existence. — daniel j lavender
Where did the material for the physical universe/existence come from? What catalyzed such an event? How does such an event occur without any previous phenomena? You must explain this. — daniel j lavender
I am simply asserting that existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration, that there is nothing other than existence, and that we are parts of existence. — daniel j lavender
That doesn't explain anything. Is *what*? You're not linking anything to existence here, you're just saying there things which exist and things which don't. You haven't explained what those terms, what those predicates, actually mean. You're simply restating what they entail. — MindForged
But there are things which could not be observed in any way. Unobservables are the obvious examples. We don't interact with them, we postulate them to explain certain data in our best theories. — MindForged
You are doing the exact nonsensical thing I mentioned. People who say there is a first moment of time are not saying there was a state before the first moment and that state was nothing. That's the idiotic assessment of their view. There is no *before* the first moment any more than there is a north of the North Pole. It's just a category mistake, there could not be time before time, "before" is a temporal concept that can only be applied to temporal sequences. No one is suggesting there is a "nothing before" the first moment of time because "nothing" is not a state on pain of contradiction, for a state is itself something. It's saying there wasn't anything because there couldn't be.
You are, hilariously enough, treating nothingness as if it were a state of affairs which is a clear contradiction. — MindForged
How does stuff persist forever when an infinite past would have long ago reduced the universe to a wasteland? Anyone can play these hypotheticals when we're jacking off about a matter that is poorly understood. You're extrapolating natural laws to explain the existence of the subject described by the natural laws. Not sure that's going to make sense. — MindForged
Begging the question. Asking "what material" and "where did it come from" are just importing the assumption of an infinite past into the framing of your question. Again, we know how things work once we have a universe, you cannot extrapolate that back as an explanation of why anything exists in the first place. — MindForged
I do not claim to know. I am asserting. I am sharing these thoughts and ideas here for argument in attempt to demonstrate their validity.
Some things must be conjecture. If existence is infinite, if existence is eternal, we wouldn't possibly be able to measure it all in order to confirm it. — daniel j lavender
I am linking tangible, observable phenomena with existence. We are able to observe and interact with innumerable things and do so on a daily basis. That is undeniable.
You seem uncertain about existence. You seem doubtful that things exist — daniel j lavender
Declaring "no time", "no matter", "no space", "no motion", etc., is essentially declaring nothing, or nonexistence. What else would such be? Non-existing existence? Your premise simply does not make sense. You are declaring nothing while declaring it is not nothing. You are declaring a state that is not a state. Then declaring something just came about. Nonsense all the way around. — daniel j lavender
As stated above, the philosophy advanced here is not limited to the term "universe". This philosophy concerns the term "existence". For a reason. — daniel j lavender
Poof! Existence! Is too magical to be taken seriously. Furthermore, you have conveniently failed to adequately refute any of my arguments concerning energy, its dynamics and how they relate to an eternal, infinite existence. — daniel j lavender
Why do you think existence is infinite? — TheMadFool
You are right in the sense that matter and energy follow conservation laws (can neither be created nor destroyed). Is your argument based on this fact? — TheMadFool
But, what if there are a different set of laws governing the beginning of a universe? I'm basing this on the supposed fact that our universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Evidently, there was nothing, neither matter nor energy, before the Big Bang. How do you explain this, Or, are scientists wrong on this one? — TheMadFool
It's isn't anything. What I'm saying is that your intimation that people who suggest a first moment of existence are no suggesting there was a state of nothingness from which the first moment popped into being from. Its a contradiction, you know that. You're essentially begging the question in favor of your own position, namely that there was always some kind of state which is the very thing you're supposed to be arguing for. Even here you're attempting this despite thrice telling you that's not what is meant. It's disingenuous. It's not the suggestion that there was a state of non existence, but that there was no state at all because there wasn't anything. — MindForged
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.