66

Would you agree that to deny the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is false? Just as to affirm the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is true"?

Accordingly it would seem that to deny the existence of x is indeed ordinarily to have a sort of belief, though not a belief in the existence of a nothing. More like: belief in the existence of a false proposition, or of an empty concept. — Cabbage Farmer


Yes. But I want to make the distinction that believing a proposition is false is different than believing something doesn’t exist.
— Pinprick

At an unconscious and subconscious levels, belief is experienced differently.
The basic level of belief is what makes us decide if something exists at the inmost level, the instinctive one.

We have sets of conscious truths that, in time, influence us to the point that they become part of our deepest levels of belief, through indoctrination, discipline or life experience.

Often times our conscious definition of what God, a creator, an origin, a source, or a set of them is, (may it be chaos or nothing at all) is very contradictory from the definition our inmost beliefs have:
You may think you are atheist for example, but in a terrifying situation, you may find yourself praying, because an instinctive belief in some god made you do it.

The subconscious level links our beliefs to our bodies so that we feel emotions: all glandular, endocrine, lymphatic and neurological related sensation in general, acting under unconscious and conscious collaboration.
Subconscious mind beliefs that translate into body reactions would explain many religious ecstasy phenomenons, in witch the “believer” feels like touched by divinity, and his whole body fills up on a cocktail of all best hormones the body can produce to justify the experience.

Pointing out here that is the relationship between your conscious and unconscious mind that decide if are guilty or innocent, exited or afraid, “cry smiling nostalgic” or “sad crying nostalgic” in your own personal set of beliefs.

The existence of something that we may call “God”, no matter the vessel we use for it, is arguably the base of what makes us who we are and what set of actions and thought patterns are the most efficient to live by.
The inmost definition each one of us have of our own unique image of what or who Is God , our primary source, and what’s it’s point, might well be the base of our personal belief system, that is full of personal considerations

Reality itself is perceived differently from each individual point of view, that might very well be extremely different to each other, even if all are sharing the same “existential environment”, so we might consider everyone having a different true unconscious definition file of what is “The Truth of Existence...for now” and keeps updating it constantly.

Each one would then have it’s on God, and probably when the great philosophers tell you to know thyself, maybe they’re speaking about that relationship with your own Inmost truth, or God (Observer), and your conscious mind (Intender )

The problem about "nothing" is that it becomes "something" as soon as there is any definition of it, and the original "nothing" goes back to it's original, indefinible state.

I would say that nothing is very much like the origin of Everything, but before everything, nothing wasn't even a concept that could be grasped, because only something con realize that nothing is actually a concept.

Would then be deducible that nothing may need everything, as everything needs nothing to have an "understanding" of what each other is.. I would dare say that if there was a creation, that creation is nothing more than the "introspection of nothing", if you get what I mean.

that would translate in "The All" (nothing+everything), looking into itself, and that might mean that all consciousness is but an eye of the All, learning about himself from many different perspectives.

If we would consider all philosophies and all concepts and anything that could ever be conceived by our imagination to be part of a hypothetical sphere of existence, and we could call it "everything", we could put in there all the ideas about anything that has a limit or a boundary, being it physical or just a poorly made definition, and we could still consider it to "exist", even if just as a concept.

Now, what would be beyond that sphere, is what is not contained in in the "everything" sphere, and we could call it "Nothing".

EveryThing would be "the group that contains all groups that do not contain themselves (Russell's paradox), and NoThing, would be the outher layer of it, indefinite and indefinibile, because from the moment that a definition is made out of this "NoThing", it becomes "SomeThing", thus making it part of the group "EveryThing".

No matter how many "SomeThings" are defined out of "NoThing", "NoThing" will always be indefinite and indefinable, and endlessly so by such property.

"Everything" would instead be evergrowing and indefinitely "bigger".

What if God is actually the combination of "Everything" and "Nothing" watching itself from both perspectives while just Being what it is, indefinitely trying to know itself?