Perhaps if you replaced the word "existence" with the word "Universe," there would be less confusion. You seem to be using the word as a synonym for Universe, but when you say something "exists in existence"... well, remember back in grade school when your teacher told you that you couldn't use another form of the same word when writing a word's definition? Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
quote:When you use the word "existence" it makes your meaning ambiguous. Do you mean the world of our senses, which would be science? Or do you mean the existence of philosophy, such as existentialism and so forth?
currently the only process to explore existence , even though it is a thing, is by reason.
How does it make any sense to respond to a question about you mean by "existence" by making another vague assertion about existence? If people have to keep interrupting discussion with you to tell you you're not making sense, then maybe you're not making sense.
Let's try again.
When you use the word "existence", do you mean the world of our senses, and which science can therefore study? Or do you mean the existence of philosophy, such as existentialism and so forth, which are conceptual rather than real and which science cannot study?
the "existence of philosophy" only says that philosophy exists.
I'm pretty sure that Percy was commenting on existence as it is studied within philosophy. I really doubt that his reference was to the question of whether philosophy exists.
I'll make a general comment, related to the forum "Is it science." It is an important aspect of science, that clarity is required. A scientific investigation might start without clear conclusions, and without a clear methodology. But it at least has to be clear about what is being investigated.
I hope you are beginning to understand that what you wanted to discuss is not science, at least as you have presented it, because it lacks that clarity.
the "existence of philosophy" only says that philosophy exists. i don't know existentialism.
As Nwr explained, the context was the definition of existence, and I was asking whether you were referring to the definition of existence as it might be used by science to refer to what we can detect with our senses, or to the definition of existence one might use in philosophy, such as of the philosophy of existentialism which has a particular definition of existence.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." We've been refraining from ridicule, but you're making it tough.
quote:and I was asking whether you were referring to the definition of existence as it might be used by science to refer to what we can detect with our senses
this was my position from the beginning.
No, it really isn't. Someone who really held that position would not use phrases like, "exists in existence," or ask questions like, "existence=?". It is possible, perhaps even likely, that you don't have a clear idea of what you're trying to say.
In science we believe anything detectable by our senses exists, whether detected directly or indirectly with instrumentation. Anything we cannot detect with our senses or perhaps have not yet detected with our senses may still exist, but scientifically there is nothing we can know about it.
If we're talking about science, then when you ask, "existence=?", the answer is that existence is whatever we can detect with our senses. Synonyms for existence in this context might be the "natural universe" or the "real world".
If what you're really asking is a question like, "What is the nature of the fabric of space/time?", then this is a legitimate scientific question, and there are scientists working on this question. Interestingly, this context does sort of touch on addressing your assertion that "nothing can exist outside of existence", since some theorists believe that our universe is not the only one. These other universes cannot be considered part of our reality unless we can detect them, and some think that dark energy may be a manifestation of our universe's interaction with adjacent universes.
there's no way i can argue my logic with you without repeating what ive already said.
what is matter a product of? may i ask? (generically)
so you'll go through the big bang,
ill ask, OK so where did that come from. you'll say that's not science.
what I'm suggesting must not belong to this age, or maybe not any age. but not because what I'm saying isn't true. but because science fails to recognize "existence" as a physical and real "thing" that all of everything from thought to stone has come from.
existence:n. the basis of all things that "are". it was/is the energy that was before all things that are, which was intelligent, and created all that is from itself. based on faith it was. and therefore established the state of "being" or "existing".
energy is what I'm suggesting.
perhaps if the theory of relativity was completely finished that energy could be measured.
but I'm not so stupid that i don't realize that regardless of what i suggest it has already been discredited, and i am a "fool" open to ridicule.
but by reason of my own logic, existence is a "thing" to be discovered. by reason that i explained in my other posts.
I've already admitted that "not" accepting that as law would open to debate the possibility that existing is tentative. and that ill assert is impossible.
what more do you really want from me knowing how i stand?
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
existance: 1 a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b: reality as presented in experience c (1): the totality of existent things (2): a particular being (all the fair existences of heaven â€” John Keats) d: sentient or living being : life 2 a: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence (the existence of other worlds) b: the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c: being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect 3: actual or present occurrence (existence of a state of war)
Is one of these definitions congruent with your use of the word existance?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means, therefore it should not exist. Energy does exist and it must have a cause, but the cause cannot be natural, because energy cannot be created or destroyed naturaly. Logical/reasonable conclusion, energy didn't occure naturaly. Ergo; because energy exists it must have occured by unnatural means. Therefore God, by logical conclusion, must exist. Is this what you are trying to get at? This I can understand, and even agree with, if that is the point you are trying to make; but science (*current definition) will never accept this conclusion because it is not naturalistic even though it is more than likly the truth, and based on a scientific law. Scientific laws are tentative concerning suppernatural conclusions but absolute concerning natural conclusions, except where they conflict with the naturalistic explaination in which case they are ignored; or where you not aware of this?
Matter is a form of energy, and as a form of energy falls under the same law of conservation as energy. ergo matter cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means.
Is your question concerning the Big bang or that which went bang? To ask the questions who, what, when, where, why, and how are all scientific questions, it's just that science (*current definition) doesn't have an adaquate naturalitic answer and therefore cannot answer the question scientificaly (from a naturalistic stand point). That which went bang for all intents and purposes was nothing and it came from more nothing. The question is how did it cease to be nothing and become something, without an adaquate cause. The big bang postulate is accepted scientificaly purly on the grounds that it is a natural explaination reguardless of whether it is feasable or not. i.e. cause is irrelevant to science if the only possible cause is suppernatural creation. Even though the law of cause and effect is the foundation of science. Like I pointed out, scientific laws are tentative concerning suppernatural explainations, but absolute concerning natural explainations, except where they conflict with the naturalistic explaination in which case they are ignored.
in order to argue logic, reason, and truth scientificaly one must first prove that they are material and therefore natural and not imaterial and therefore unatural. Someone, I believe it was in this thread, stated that the number 3 exists either naturaly or materialisticaly, frankly I don't see how they arrived at this conclusion. The number 3 is a concept that exists only in thought the same as logic, reason, and truth. Just because there are 3 apples sitting on a table doesn't mean that the number 3 is either natural or material. It just means that we have concluded through a thought process that there are 3 apples sitting on a table. (Or do you propose that the number 3 is responsible for producing 3 apples sitting on a table?) I think that what you are trying to argue is the reverse of 'there are no absolutes' which is an absolute statment. In your case 'everything is absolute.' A statement that can only be proven or disproven by logic and reason the same as the first statement.
There are still some mysteries in the universe that have yet to be explained, either naturaly or suppernaturaly (except for the God did it arguement). One example for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&feature=related the next logical question at the end of this video. How does the act of observing something change that which is observed? More to the point, which observation is the correct one? That the act of observing collapsed the wave form, or that the wave form only exists as long as we don't attempt to observe the wave form? Putting this into the context of this thread; does something exist before one observes it, or does it only exist after one observes it. More specificly does the act of observing whether or not something exists cause it to exist, or did it exist all along, whether it was observed or not?
That the universe exists seems, at least from my stand point, to be an absolute statement, and not a tentative one; and I observe that statment to be true beyond reasonable doubt based on inferances from scientific laws. That God exists seems, also from my stand point, to be an absolute statement, and not one I make tentatively; and I observe that statement to be true beyond reasonable doubt based on inferances from scientific laws. Whether either can be proven from a scientific (*current definition) stand point, does not seem to fall under the scope of science (*current definition). Whether or not existance exists outside the universe, froma a cursory study of the definitions, does not seem to refer to an existential enquiry, (based on existentialism) but rather seems to refer to the; of, relating to, or affirming existance, grounded in existence or the experience of existence, or having being in time and space; definition of existential. Existance beyond the universe, from a scientific stand point, at best could only prove or disprove such purely on a mathimatical probabilty; however, science cannot prove whether or not something exists outside the universe because it cannot test it directly. see parallel dimensions/parallel universes
* Post 1950's = current definition of science verses pre 1950's definition of science = not current definition of science. Science was redifined in the 50's to exclude any truth that was not naturalistic, and therefore science determines what is or is not true based souly on whether or not the the explaination of an occurance is natural, and not whether or not it is true. This is the definition of science when used in EvC debates, as defined in previous posts in this thread.
more accurate definitions:
**Operational Science: That which provided for the computer monitor which you are currently staring at; for instance. It reqiures no starting assumptions or presuppositions, it is scientificly absolute. It is based souly on repeatable experimentations that yield the same predictable results every time. Simply put it is directly testable.
***Origin Science: That which attempts to explain the origin of the universe and everything therein, through the scientific interpritation of secound (and sometimes third) hand observations of the evidence, because it cannot be observed first hand. This method requires a great deal of assuptions and suppositions which cannot be proven or disproven conclusively. Simply put it can only be tested indirectly; cannot be tested directly. (ergo the reason behind the EvC debate) Changing the primary assumptions or suppositions changes how the evidence is interprited, because it changes the predicted experamental results, i.e. the experiments used to prove one stand point do not yield the same results as those which are used to prove another stand point and do not yield the same predictable results every time. This form of science is tentative and cannot be proven scientificly absolute (in referance to operational science) at best it can only be proven legalisticly (ergo beyond reasonable doubt). your OP fits into this catagory, and, for the most part, in this forum topic 'Is it science'.
Disclaimer: this post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one. Topical discretion is advised.