Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
93 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (3 members, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,038 Year: 5,150/6,534 Month: 570/794 Week: 61/135 Day: 1/6 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence
ICANT
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1 of 1229 (614207)
04-29-2011 12:05 PM


In this proposed topic I would like to discuss existence.

From dictionary.com:

quote:
–noun
1. the state or fact of existing; being.
Source

From the free dicgtionary:

quote:
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
Source

From Wikipedia:

quote:
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations.
Source

For this thread Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". is to be accepted as a declarative statement of completed action.

Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." is to be accepted as a disjunctive as translated in the LXX and marked by the Masoretes.

Thus it would begin with 'Now' or 'But' the earth...

Now to a very controversial word.

היה is translated 'was' in verse 2 means 1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out.

I find only 4 times היה is translated 'was'. Genesis 1:2, 3:1, Exodus 5:13, and Judges 20:3.

Since the word does not have 'was' in the definition I don't know why the translators chose 'was' unless it suited their bias.

In Genesis 1:2 my bias would prefer become, or come to pass. But I believe a form of exist (existed) would be better.

In Genesis Exodus 3:14 "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

אהיה אשר אהיה This statement was translated "I AM THAT I AM'.

But should have been translated 'I EXIST THAT I EXIST'. 'I' comes from the prefix א.

Thus God claims to be existence.

In Genesis 1:1 Moses declared God caused the Heavens and the Earth to exist.

In Isaiah 40:26 Isaiah declared God caused all things to exist.

In Isaiah 42:5 God declared He caused the Heavens to begin to exist and streached them out.

In Isaiah 45:12 God declared He caused the earth to begin to exist and man upon it.

These are just a few scriptures that declare Existence caused everything to begin to exist.

Observations:

The Heavens (universe) exists.
The Earth exists.
Mankind as well as all living creatures exist.

The question is:

Is existence responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?

If not, then what is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.

The Bible declares existence is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.

I agree.

What say you?

If existence is not responsible for bringing into existence all that exists, then what is?

There is existence (all things exist) and the opposite of that is non-existence (no thing exists). There is no known mechanism whereby existence can begin to exist from non-existence.

Can anyone present a case for existence without it being brought about by existence?

God Bless,

Your choice.

Edited by ICANT, : Correct text reference to Exodus from Genesis


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 05-03-2011 4:54 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2011 2:31 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 05-04-2011 12:09 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 637 by Buzsaw, posted 06-24-2011 8:30 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 684 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 07-05-2011 10:55 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 916 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 4:43 AM ICANT has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 1229 (614209)
05-02-2011 5:47 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Existence thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 1229 (614252)
05-03-2011 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
04-29-2011 12:05 PM


Why does everything need to be caused by something else? What's wrong with proposing a universe where things can happen without a cause?

You would have no difficulty imagining your god as uncaused, why the difficulty here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2011 12:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2011 10:43 AM Larni has taken no action

ICANT
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 4 of 1229 (614274)
05-03-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
05-03-2011 4:54 AM


Re: Cause
Hi Larni,

Larin writes:

Why does everything need to be caused by something else?

Great question, I wish I had the answer.

Being finite human beings everything we know of happening in our lifetime has a cause and effect. So the default position is that everything has a cause.

Larin writes:

What's wrong with proposing a universe where things can happen without a cause?

Nothing is wrong with a universe existing where things can happen without a cause.

But the one we live in has a cause and effect for everything.

But there is a problem with a universe that has always existed. Science tells us it would be a dead universe had it always existed. Therefore the universe had to have a beginning. (Or it had to have many beginnings.)

Then we get into the problem of existence.

Either there is existence or there is non-existence. The two cannot co-exist.

We know for a fact there is existence. We exist.

Thus either existence has always existed, which is a scientific impossibility, according to present theory. There are those working on hypothesis of existence always existing. (Such as string theory.)

Or existence began to exist out of non-existence, which is also a scientific impossibility.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that is an attempt to explain existence.

Larin writes:

You would have no difficulty imagining your god as uncaused, why the difficulty here?

I have no problem with existence, existing. I happen to call that existence God.

I am on record here at EvC as saying whatever caused the universe to exist would be considered God as it would have to be everything that has ever existed or will exist.

If it was the so called God particle, Hawkings instanton or that pin point that existed at T=10-43. They all would have to be everything that ever existed or will exist to produce what is observed today.

We have the same amount of physical reproducable evidence for any of those, as we do for my God.

The universe exists and we exist.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 05-03-2011 4:54 AM Larni has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 05-03-2011 12:10 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 10 by ScientificBob, posted 05-04-2011 4:53 AM ICANT has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7333
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 5 of 1229 (614290)
05-03-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ICANT
05-03-2011 10:43 AM


Re: Cause
Being finite human beings everything we know of happening in our lifetime has a cause and effect. So the default position is that everything has a cause.

Non-sequitur. How does the first statement have anything to do with your conclusion?
Nothing is wrong with a universe existing where things can happen without a cause.

But the one we live in has a cause and effect for everything.

Please show your evidence.

Thus either existence has always existed, which is a scientific impossibility, according to present theory.

Please explain this present theory. Isn't it funny how you dismiss scientific evidence, but will rely on a theory if you feel it has anything to do with your argument. Isn't that a bit disingenuous? Nay, hypocritical?

Maybe if you could define existence there could at least be some sort of conversation here.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2011 10:43 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2011 6:26 PM Theodoric has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 6 of 1229 (614349)
05-03-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Theodoric
05-03-2011 12:10 PM


Re: Cause
Hi Theodoric,

Theodoric writes:

Nothing is wrong with a universe existing where things can happen without a cause.
But the one we live in has a cause and effect for everything.

Please show your evidence.

If you are refering to a universe existing where things can happen without a cause, I can not find anything that does not have a cause.

But that does not mean that a universe could not exist where things happen without a cause.

Now if you are refering to the later where everything in our universe has a cause and effect for everything. I will give you one example of cause and effect.
I hold an apple in my extended hand and turn loose of the apple, the apple falls to the solid surface below. When it reaches that solid surface it stops.

The apple falls because gravity pulls the mass to the solid surface below. The apple stops when it comes in contact with the surface, it may bounce because the surface is solid. Because the solid surface is harder than the apple the apple will bruise.

Now you give me one example of something that does not have a cause and effect in the universe in which we live.

Theodoric writes:

Please explain this present theory.

I will quote Stephen Hawking.

quote:
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.
Source

The standard theory says the universe has not always existed but had a beginning in the past.

Theodoric writes:

Maybe if you could define existence there could at least be some sort of conversation here.

From the OP:

quote:
From dictionary.com:
quote:
–noun
1. the state or fact of existing; being.
Source

From the free dicgtionary:

quote:
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
Source

From Wikipedia:

quote:
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations.
Source

It would have helped if you had read the OP.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 05-03-2011 12:10 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Theodoric, posted 05-03-2011 6:44 PM ICANT has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7333
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 7 of 1229 (614355)
05-03-2011 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ICANT
05-03-2011 6:26 PM


Re: Cause
I will quote Stephen Hawking.

That quote deals with time and the universe. So are you saying existence=universe?

Theodoric writes:

Maybe if you could define existence there could at least be some sort of conversation here.

From the OP:

quote:
From dictionary.com:
quote:
�noun
1. the state or fact of existing; being.
Source

From the free dicgtionary:

quote:
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
Source

From Wikipedia:

quote:
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations.
Source

It would have helped if you had read the OP.

God Bless,

It would have helped if you had actually read my post. Not assume you know what I am saying.

Theodoric writes:

Maybe if you could define existence

What does this actually mean to you? Does existence have some sort of metaphysical meaning to you?

May Brighid bless you

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2011 6:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2011 11:48 PM Theodoric has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 8 of 1229 (614383)
05-03-2011 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Theodoric
05-03-2011 6:44 PM


Re: Cause
Hi Theodoric,

Theodoric writes:

That quote deals with time and the universe. So are you saying existence=universe?

I'm saying the universe has not always existed, but the universe does exist now.

Existence does not = the universe.

quote writes:

All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever

It seems that is evidence the universe has not existed forever. At the least Stephen Hawking at the time he made that statement believed the universe had a beginning.

Theodoric writes:

It would have helped if you had actually read my post. Not assume you know what I am saying.

In Message 5 you said:

Theodoric writes:

Maybe if you could define existence there could at least be some sort of conversation here.

I gave three definitions in the OP.

How am I supposed to improve on those definitions?

Theodoric writes:

What does this actually mean to you? Does existence have some sort of metaphysical meaning to you?

Why would existence have a metaphysical meaning to me?

Existence is a state of being which is reality, which is the opposite of non-existence, non-reality.

Theodoric writes:

May Brighid bless you

I will take all the blessings I can get.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Theodoric, posted 05-03-2011 6:44 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 05-04-2011 8:12 AM ICANT has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 9 of 1229 (614391)
05-04-2011 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
04-29-2011 12:05 PM



From dictionary.com:
quote:
–noun
1. the state or fact of existing; being.
Source

From the free dicgtionary:

quote:
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
Source

quote:

The question is:

Is existence responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?


Based on the definition of "existence" you have chosen the answer must be "no". Your definition refers to an unspecified something existing i.e. in the state of existing, the fact of it's existence or of it having being. How could the mere fact of an unspecified something existing - in itself - cause anything to be brought into existence ?

quote:

If not, then what is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.

Obviously nothing could be responsible for bringing itself into existence. Therefore nothing that exists could be responsible for bringing into existence all that exists. Think about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2011 12:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2011 12:33 PM PaulK has replied

ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 3535 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


(1)
Message 10 of 1229 (614407)
05-04-2011 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ICANT
05-03-2011 10:43 AM


Re: Cause
ICANT writes:

So the default position is that everything has a cause.

What is the cause of atomic decay?

ICANT writes:


Therefore the universe had to have a beginning. (Or it had to have many beginnings.)

And that beginning is the expansion of space-time. Anything about what "caused" that beginning is baseless speculation.

I'ld even argue that it can't have a cause like we understand causality to be... Causality requires the dimension of time.

A cause happens and an effect follows. It's sequential.
Proposing a "cause" in that sense for the big bang is non-sensical in a way, since the time dimension was not existant at that point.

It's like proposing that there is something "north" of the north pole. It doesn't make any sense to me.

ICANT writes:


Thus either existence has always existed, which is a scientific impossibility, according to present theory.

Again, you assume existance as we know it. You assert that if the universe always existed that it always existed in its present form.
This is false. Big bang theory even makes it false.

Physics break down at planck time. Our models (including causality) do not apply there.

ICANT writes:

There are those working on hypothesis of existence always existing. (Such as string theory.)

Yes. And they don't claim that the universe always existed in its present form. So your point is invalid.

ICANT writes:

I am on record here at EvC as saying whatever caused the universe to exist would be considered God as it would have to be everything that has ever existed or will exist.

Ok. But how is that usefull or meaningfull?

ICANT writes:


The universe exists and we exist.

Yes. And that only proves that.... the universe and we exist. It doesn't prove anything about why it exists, how it exists, when it started existing,...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2011 10:43 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 05-04-2011 11:47 AM ScientificBob has replied
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2011 1:15 PM ScientificBob has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7333
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 11 of 1229 (614417)
05-04-2011 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
05-03-2011 11:48 PM


Re: Cause
I'm saying the universe has not always existed, but the universe does exist now.

Existence does not = the universe.

Then the Hawking quote does not support your argument.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2011 11:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2011 1:21 PM Theodoric has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 776 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 12 of 1229 (614439)
05-04-2011 11:21 AM


congito ergo deny-ilsm
If you did not exist you would not be able to ponder existence.
So what can one say about what existence is? Decartes summed it up rather well I think. Congito ergo sum.

Reality depends on the physics of our universe to manifest matter and energy into a sentient being capable of pondering self awareness. But the universe could care less what or how or why. Since we are human we can not help but think as a human and inject anthopomorphic reasons de entre.

It has long been a phylosophical struggle to relieve existential angst. It takes imo tremendous intellectual bravery to suggest we are a anomaly of no more importance than any other collection of atoms.
So my existence is one of my own being giving meaning and importance to my own life and those around me.


Rahvin
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 13 of 1229 (614446)
05-04-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by ScientificBob
05-04-2011 4:53 AM


Re: Cause
I've been using exactly those same arguments with ICANT for years now.

He doesn't understand them. His faith and unfounded confidence in the Bible as the ultimate authority acts as a mental block preventing him from even attempting to grasp the concept of finite time and what that means for causality at T=0.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ScientificBob, posted 05-04-2011 4:53 AM ScientificBob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2011 1:25 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 37 by ScientificBob, posted 05-05-2011 1:56 PM Rahvin has taken no action

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 14 of 1229 (614456)
05-04-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
04-29-2011 12:05 PM


Talking in circles
Is existence responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?

How many times can you use iterations of the word "exist" in a single sentence, ICANT?

Your nonsense doesn't even make superficial sense this time. Even your three "definitions" use the word they define in their definitions!

What I assume you're really asking, without all the bullshit behind it is, "why is there something, rather than nothing? Why should anything exist at all, rather than nothing?" You then tried to surround that with a bunch of apologetic "interpretation" from the Bible, as if that would support anything at all.

But the answer to the root question, "why does anything at all exist rather than an absence of anything," is "We don't entirely know, we might never know, but why not?" For all we know, existence may be the default inevitable state, and nonexistence, a total absence of anything at all could be the impossible.

Not everything about the Universe has to make intuitive sense to a human perspective. That's a big part of why we use math to model the early Universe instead of the type of philosophical navel-gazing you're so fond of. Special Relativity, the Uncertainty Principle, and Quantum Mechanics might seem strange or weird to us...but in reality, that place you fear to tread, Quantum Mechanics is normal, it's our human understanding that's messed up because the human brain is not equipped with an intuitive understanding of the underlying mechanics that govern the Universe. We're primates, not supercomputers. Causality doesn't make sense when you don't have a time dimension for linear progressive events to occur in. Causality is even just a simple way of describing the increase in entropy within a system - and entropy cannot change without time.

You are also, of course, opening yourself yet again to infinite regression: if existence was required to cause existence, what caused existence?

See how absolutely stupid that is? Of course you don't...but I'm sure everyone else does, and now we can all laugh at your expense.

Obviously, it's turtles all the way down, and the turtles are all named "Existence."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2011 12:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2011 1:54 PM Rahvin has taken no action

ICANT
Member (Idle past 225 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 15 of 1229 (614458)
05-04-2011 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
05-04-2011 2:31 AM


Re: Existence
Hi Paul,

Paulk writes:


Obviously nothing could be responsible for bringing itself into existence.

I agree.

Paulk writes:

Therefore nothing that exists could be responsible for bringing into existence all that exists. Think about it.

What does the conclusion have to do with the first statement?

I did and have for a long time thought about it.

Existence = something existing.

Non-Existence = nothing existing.

Now if according to your statement above that nothing that exists could be responsible for bringing into existence all that exists, what caused existence to begin to exist.

According to that statement the universe and us do not exist.

Can you comprehend non-existence, which is an absence of anything?

Think about it.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2011 2:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2011 1:18 PM ICANT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022