Existence

[Suezoled]

Really... since when is LIFEGAZER'S thread? Since when does Lifegazer have the right to tell other people what to post?

Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter
Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter Clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter clutter

wow I'm in a strange mood...

 

[Ed]

Dear Ed,

I think you should get a better mouthpiece. The one called Lifegazer seems to be getting a bit irate. Something about he/she doesn't like it when people clutter "his/her" threads. Anyway, teaching him/her a bit about patience would be a good thing. When you want to teach them a lesson, don't you do stuff like slaughter firstborn sons, demand animal sacrifice, turn people out of their homes, and/or turn them into salt?

I'm pretty much past that. I'm into more quirky stuff now like sending anorexic, lesbian, bitchy supermodels to people.

Generally I ignore everything. I have no specific plan, after all this "universe", as you call it, was the result of a hangover after a night out with some of my sub-diety buds (boy, that Allah, he can toss 'em down). I am always amused when you guys try to figure stuff out. It invariably is incomprehensible, which is the way I designed it.

 

[Suezoled]

Dear Ed,

You're still the malicous, fun loving deity I would love to believe in if I believe in god.
Thanks.

 

[lifegazer]

Do theists have any power to activate mentors here, or would I be wasting my time by complaining about morons?

 

[TLN]

Do theists have any power to activate mentors here, or would I be wasting my time by complaining about morons?

Is English your second language?

 

[Ed]

Do theists have any power to activate mentors here, or would I be wasting my time by complaining about morons?

Unfortunately, I guess, there is a pretty strong support here for free speech which transcends your need for a quiet venue.

Somehow, I get the impression that you take yourself pretty seriously.

 

[Thanz]

It's very simple reasoning really...

2. Whatever existence is (note that the identity of existence is irrelevant to the proceeding conclusion), we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence cannot be finite in nature.

This is a huge leap. How can you know this? Why can't "existence" (whatever that is) be finite? I don't see this as any sort of self evident truth. You can say it, it doesn't make it true.

 

[hammegk]

This is a huge leap. How can you know this? Why can't "existence" (whatever that is) be finite? I don't see this as any sort of self evident truth. You can say it, it doesn't make it true.

Help me out here. How do you envision the boundary between "existence" and "non-existence"?

 

[Thanz]

Help me out here. How do you envision the boundary between "existence" and "non-existence"?

Arrr, tis marked on the map - here there be dragons, arrr....

 

[lifegazer]

"2. Whatever existence is (note that the identity of existence is irrelevant to the proceeding conclusion), we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence cannot be finite in nature."

This is a huge leap. How can you know this? Why can't "existence" (whatever that is) be finite? I don't see this as any sort of self evident truth. You can say it, it doesn't make it true.

If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course. Hence, if we are talking about existence as a whole, we have no choice than to accept that existence is of non-finite nature. By default, existence has to be at a singularity - boundless... without beginning or end.
Existence as a whole simply cannot be finite.

 

[Suezoled]

If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course. Hence, if we are talking about existence as a whole, we have no choice than to accept that existence is of non-finite nature. By default, existence has to be at a singularity - boundless... without beginning or end.
Existence as a whole simply cannot be finite.

So in short, "nothing" can't exist. "Something" must always exist. If it exists, "someone" made it. Someone infinite, that has seen and always been and will see all things to the end from the beginning OR:

It either exists or it doesn't. It's either a passive verb or it's not. It's either's Lifegazer's way or it's a way Lifegazer cannot possibly conceive. Once again, I find the reasonings and logic here as infinite as the whole in a Life Savers Fruit Flavored Candy.

For the nth time, Lifegazer, no links, huh?

 

[Phil]

If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course. Hence, if we are talking about existence as a whole, we have no choice than to accept that existence is of non-finite nature. By default, existence has to be at a singularity - boundless... without beginning or end.
Existence as a whole simply cannot be finite.

I've looked through the thread, and I apologize, but I must be completely missing your definition of existence, because I don't understand why accepting that existence is real necessarily sentences it to be finite. Can you give me a clearer defintion of what existence is as you're using it here?

And forgive what may be a silly question, but when you say "embraced by 'nothing'", do you me bounded? Or are you using 'embraced' to mean to adopt? Supported? Hugged?

 

[Thanz]

If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course.

Why not? You are just repeating the same assertion, not explaining anything. You must also think in terms of time, not just space.

 

[lifegazer]

I've looked through the thread, and I apologize, but I must be completely missing your definition of existence, because I don't understand why accepting that existence is real necessarily sentences it to be finite. Can you give me a clearer defintion of what existence is as you're using it here?

Initially, the definition of 'existence' is irrelevant to the argument, except to confirm that it is not 'nothing'.
And if something has true being, then that being can either be of finite form, embraced/surrounded by something greater than itself; or else existence can said to be at singularity, where there are no boundaries of form imposed upon its being.
This latter case mirrors the reality of existence as a whole, since because it has true being (and is not nothing), it must be of unbounded form.

And forgive what may be a silly question, but when you say "embraced by 'nothing'", do you me bounded? Or are you using 'embraced' to mean to adopt? Supported? Hugged?

'Enveloped' might be a better word. And surely it is clear to see that a real finite entity cannot be enveloped by 'nothing'. How can 'nothing' have extension around something?

 

[lifegazer]

For the nth time, Lifegazer, no links, huh?

Show me where I mentioned links.
What I did say, was starting this week I will be presenting some ideas to suggest that 'reality' is God. This thread is the first of those ideas.

 

[Phil]

Initially, the definition of 'existence' is irrelevant to the argument, except to confirm that it is not 'nothing'.
And if something has true being, then that being can either be of finite form, embraced/surrounded by something greater than itself; or else existence can said to be at singularity, where there are no boundaries of form imposed upon its being.
This latter case mirrors the reality of existence as a whole, since because it has true being (and is not nothing), it must be of unbounded form.

'Enveloped' might be a better word. And surely it is clear to see that a real finite entity cannot be enveloped by 'nothing'. How can 'nothing' have extension around something?

So then I will ask again: why is accepting that existence is real automatically sentencing it to be finite? What exactly is the rub of your 'singularity', other than the fact that accepting the notion disqualifies your initial assertions?

I guess I'd like to know if these are hypothetical scenarios that you've concocted, or do you know something about existence and being that we don't? Please share.

 

[lifegazer]

"If existence is definite/real, then one truth about said existence is that it cannot be of finite volume, embraced by 'nothing'. How could nothing stretch around the surface of a finite entity? It cannot, of course."

Why not? You are just repeating the same assertion, not explaining anything. You must also think in terms of time, not just space.

Look closely at that statement again. In the question I pose, resides the explanation for what I say.

I'm not sure why you don't understand that 'nothing' cannot have extension around the surface of something.
Tell me, how can the various points of existence along the surface of a sphere, for example, touch different points of the 'nothing' which embraces it?

 

[Thanz]

I'm not sure why you don't understand that 'nothing' cannot have extension around the surface of something.
Tell me, how can the various points of existence along the surface of a sphere, for example, touch different points of the 'nothing' which embraces it?

It doesn't. The surface of the sphere is touching nothing, therefore there are no "different points" to touch. There is nothing. The idea of different points of nothing, or of some big expanse of nothing "embracing" something is non-sensical. You are assuming that the nothing is something, or at least you are applying 'something' style rules to it. Nothing is nothing - there is no expanse, and no different points.

 

[lifegazer]

So then I will ask again: why is accepting that existence is real automatically sentencing it to be finite?

You've misunderstood me. It is my contention that existence as a whole cannot be finite. A finite existence is an impossible scenario in that 'nothing' cannot envelope such an entity. Therefore, something else must. Yet "existence as a whole" is considering all things together. And I contend that existence as a whole cannot be finite, since reason cannot accept the existence of a real volume of space within and enveloped by 'nothing'.

What exactly is the rub of your 'singularity', other than the fact that accepting the notion disqualifies your initial assertions?

What does it disqualify? A singularity of being is a being without beginning or end. Unbounded by anything, including nothing.

I guess I'd like to know if these are hypothetical scenarios that you've concocted, or do you know something about existence and being that we don't? Please share.

There's nothing hypothetical about this. I know that existence is real/true/definite. Something is. And I can know that this definite being cannot be embraced by 'nothing'. These two simple facts form the basis of my argument.

 

[Aoidoi]

It is my contention that existence as a whole cannot be finite. A finite existence is an impossible scenario in that 'nothing' cannot envelope such an entity.

Why must existence be enveloped by anything? It's not like you fall off the edge of the earth into nothing, why think you would fall off the edge of the universe into nothing?

Therefore, something else must. Yet "existence as a whole" is considering all things together. And I contend that existence as a whole cannot be finite, since reason cannot accept the existence of a real volume of space within and enveloped by 'nothing'.

People have already used a sphere as an example. From the standpoint or the surface of the sphere the entire universe seems a slighly curved plane. If you walk far enough you end up back where you started. If there is no way off the sphere then it is a self contained exististance without being bounded by anything but the surface of the sphere, which exists.

So if the universe operates the same way, and we sent a probe out to the edge of the universe and it ends up coming back to us from the other direction, what does that show? (mind you the distances involved make this rather less than feasible as an actual experiment)

There's nothing hypothetical about this. I know that existence is real/true/definite. Something is. And I can know that this definite being cannot be embraced by 'nothing'. These two simple facts form the basis of my argument.

... they're both assumptions, and while it's possible to form an argument from them it seems many people in this thread dispute the second one. As far as I know it is not a "fact" as for it to be a fact it needs to be verifiable, and I don't believe there's a way to verify it. Perhaps someone else has an idea on that.