Have done so more than once. See posts 23 and 24 for example. Please review the thread before responding. "tick tock" You call something creation that you claim to be eternal. Superficially, that might make sense if you're not analytical, but once you tease out the weasel words - such as creation versus Creation - then it's apparent that it's nothing more than poorly-constructed logic that exploits ambiguity of terms. And then, when it suits you, you take advantage of the ambiguity of the term. That's not a basis for a meaningful discussion. Look, walking, talking Dunning Kruger examplars are a dime-a-dozen around here. You don't know what you don't know, and that's not enough to sustain intelligent discussion. Feel free to hurl your objections at my receding back. :unsub:
Love how this site operates. If you take too much time, your post disappears before you can send it? Whatevs. Creation(Capital C)? What is that to you?
Aye - you definitely need to have a look Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You'll have to explain what you mean by this, please? You said the non-existence was an impossible idea... but we know what it means for something to be non-existent, surely? It is possible for something to not exist, right? Just ask my two brothers Dick and Harry! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What you seem to mean is that something that is non-existent can not exist, because if/when it exists it is no longer non-existent; "non-existence" (i.e. that which is non-existent) can not exist, right? This is a truism, and a logical truth: X is not not-X. But this then says nothing about creation, any creator, only that something can not both exist and not-exist. Okay. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But bear in mind that merely saying something along the lines of "that which does not have the property of existence does not exist", or "that which is non-existent does not exist" is not saying anything new, or even particularly meaningful. Apologies, but if you post something that warrants two or more questions, I will raise them in the same reply. Simply quote the one you're answering, answer it, then quote the next one, and answer that. If you think a subsequent question is based on a misunderstanding of what you have said, and you feel a clarification is required, simply say as much, and clarify etc. That's not a problem.
Sarkus, Hmmm. There are actual somethings, in whatever observable form they take, then there are ideas, non-existence is solely an idea. If non-existence occurred, existence would cease, all of it. Non-existence is the antithesis of existence, and it is not a selective process, it is a totalitarian process. When we use the idea of non-existent, we are holding the place of an actual thing that is not in our presence. Example, I've looked everywhere and the book is non-existent. What we are describing, the book, is an actual observable object so it is not actually non-existent. Another example, my great, great, great grandchildren are non-existent. No, my great great great grandchildren are only an idea, not an actual existing thing in reality. Example, well death is non-existence. No, it is existence transformed, but the life that was represented was real, actual, and it doesn't disappear, only changes form. Had to edit out a sentence for it was not clear enough. Is anything making sense? Existence is actual stuff and ideas. Non-existence is no stuff, no ideas, no existence. The tricky thing about ideas is we accept them, the abstraction, as if they are an actual tangible something.
DaveC, I think it's in its appropriate place: a discussion on "existence" is at home in the philosophy forum, is it not? Hi-D may not be conveying his position as clearly as some may like, but perhaps give some slack: we all start somewhere on these journeys, do we not? Or at least those of us foolish enough to even question such matters?
I've already recused myself from this thread (unsubbed), so nothing more should need to be said, but, since you asked, I can't say it better than I did in post 39: There is a squidge more to philosophy than laying out a word salad of self-referential declarations full of ambiguously defined words, like 'something cant come from nothing' and 'creation can't create itself'. If you review the thread, you'll see the OP plays with the words 'nothing', and 'creation' (or 'Creation') like they're play dough. That's fine for free thoughts, it's just not philosophy. No philosophical methods will work here - you'll be 'playing chess with a pigeon'. I am. In fact, I'm facilitating. I'm reporting the thread be moved to a forum where it won't be constrained by the rigours of philosophy. If constrained here, it will run afoul of all sorts of fallacies associated with the discipline of philosophy that will only confound free-association discussion. I've unsubbed, so as not to handcuff the thread with such inconveniences as asking for well-defined terms we can all agree on. Unsubbing is an infinite amount of slack. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Carry on. you don't need me.
If this poster was interested in the rigors of philosophy, he would provide answers not all referrals to a newbie about post number 23, 24, and 39. That means nothing to a newbie who’s no idea how to find such nuisances. What is that even? Not a direct answer. A game of referral. He would provide the very definition he was accusing me of lacking when asked as well? If you know what Creation is and creation is, let’s see it. Best wishes on your rigors of philosophical referrals and avoidance measures.
Discussion? How can this be when there is "nothing" to discus? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In fact the discussion called for is non-existent... lol
People who actually practice philosophy discuss. Not my problem if you choose to exclude yourself from practicing philosophy. But by all means, continue as the peanut gallery, which will equal your contribution to this thread.
You sound like the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. He basically argued that 'existence exists' and 'nonexistence doesn't exist', then used those ideas to argue against beginnings and ends. That's exceedingly counterintuitive since it seems to me that countless things come into and go out of existence. Tables, chairs, people, cities, mountains, oceans, planets... I think that your point might have some plausibility if you are talking about 'Reality' in its totality. I don't think that I want to endorse that idea without further argument though.
Mod Hat — Dysfunction double-check So, just to make sure I understand what's going on, here: An account dormant since its creation in 2016 wakes up and starts posting incoherent nonsense, apparently for the thrill of telling people off? It's not exactly an everyday thing around here, but, sure, sounds about right. Mostly this seems an ad campaign↑ for some website, so perhaps you should probably try something a little less ... ah, what's the word ... oh, right, stupid. You might want to try something a little less stupid. People might get the impression that the "I Love Philosophy" philsophy forums are nothing more than crank bottery and nonsense. In any case, there should probably be something more to it than humiliating "I Love Philosophy" dot com. The admins there ought to be embarrassed. Or is that it, that you're just so pissed off at the other site you just can't help yourself; in truth, we don't care. As it is, posting incoherent, self-glorifying nonsense for the sake of lashing out at anyone who makes the mistake of trying to take you seriously, is not appropriate behavior. A genuis like you, Wendy, ought to be able to figure that part. Really. It's not hard.
It seems to me that the word 'creation' might have at least two rather different meanings. 1. Temporal origin 2. The reason why something exists One can imagine an infinite timeline extending infinitely into the past and into the future. By doing that we have ruled out #1 ex hypothesi. But we can still ask why the infinite timeline (without any origin) exists rather than nothing at all. This idea seems to address Dave's post #23 as well.
You seem to be suggesting the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason' there. This is the idea that... For all X, if X exists, then a sufficient reason for X's existence exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason So, if we accept the premise that everything that exists requires a sufficient reason why it exists, and if we acknowledge that reality as a whole exists, then we seem to need a reason why reality as a whole exists. In my opinion that's the Fundamental Metaphysical Question. I don't think that anyone has an answer at this point, or even whether an answer is possible. Humans may never know. And I agree with you that nothing, in the strong sense of absolute non-existence, can't be the reason for anything. You really do sound like Parmenides. (That's not a bad thing.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides Parmenides probably would have agreed, but I'm not willing to go that far. Reality certainly seems to display order, what physics tries to uncover and what the ancient Greeks called "logos". But order isn't the same thing as consciousness nor does it necessarily imply it. Yes, to me it does. It's actually pretty good. I'm not willing to follow you in what appears to be a pantheistic direction, but Parmenides probably would have agreed with you. And he's one of history's greatest philosophers.
Thank heaven almighty, you have joined the discussion with some understanding. "You really do sound like Parmenides. (That's not a bad thing.)" Thank you. Counter-intuitive to the max. Parmenides was right but perhaps not clear. That is the trick here, my ability to be clear. Existence=perceivable stuff and ideas. All we have is existence. There is no non-existence Earlier I gave Sarkus examples of the way in which we use non-existent(non-existence) as if the idea of a perceivable thing represents the actuality of a perceivable thing. "When we use the idea of non-existent, we are holding the place of an actual thing that is not in our presence. Example, I've looked everywhere and the book is non-existent. What we are describing, the book, is an actual observable object so it is not actually non-existent. Another example, my great, great, great grandchildren are non-existent. No, my great great great grandchildren are only an idea, not an actual existing thing in reality. Example, well death is non-existence. No, it is existence transformed, but the life that was represented was real, actual, and it doesn't disappear, only changes form." Existence=perceived phenomena or imaginings/ideas. Are you with me?
Yes, two different functions. 'Creation' and what it creates as a 'creation'(not to be confused with itself as Creation(capital C).Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"So, if we accept the premise that everything that exists requires a sufficient reason why it exists, and if we acknowledge that reality as a whole exists, then we seem to need a reason why reality as a whole exists. In my opinion that's the Fundamental Metaphysical Question. I don't think that anyone has an answer at this point, or even whether an answer is possible. Humans may never know." To think and feel. That is why we exist so it would only make sense that is why the conscious Absolute Singularity known as Existence exists.
What is temporal(time) in terms of the eternal? I view it as a gift to keep us relative conscious beings less confused "day to day." Sorry, if I missed any of your points. If you reassert what you feel is important, I'll try to cover it.
I'm not willing to write Parmenides a blank check. But he was one of history's most influential philosophers. Many other ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and the atomists constructed their philosophies in part in reply to Parmenides. So I have great respect for him, even if I don't always agree with him. Part of the problem with Parmenides is that today we only possess a fraction of what he wrote. He divided reality into the world of appearance (the tables and the chairs... and us) and reality as he thought it really was (an unchanging One). The problem is that his account of how the world of appearance is related to and emanates from the One is lost. Plotinus and the later neoplatonists supplied their own accounts of that. Today the block-theories of time seem to me to revisit some of the same ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) I don't know what the limits of existence are. Personally, I'm reasonably certain that human perception (and powers of conceptualization) come nowhere near exhausting the inventory of reality. So I can't agree with any "existence=" formulation at this point. (I'm too much of an agnostic for that.) I'm not convinced that human beings will ever be in any position to do that.
