Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

That still doesn't really explain what non existence is though. That's like saying darkness is the lack of light, yet there is still some degree of light in darkness.

Not really. "Darkness" is a qualitative term which could define any amount of light from none at all to not enough to see clear details. It's not a quantitative term. The total absence of light is both the quality of darkness and the quantity of zero light.

Existence and non-existence are binary states - something exists or it does not exist - and thus quantitative.

The closest way you could describe non existence is by saying it is equivalent to zero, but try to imagine what absolute zero is actually like. You can't, it's merely conceptual.

Of course you can. Zero is the absence of anything.

How many wings have you got? Yep, none. You are wingless, you have zero wings, you are anopterous, your wings do not exist. That's not conceptual...

I guess it's similar to trying to imagine what absolute infinity is like, however since I'm aware of my own consciousness actually existing, I'd say its more likely that infinite possibility is the true nature of reality as opposed to total non existence.

Well like I said, I guess the only thing we can ever be sure of existing is our own consciousness or awareness. Anything else we experience is up for debate, but what can't be debated is the actual process of experiencing something itself. Try to imagine what experiencing absolute nothing is like, it's just not possible.

See, the problem here is - and I've asked you twice now - that you're not defining what existence is. You've wrapped yourself up in a philosophical position wherein you're asserting things without at any point defining what the structures beneath them are.

You say that existence has always been and always will be. What are you defining as "existence"? How do you know that something "exists"?

Once you've defined those things for yourself, you'll see how your own position doesn't actually make any sense (common or otherwise).

 

[Chris123]

What was it like for you before you were born?

Serious question, as that's non-existance.

That's asking something which I will never be able to answer and not at all non existence. Are you going to assume that there was no existence before you yourself were born then? If everything is made up of energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then whatever "I" am, whether it be physical or non physical is essentially energy and must have always existed in one form or another.

 

[Dotini]

What was it like for you before you were born?

Serious question, as that's non-existance.

Some people in other cultures - even our own - claim to have memories of past lives. There are stories that some of these claims, when checked out, have proved to be veridical. Also, some people claim to have memories, or dreams, of existence before birth while still in the womb.

 

[Chris123]

Not really. "Darkness" is a qualitative term which could define any amount of light from none at all to not enough to see clear details. It's not a quantitative term. The total absence of light is both the quality of darkness and the quantity of zero light.

Existence and non-existence are binary states - something exists or it does not exist - and thus quantitative.

Of course you can. Zero is the absence of anything.

How many wings have you got? Yep, none. You are wingless, you have zero wings, you are anopterous, your wings do not exist. That's not conceptual...


See, the problem here is - and I've asked you twice now - that you're not defining what existence is. You've wrapped yourself up in a philosophical position wherein you're asserting things without at any point defining what the structures beneath them are.

You say that existence has always been and always will be. What are you defining as "existence"? How do you know that something "exists"?

1. There is no such thing as absolute darkness in this universe, its a conceptual thing at best.

2. I may have no wings but you still describe me as being something don't you, something that actually exists. Describe to me what absolute zero is, absolute lack of absolutely anything at all, to do so you have to describe something which implies that absolute zero is not a possibility. The fact that anything exists at all proves that absolute zero is not possible.

3. I've already defined existence as being the only ever possibility, that there has always been something as opposed to nothing because to define nothingness is still defining something. If you still can't grasp what I'm saying then well that's your problem not mine. How do I know that something exists? Well I dunno, just look around you I guess and notice that you're having an experience, you have an awareness of something. If that isn't enough well then quite frankly we're done here.

 

[Scaff]

That's asking something which I will never be able to answer and not at all non existence. Are you going to assume that there was no existence before you yourself were born then? If everything is made up of energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then whatever "I" am, whether it be physical or non physical is essentially energy and must have always existed in one form or another.

It's exactly non-existence, before your conception you (and all of us) did not exist at all.

Some people in other cultures - even our own - claim to have memories of past lives. There are stories that some of these claims, when checked out, have proved to be veridical. Also, some people claim to have memories, or dreams, of existence before birth while still in the womb.

And these people when subject to controlled testing have all failed to substantiate these claims.

The evidence for past lives has the same evidential support as that of god.

And I'm quite clearly talking about before conception.

I've already defined existence as being the only ever possibility,

And your definition is the one that must be used why?

Why do none of these scientific examples (including one that doesn't;t attempt to define it) count and have to bow to your one?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...-scientific-meanings-of-nothing/#6617ae631a5f

that there has always been something as opposed to nothing because to define nothingness is still defining something.

Why? Did you exist before conception? Of course you didn't, so you were non-existent, you were nothingness in terms of the current state that is you.

What you are claiming is that you a version of you had to exist before your conception, and to be clear I am not just talking about a physical you here.

If you still can't grasp what I'm saying then well that's your problem not mine.

No, you're the one making the claim, you need to support it 9and not just be saying, nah, you're wrong 'cos).

 

[Famine]

1. There is no such thing as absolute darkness in this universe, its a conceptual thing at best.

That's fundamentally untrue. It is entirely within human capabilities to build an environment within which there is zero light, and there are objects we can indirectly observe that not only reflect and emit zero light but which absorb all light that interacts with them.

2. I may have no wings but you still describe me as being something don't you, something that actually exists.

Why is that relevant? I was describing your wings, which do not exist.

Describe to me what absolute zero is, absolute lack of absolutely anything at all, to do so you have to describe something which implies that absolute zero is not a possibility.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that your total absence of wings means you have wings?

The fact that anything exists at all proves that absolute zero is not possible.

Like the word "know" you started this discussion with, the word "proves" is totally inappropriate here. Something existing does not prove that everything else exists and that nothing cannot exist.

3. I've already defined existence as being the only ever possibility, that there has always been something as opposed to nothing because to define nothingness is still defining something. If you still can't grasp what I'm saying then well that's your problem not mine.

It's still yours. You've not defined anything, though you've deflected the questions a lot.

How do you know that a thing exists? What are the fundamental properties of something that are required in order for us to say "This thing is a thing that exists"? How can we determine that a saucepan exists, as opposed to your wings which are an imaginary thing I made up and do not exist. What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?

Once you've defined that for yourself, you'll see why what you're saying does not bear scrutiny.

 

[Chris123]

Some people in other cultures - even our own - claim to have memories of past lives. There are stories that some of these claims, when checked out, have proved to be veridical. Also, some people claim to have memories, or dreams, of existence before birth while still in the womb.

The only thing you can ever be sure of is that you have an experience of things, whether these things are real or not isn't really the point. It's like asking how is the waking day reality anymore different or real that from that of our dreams. These guys fail to see the glaringly obvious, that we will never be able to know if anything we experience is ever real. The only thing we know for sure is real is that we have an experience of something in the first place. I actually think that our consciousness or awareness is really the only thing that's ever real, whatever we experience is simply that, an experience. However that's an entirely different topic of debate altogether.

 

[Danoff]

As far as existence goes again you're missing my actual point, you can't seem to see beyond the possibility of this universe.

I do, but you can't put it into the framework that is this universe. You're talking about "beyond" this universe, but what does that mean exactly? Beyond in terms of time? There is no such thing. Time is a part of this universe. Beyond in terms of space? There is no such thing. Space is a part of this universe. So what do you mean when you say "beyond". You'd need to be referring to a dimension which our universe exists within, and yet we have no example of such a thing and no evidence to support such a thing. And of course we don't... because we exist in our universe.

So yes, there could be other universes. Infinitely many other universes. But that's very difficult for us to actually establish.

what I'm suggesting is that time is flat out not even real

Time is no less real than space. Consider what space would be in the absence of time. Now consider what time would be in the absence of space. You should see that they are integral to each other. So to say that time is not even real is to say that space is not even real. Which I don't think you're wanting to say.

If there is existence, then common sense tells you that there must have always been existence and that existence applies outside of time itself

Could you say that existence applies outside of space? That's basically what you're saying. And you could be right, but how would we know? As @Famine points out, such a thing is difficult to even conceptualize. In fact, as we delve further into quantum entanglement, the concept of "existence" really starts to look like that's the illusion. You think you exist, but it's only because you're experiencing an entanglement of statistical probabilities. Here's an outstanding video explaining how something like a refrigerator is a manifestation of probability.



Our entire universe, the entire manifestation of space time and all of your experiences appear to be a statistical distribution including non-existence and alternative entanglements of existence.

 

[Chris123]

Yes time and space are basically entwined, so when I suggest that there are things that exist beyond the limitations of time I'm basically suggesting that there are things that simply exist outside of and beyond the limitations of this current universe, most likely non-physical.

If this universe is all that there is then it must be an infinite one no? Otherwise where are its limits and what is there beyond it's limits. When you think about it it kind of becomes obvious that there are simply no limitations, no beginning or end points. That infinite possibility is the true nature of reality, another way of defining infinite possibility I guess is to use the term God.

And these people when subject to controlled testing have all failed to substantiate these claims.

The evidence for past lives has the same evidential support as that of god.

And I'm quite clearly talking about before conception.


Why? Did you exist before conception? Of course you didn't, so you were non-existent, you were nothingness in terms of the current state that is you.

What you are claiming is that you a version of you had to exist before your conception, and to be clear I am not just talking about a physical you here [QUOTE]

1. The evidence for dreams is about the same as evidence for past lives. You can't actually show me proof of any dreams that you had last night, but you know you had them because you experienced them. How is the experience of past lives any less real then that of dreaming.

2. When you ask did I exist before conception, how are you defining "I". "I" as in physically, well the atoms that comprise my physical self certainly existed before I was born. As far as non physical is concerned there's simply no way you could know whether or not you existed before birth in that regard. That's still not non existence though, total non existence implies absolutely nothing existing at all which is just not possible. Paint me a picture of what total non existence of anything at all would look like, you can't because it's simply not in line with the true nature of reality which is infinite possibility.

 

[Imari]

If this universe is all that there is then it must be an infinite one no? Otherwise where are its limits and what is there beyond it's limits. When you think about it it kind of becomes obvious that there are simply no limitations, no beginning or end points. That infinite possibility is the true nature of reality, another way of defining infinite possibility I guess is to use the term God.

And please don't pull that "god is the universe" thing, because words have meanings and those two words don't mean the same thing. Inserting a god only raises many many more questions. Its answers nothing.

Well, he got there in the end.

 

[Scaff]

Yes time and space are basically entwined, so when I suggest that there are things that exist beyond the limitations of time I'm basically suggesting that there are things that simply exist outside of and beyond the limitations of this current universe, most likely non-physical.

If this universe is all that there is then it must be an infinite one no? Otherwise where are its limits and what is there beyond it's limits. When you think about it it kind of becomes obvious that there are simply no limitations, no beginning or end points. That infinite possibility is the true nature of reality, another way of defining infinite possibility I guess is to use the term God.



1. The evidence for dreams is about the same as evidence for past lives. You can't actually show me proof of any dreams that you had last night, but you know you had them because you experienced them. How is the experience of past lives any less real then that of dreaming.

2. When you ask did I exist before conception, how are you defining "I". "I" as in physically, well the atoms that comprise my physical self certainly existed before I was born. As far as non physical is concerned there's simply no way you could know whether or not you existed before birth in that regard. That's still not non existence though, total non existence implies absolutely nothing existing at all which is just not possible. Paint me a picture of what total non existence of anything at all would look like, you can't because it's simply not in line with the true nature of reality which is infinite possibility.

1. R.E.M. sleep can be easily measured, I have a £40 fitness tracker that does it. Can you do the same for past lives? That’s a poor analogy and one that doesn’t stand up to even rudimentary analysis.

2. I already referred to it on both a physical and conscious basis, I’ve also provided you with four scientific definitions. Yet you are straight back to the God of the Gaps argument. Can’t be is also a definitive statement, so let’s see the supporting evidence.

Honestly it’s like you are not even nothing to try and avoid logical fallacies.

 

[UKMikey]

Well, he got there in the end.

It's a universe of infinite possibilities.

 

[Dotini]

It's a universe of infinite possibilities.

Yes. Some think that the universe is isotropic, and the physical constants are unchanging and the same everywhere. Yet there are hints this is not really the case. This may be a little bit anti-Copernican. But so what?

 

[Chris123]

1. R.E.M. sleep can be easily measured, I have a £40 fitness tracker that does it. Can you do the same for past lives? That’s a poor analogy and one that doesn’t stand up to even rudimentary analysis.

2. I already referred to it on both a physical and conscious basis, I’ve also provided you with four scientific definitions. Yet you are straight back to the God of the Gaps argument. Can’t be is also a definitive statement, so let’s see the supporting evidence.

1. R.E.M. can't show me any actual evidence, photographic or otherwise of the dreams that you have. You can't show me any actual visible footage of your dreams, yet I'm expected to take your word for it that you experience them. Lets say I'm someone who's never experienced any dreams ever, how is this any fundamentally different from me accepting someones word for evidence of that of past lives.

2. Yet you still can't give me a straight forward answer of what total non existence looks like and never will be able to, you've used examples of specific things not existing, like the guy who randomly brought up me not having any wings or whatever that was about. Show me what actual total non existence of anything at all looks like, absolute total nothingness without first having to refer to something that exists, I'll wait.

Yes. Some think that the universe is isotropic, and the physical constants are unchanging and the same everywhere. Yet there are hints this is not really the case. This may be a little bit anti-Copernican. But so what?

They're not even able to come up with debatable responses and are resorting merely to mocking at this point, that's quite a telling sign.

Well, he got there in the end.

I didn't just get there, I went all the way and referred to God as being the entire universe and anything and everything possibly beyond it, just so we're clear.

 

[UKMikey]

Well, he got there in the end.

It's a universe of infinite possibilities.

Yes. Some think that the universe is isotropic, and the physical constants are unchanging and the same everywhere. Yet there are hints this is not really the case. This may be a little bit anti-Copernican. But so what?

 

[Famine]

when I suggest that there are things that exist beyond the limitations of time

When you ask did I exist before conception, how are you defining "I". "I" as in physically, well the atoms that comprise my physical self certainly existed before I was born.

How are you defining "exist"?

How do you know that a thing exists? What are the fundamental properties of something that are required in order for us to say "This thing is a thing that exists"? How can we determine that a saucepan exists, as opposed to your wings which are an imaginary thing I made up and do not exist. What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?

Yet you still can't give me a straight forward answer of what total non existence looks like and never will be able to, you've used examples of specific things not existing, like the guy who randomly brought up me not having any wings or whatever that was about.

That was about showing you how easy it is to define the non-existence of something.

Show me what actual total non existence of anything at all looks like, absolute total nothingness without first having to refer to something that exists

Why that caveat? Non-existence is defined by existence, much as the concept of nothing is defined by the concept of something - and the number 0 is defined by other numbers.

Paint me a picture of what total non existence of anything at all would look like, you can't because it's simply not in line with the true nature of reality which is infinite possibility.

If all possibilities are infinite, then there's also the possibility of nothing. If nothing isn't possible, then possibility is not infinite..

The problem is you don't know how to define how something exists - or are refusing to do so in order to perpetuate a belief.

 

[Chris123]

To define existence in words isn't easy, I guess the closest way of putting it is that existence is equivalent to awareness or being. Right now you are awareness correct? You have awareness of things around you which you can't possibly be sure whether they exist or not, but one thing that is undeniable to you is that you are an awareness that exists. You don't have to think about whether you as an awareness exist or not, all you have to do is simply sit still and do nothing and just be and with that you are experiencing existence itself. The simple state of being is the closest way of knowing pure existence, you don't have to think about it, it is just apparent in of itself. In fact the irony is that thinking about what existence is actually just gets in the way of actually experiencing and knowing what existence actually is.

Existence itself is beyond words or conceptualization, yet it is also the most simplest of things to know and the most obvious of truths.

 

[Dotini]

There was some old Frenchman who said something like "I think therefore I exist". He did not say "I exist, therefore I can think".

IMHO some form of consciousness was required prior to the existence of the physical universe. It is furthermore still required for its maintenance and evolution.

 

[Famine]

To define existence in words isn't easy

Cool. Didn't ask that.

You have awareness of things around you which you can't possibly be sure whether they exist or not

And how would you differentiate something that exists from something that does not? What are the qualities and properties of a thing that exists in order for us to say it exists, and to say something that does not have those qualities and properties does not?

What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?

 

[Chris123]

There was some old Frenchman who said something like "I think therefore I exist". He did not say "I exist, therefore I can think".

IMHO some form of consciousness was required prior to the existence of the physical universe. It is furthermore still required for its maintenance and evolution.

It really is one of the most overlooked and most obvious truths, that there must be something that exists before or beyond thinking. Like are we our thoughts, or are we the thing that is behind those thoughts, the awareness that is behind them and that is aware of them.

And how would you differentiate something that exists from something that does not? What are the qualities and properties of a thing that exists in order for us to say it exists, and to say something that does not have those qualities and properties does not?

What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?

As I have already mentioned in a previous post, the only thing that you can ever really know exists is your pure awareness, and how do you know that exists? Well simply just sit still and let your mind become silent. When you do this you will know the direct experience of existing, beyond the thinking and conceptualization of the mind.

When you do this it becomes apparent that you are something, lets call it an awareness that is existing. You will not have to think about this to know it, in fact like I said all thinking does is over complicate and get in the way of actually knowing something.

 

[Scaff]

1. R.E.M. can't show me any actual evidence, photographic or otherwise of the dreams that you have. You can't show me any actual visible footage of your dreams, yet I'm expected to take your word for it that you experience them. Lets say I'm someone who's never experienced any dreams ever, how is this any fundamentally different from me accepting someones word for evidence of that of past lives.

I never claimed to be able to do so, however the evidence for the mechanism around dreaming, what function it serves, how to measure when we are doing it is overwhelming and proven to a scientific standard.

That we are not able to 'project' the actual dreams themselves doesn't invalidate all of that.

Now feel free to show me the same body of work to that exists to a scientific standard for past lives.

Until you can stop with the absurd and invalid analogy.

2. Yet you still can't give me a straight forward answer of what total non existence looks like and never will be able to,

I have, that you don't accept it and would rather use the 'god of the gaps' argument isn't my issue.

you've used examples of specific things not existing, like the guy who randomly brought up me not having any wings or whatever that was about.

What it was about was quite clear, the only one with an issue wit it seems to be yourself.

Show me what actual total non existence of anything at all looks like, absolute total nothingness without first having to refer to something that exists,

Why the caveat? Why does the standard of not referring to something that exists need to be a requirement?

I'll wait.

Good for you, doesn't change anything.

They're not even able to come up with debatable responses and are resorting merely to mocking at this point, that's quite a telling sign.

To be blunt, that's ********.

I didn't just get there, I went all the way and referred to God as being the entire universe and anything and everything possibly beyond it, just so we're clear.

And you're back to the 'god of the gaps'.

It really is one of the most overlooked and most obvious truths, that there must be something that exists before or beyond thinking. Like are we our thoughts, or are we the thing that is behind those thoughts, the awareness that is behind them and that is aware of them.

If you two are going to quote Descartes can you at least get it right.

Its "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am" which is quite different and doesn't support this 'god of the gaps' nonsense, which requires blind faith, not conscious self-doubt.

Nor is it without its own issues, even in the correct form, numerous others quite rightly picked at he holes that exist in it. Notably Kieregaard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Critique

 

[Joey D]

R.E.M. can't show me any actual evidence, photographic or otherwise of the dreams that you have.

Michael Stipe would disagree given his subconscious party with Leonard Bernstein, Leonid Brezhnev, Lenny Bruce, and Lester Bangs is immortalized in song.

 

[Famine]

As I have already mentioned in a previous post, the only thing that you can ever really know exists is your pure awareness

Even if you assume that to be the case, you're still not answering the question. All you've done is define a thing that exists, not define the properties or qualities that allow you to say that it exists, and that other things which lack these properties or qualities do not exist.

Once again, the question is "what is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?".

 

[Chris123]

Even if you assume that to be the case, you're still not answering the question. All you've done is define a thing that exists, not define the properties or qualities that allow you to say that it exists, and that other things which lack these properties or qualities do not exist.

Once again, the question is "what is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?".

Pure awareness is the only thing that exists, and pure awareness has no properties or qualities to it, it simply knows
whatever it is placed upon. Like I said, the more you start to overthink this stuff the more you distort the
actual truth of what is. You'll never be able to put into words or conceptualizations a definite answer for
what it is for something to exist, all you can do is go beyond the mind and just be aware of something and know it
for what it is.

I could ask you the same question, "What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?"
and you'll never be able to truly put it into words other than saying "Oh a thing that exists exists and a thing that doesn't exist
doesn't exist". You see my point in that if you try to understand these things through thinking you will never get anywhere,
it will simply be a case of a dog forever chasing its own tail.

 

[Scaff]

Pure awareness is the only thing that exists, and pure awareness has no properties or qualities to it, it simply knows
whatever it is placed upon. Like I said, the more you start to overthink this stuff the more you distort the
actual truth of what is. You'll never be able to put into words or conceptualizations a definite answer for
what it is for something to exist, all you can do is go beyond the mind and just be aware of something and know it
for what it is.

I could ask you the same question, "What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?"
and you'll never be able to truly put it into words other than saying "Oh a thing that exists exists and a thing that doesn't exist
doesn't exist". You see my point in that if you try to understand these things through thinking you will never get anywhere,
it will simply be a case of a dog forever chasing its own tail.

How do you know that 'pure awareness' is the only thing that exists?

How do you know that's a 'truth'? and how do you support that claim?

 

[UKMikey]

How do you know that 'pure awareness' is the only thing that exists?

How do you know that's a 'truth'? and how do you support that claim?

Just listen to your heart and you'll know it's true.

Interesting that the conceptual proof of this calls for less or no thinking. So much for quod erat demonstrandum. It sounds more like a faith-based argument. ...Therefore, God exists! /s

 

[Chris123]

How do you know that 'pure awareness' is the only thing that exists?

How do you know that's a 'truth'? and how do you support that claim?

Well I guess a better way of putting it is that its the only thing you can know for sure that exists, and to know that it exists is not to think
about if it exists or not, but rather to simply let the mind become still and just know that it exists. You can't truly know something through thought, when your mind becomes silent, the fact that your awareness exists just becomes an obvious knowing. It doesn't need any proof to support the fact that it exists, it simply just exists.

 

[Scaff]

Just listen to your heart and you'll know it's true.

Interesting that the conceptual proof of this calls for less or no thinking. So much for quod erat demonstrandum. It sounds more like a faith-based argument. ...Therefore, God exists! /s

Exactly. It's the 'you can't figure it out or prove it, so GOD', once again the 'god of the gaps' rears its head.

 

[Imari]

Pure awareness is the only thing that exists...

Then why are you talking about a universe or anything else as if it exists at all?

 

[Scaff]

Well I guess a better way of putting it is that its the only thing you can know for sure that exists, and to know that it exists is not to think
about if it exists or not, but rather to simply let the mind become still and just know that it exists. You can't truly know something through thought, when your mind becomes silent, the fact that your awareness exists just becomes an obvious knowing. It doesn't need any proof to support the fact that it exists, it simply just exists.

So you're happy to engage in massive double-standards, got it.

You demand proof for non-existence, and despite plenty of examples being provided you ignore them all, however, you want proof of resistance to just be accepted because you say so?

Nope, doesn't work like that at all.