In a message sent 'round the world, Ike poured fuel on the fire with the
following:

"Josef Balluch" <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote in message
news:MPG.1defc39f63e52296989c06@news1.on.sympatico.ca...

...

"Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as
opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation that
"I
am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of something is
the
proof that something in some form exists -- that existence exists --
existence being all that which exists. "

"Because to be conscious is to perceive something, consciousness
requires
something outside of itself in order to function; consciousness requires
and
is dependent upon, existence."

So it would seem that existence depends upon consciousness and vice
versa. A
circular form of reasoning.

No, the argument tries to show that existence does NOT depend on
consciousness. To be conscious is to be conscious of SOMETHING, so
consciousness must be secondary to existence.

Possible redundancy aside, it would seem that eistence must take an
object,
in order for existence to be real. In other words, existence is a quality
of
an object, like taste smell, color, texture, etc. are qualities of an
object. Without an object, existence would have no meaning. To say that
existence depends upon consciousness, would be like reducing existence to
a
sensation, like taste, texture, etc.

If existence takes an object, then God can't exist, since God by
definition
would have been a prior cause of existence.

The argument certainly can be used to show that no creator-type deities
are required.

The aim of the argument is to show that something must exist, and that
consciousness is secondary to existence. In the context of this argument
existence refers to "existants", ie: things.

Peter:

In my view existance it a spiritual nooun
It is the situation in which we decide: "it exists"
If there is no observer then there is no existence.
So existance can only exist if there is a intelligent being about
that can claim something exist.

Ike:
"If there is no observer there is no existence" is an untestable
observation. You can then say anything about it you like and it can't
be
proved or disproved.

Peter:
So you are going to challenge the fact that nobody will say: "It
exists",
when there is nobody to say it:)
Scientifically it would mean there is no observation.
Indeed in such a caser nothing can be proven or disproven.
I maintain that existence can only be proven or disproven by
observation
No observation, no existance (nor non-existance).
====================================================

If on the other hand you are asking the question
wether it is possible that nothing exists.
I would say, it would be possible,
but then I wouldn't exist.
I do, so it ain't so.

When you say "I exist", you are saying more than whether something
exists or
doesn't exist. Since you would be building upon existence, then it
would
appear that your perception of existence is not a cause of existence.

Actually no, if I say something exists,
I am actually telling you that I exist, that you exist, and "something"
and 'existing" are meaningfull terms.
Either that or may remark borders on lunacy.
So: Something exists. (at least you and me, and the English language)

===================================================

As far as I know the first law of thermodynamics
makes a change from non existance to existance impossible.
That's why theist always skip it and jump to the second.

Think about it

If you are saying think about why the theist jump over the first law
and go
to the second law could you please give an example?

They are always going on about the 2th law of thermodynamics,
and that it proves there must be a god, who made it all.
Than they claim God made it out ot nothing.
which violates the first law of thermodynamics heavily I think.

Never met any on this NG??

Think about that!

"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in
news:1132887502.304428.83590@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Lars Eighner wrote:

In our last episode,
<q5qbo11ihpja8pf594tcqjo35pu3ucjqqf@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Erich Kohl
broadcast on alt.atheism:

Has it been proven yet (through some sort of logical argument) that
existence itself MUST exist? It would seem to me that if that were
true, it means that the universe was ALWAYS here, always WAS here,
and didn't have a beginning. Therefore, no first cause, no "God."

Granted, I'm using "existence" and "universe" as synonyms here, but
I can't think of any reason it would matter. After all, the
universe is that in which everything "exists."

Thoughts?

Just off the top of my head, it seems to me that time is a
property of the universe (what after all, is the meaning of time
if there is no change? And how can there be change without
something to change?). Therefore the universe has *always*
existed, because "always" only means "for all time." There may
be a beginning of time, but there cannot be a "before" the
beginning of time, because "before" is meaningless without time.

How can this be? Well, consider *north* on earth. You can go
to the North Pole, but "north of the North Pole" is meaningless.
The North Pole is as far north as you can go. But it is not the
end of the earth. It is only the point at which all the earth
is south of you. In a similar way, the beginning of time may be
the Before Pole of the universe. There is nothing before the
Before Pole. It is only that point in time such that all of the
universe is "after" it.

That's all true - but he was asking in essence why is there a universe
and not nothing.
Eternal complete nothingness would seem to require less explaining
than a universe - particularly a finite one.

It is axiomatic that the universe exists, because you cannot contradict
that existence without existing within the universe.

There is not nothing because we exist to contemplate the question.