| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Erich Kohl" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2005 10:29:08 AM |
| Object: |
Philosophical Question |
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?
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 09:59:10 PM |
|
|
"Erich Kohl" <ekohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:q5qbo11ihpja8pf594tcqjo35pu3ucjqqf@4ax.com...
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?
I dunno.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EagleEye" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 06:29:18 AM |
|
|
A couple of observations.
One, I am. This is. Therefore there is a fundamental relationship
between subjective observer and objective reality. Two, reality is an
occurance - there is motion and cause and effect. The question is, can
any meaning be discerned or extracted from the relationship, which is
not merely an imposed meaning placed upon the world around us by the
self and by self's own interpretation of reality. Furthermore, is there
a type of "law of life" against which the individual may lose integrity
if not followed, and if followed may gain integrity relative to the
course of life, and therefore move into increasing congruent alignment
with it. We either possess free will and therefore the power to enact
change or transformation within our universe, or we do not, and the
extent to which our reality impinges upon the obejective reality and
vice versa may be conditional upon the level of congruency or alignment
of our thoughts and actions, with the big one which is the universe
itself. Perhaps this can be tested by the efficacy of our own decision
making, born of thought and resulting action/reaction? If the thinking
and action is fruitful, it gets forwarded in a fruitful self
reinforcing dynamic of fruitfulness, and therefore empowerment, but if
it is not, the integrity is lost, and the action is not forwarded in a
way and in a manner which is productive, in accordance with life's
imperatives...is there an oughtness to the isness of being? I'm pretty
certain the answer is yes though proving that is another matter
altogether. However, it would seem that the very neccessity of choice,
involves an arrow of progress in terms of an attachment to an outcome
that is either favourable to growth, success and prosperity, or counter
productive to it, and that there is both productive and neccessary
suffering, productive of increasing joy and lasting happiness, and
unproductive or harmful suffering producing sorrow, aquish and despair,
and even destruction.
If there is movement and an occurance, relative to self as an "I am"
free will causal agent of change by neccessity, and if there is an
outness to the isness of being, as the turning point between two self
reinforcing dynamics of progressive or regressive change
(transformation), then there is a type of divided middle between what
is and what should be on the ground of being and becoming, which is
either transited or bridged by effective and productive thinking and
action, or, cut off and rooted out, or fallen, via a loss of integrity
through unproductive thinking and action which does not harmonize with
the larger movement or arrow of progress.
If there IS a path of progress, then it is a path of progress relative
to a perfect ideal, which implies a neccessity of leadership within the
social framework of influence, and so there is authentic leadership and
followership, and so the question then becomes one of who leads and who
follows, and by what standard or set of principals does such an
occurance arise and give form and function to historical formation, in
a way that is both meaningful (of value) and produtive (fruitful)?
Seems to me that to begin with, if there is a fundamental relationship
on the ground of being and becoming, formed around an arrow of progress
relative to an ideal or an object of desire (desireable outcome) that
there must be some form of communication, since any relationship may be
defined by communication, where the meaning of the communication
resides as much in the response, as in what is communicated. And so in
my mind, and as far as I can tell, what we are looking for is a
communication about a "rolling integrity" or a civilizing framework of
moral law within and through which that integrity may be preserved
without breaking down, and therefore it must be formed according to
certain principals of integrity and wholeness which cannot be broken,
and which do not break down or compromise with what is corrupt and
lacking in integrity - a law of life and love.
Me I would like to know what that framework is and how it functions,
and how it is communicated, from the past (learning experience) the
present (presence of being in the rolling now of being and becoming)
and future (what is to come). I think the implication of the best ideas
of science and philosophy point towards a leading, which eminates from
and which draws the very core of being and existence forward, towards a
just and righteous (upstanding, with integrity) conclusion, and that
this is the aim of life, it's meaning and purpose.
If there's a relationship, and an occurance of life, what is the form
and function of the most essential communication which leads, and is
fruitful? Maybe it has something to do with a starting point of "I am"
and an object of attachment in terms of "I am becoming" driven by
thinking, and by action, and if present thinking is largely driven from
past experience, where the mind is nothing more than an extremely
complex recording and predicting mechanism, then how to get self out of
an outmoded and non-productive modality, into a new and enlightened
one, whereby the loss of integrity may be restored?
I say that it can only begin via a radical and transformative and
experiencial forgiveness, which would be able to frame our entire
being, historically, in a whole new light, according to a
communication, from outside of history into it, and from a realm of the
unknown unknown (what we do not know, yet, and what we do not even know
that we don't know yet) into the realm of the known, where it would
impinge upon our consciousness and our being and our becoming in the
most efficacious manner which is both possible and imaginable. Being an
expression of the law it would have to be truly Just, and of
forgiveness, merciful and loving, and to be effective and productive or
fruitful it would have to contend with deeply seeded or structured
realities of thought and action to the very core, in order to be
transformative of a lasting and progressive historical formation.
Do you see where this leads, particularly if mind (experiencing
existence) and universe really ARE synomymous and intimately linked
holographically, where every thought and action resonates for eternity,
writ large upon the big screen of life itself.
The alternative is a meaingless and absurd existence, operating with
the sphere of a purely sujective isolate consciousness, without any
purpose, or direction in terms of an all consuming law of life which
binds and envelopes all things with integrity and wholeness.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
If there IS real justice, and a principal of life which transcends the
duality and good and evil that has anything to do with Love in terms of
the will to action for the betterment of one and all, then such a
principal would have to communicate something about its true nature and
what it wants, and it would have to do so in history relative to the
individual journeyor, and it would have to make itself known in such a
way as to make no compromise with sin and evil, lest the integrity be
lost. It would therefore be prepared to take a stand in the name of and
for the sake of the truth, according to what is right, just, true and
merciful. And finally it would have to do so in human terms and in a
way and in a manner which is comprehensible and relatively easy to
communicate, no matter how complex. It would also have to be open to
and subject to investigative inquiry and discovery, through searching,
but not so much searching that it would impossible to find and to
uncover. And to be of immense value, it would have to be something
worth struggling to find and not so easy or fool-proof. To be loving it
would still have to let fools be fools, yet willing at the same time to
communicate itself, as an extension to all people, for all time.
Maybe it's an idea, and an action, and even a "great work" or a Magnum
Opus which is finally at long last coming of age..?
Anyay, the tracks are there to be followed to thier ultra-rational
conclusion, and the disovery will be made at some point, fully and
completely and without any doubt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 08:52:28 PM |
|
|
Erich Kohl wrote:
Has it been proven yet (through some sort of logical argument) that
existence itself MUST exist?
No - in fact I think such a proof is impossible.
The Question has been stated as "Why is there something rather than
nothing?"
Liebnitz was famous for asking the question and answering it by saying
there must be one thing which exists necessarily.
He believed this one thing is God - everything else exist contigently
(dependant on something else for its existence).
This however isnt an argument or a proof - just an unsuported
declaration.
All similar such proofs are equally unsound.
The one thing we know is that we do exist - the universe exists and not
eternal nothing.
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."
If the universe had always existed then it would be the first cause -
if you worshiped it - it would be your god.
The EVIDENCE is that it hasn't always existed.
(This annoys me a great deal - an infinitely old universe would be a
much better reality....)
If it is in fact finite in duration (which the balance of evidence
favours) does that mean something else (like God) must have existed to
create it?
No. There is nothing we can say for certain about whether or not the
universe needs a cause of its existence.
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."
People who believe in God would certainly dissagree that the universe
is everything that exists - they say that in addition to space time and
energy there is also "Spirit".
And that "Spirit" existed always and that space time and energy came
latter.
They dont have any reason to believe this other than it makes a nice
story of course.
That doesnt make it incorrect - it just doesnt give me any reason to
take it seriously.
Thoughts?
I have had a few.
<singing>
But then again
to few to mention...
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erich Kohl" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 12:37:03 AM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2005 18:52:28 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
If the universe had always existed then it would be the first cause -
if you worshiped it - it would be your god.
The EVIDENCE is that it hasn't always existed.
(This annoys me a great deal - an infinitely old universe would be a
much better reality....)
If it is in fact finite in duration (which the balance of evidence
favours) does that mean something else (like God) must have existed to
create it?
What evidence do we have that the duration of the universe is finite?
I would like to know more.
Also, is it possible that we are simply in the middle of an infinite
number of Big Bang/Big Crunches?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 06:02:51 AM |
|
|
Erich Kohl wrote:
On 24 Nov 2005 18:52:28 -0800, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
If the universe had always existed then it would be the first cause -
if you worshiped it - it would be your god.
The EVIDENCE is that it hasn't always existed.
(This annoys me a great deal - an infinitely old universe would be a
much better reality....)
If it is in fact finite in duration (which the balance of evidence
favours) does that mean something else (like God) must have existed to
create it?
What evidence do we have that the duration of the universe is finite?
I would like to know more.
In the 1920's an American Astronomer named Edwin Hubble was the first
to systematically measure the distance to other galaxies (by looking
for a class of stars known as Cepheid variables - whose light output
varies periodically with a period related to their true magnitude) -
you know a stars apparent magnitude by just observing and measuring it
- if you also know its true magnitude then you know its distance.
When Hubble had collected a lot of this data he noticed that the more
distant a galaxy was the more its light was red shifted - that is the
faster it is receading.
This led to the conclusion that the space between galaxies was
universally increasing.
Sometime before Hubbles observations Einstein and others had used
General relativity to try and work out the overall geometry or "shape"
of the universe. Initially Einstein tried to make his equations
generate a stable - and possibly infinite universe. Gravity would tend
to make all the galaxies fall together so he added a fudge factor to
stop that happening - but Hubble showed they were all flying apart -
this meant as you wind the clock backwards the universe contracts to a
point.
This led to the "Big Bang" theories.
Later (1960's) two radio engineers discovered a universal isotropic
radio source in the sky - "isotropic" means it wasnt comming from any
particular source or direction it was comming from every direction.
All matter radiates electromagnetic radiation - when something is hot
enough - like the filament of a lamp it emits visible light - when its
cooler it emits infared - when it is very cold it emits microwave radio
waves.
The frequency spectrum of the radio waves discovered by these guys was
the equivalent of thermal radiation at 3K (3 degrees above absolute
zero).
The initial state of the universe was very hot - so hot atoms could not
exist - as the universe expanded it cooled (the hot radiation is "red
shifted") - if that expansion continues for 13 billion years the
temperature would look like a 3K thermal radiation.
For most people that was a clincher.
Also, is it possible that we are simply in the middle of an infinite
number of Big Bang/Big Crunches?
That is *possible* but the evidence is that the universe started at a
finite time in the past and will expand forever.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 04:36:15 PM |
|
|
Erich Kohl wrote:
Has it been proven yet (through some sort of logical argument) that
existence itself MUST exist?
What is 'existence itself'? Is it something you can sense, or
something that you can only imagine? What kind of thing is it? Is it
a concrete object? A mathematical, like a set? A universal? Does it
exist in time and space? If so, where and when? If not, in what ways
does it 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.
If there's something called 'existence itself' that must exist, then
'existence itself' must always have existed; if it exists in space and
time there must be a space-time continuum - a universe - in which it
exists; and that 'universe' too must have always have existed. But
that doesn't appear to be our universe - the space-time continuum we
exist in - as (1) that universe appears to have had a beginning and (2)
that universe doesn't appear to contain any such existent as 'existence
itself'.
Therefore, no first cause, no "God."
For 'existence itself' and its parallel universe; but, unfortunately,
not for our universe or the things in it.
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."
OK, you're saying that the type of thing that 'existence itself' is, is
a kind of super- or meta-universe in which our universe - our
space-time continuum and all the things in it - itself exists; and that
super-universe - 'existence itself' - is eternal. Perhaps it is; but
there's really know way of knowing whether there even is such a
super-universe, is there?
It seems to me that you're trying to counter a dubious argument for an
unfounded belief - in a theistic "God" as the First Cause - by
postulating a similarly unfounded belief.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 10:41:13 AM |
|
|
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 11:08:19 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132850473.072381.263280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Or it is and can't.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 09:59:12 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:kuidnZajebnhbhjeRVn-vA@io.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132850473.072381.263280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Or it is and can't.
It's not possible to observe yourself existing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 07:54:29 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:k_vhf.5229$wf.2810@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:kuidnZajebnhbhjeRVn-vA@io.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132850473.072381.263280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Erich Kohl wrote:
Has it been proven yet (through some sort of logical argument) that
existence itself MUST exist? It would seem to me that if that were
true, it means that the universe was ALWAYS here, always WAS here,
and didn't have a beginning. Therefore, no first cause, no "God."
Granted, I'm using "existence" and "universe" as synonyms here, but
I can't think of any reason it would matter. After all, the
universe is that in which everything "exists."
Thoughts?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and
can be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Or it is and can't.
It's not possible to observe yourself existing.
I am that which observes the existence of myself.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
27 Nov 2005 05:13:21 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97195AC23BBE7fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:k_vhf.5229$wf.2810@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:kuidnZajebnhbhjeRVn-vA@io.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132850473.072381.263280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and
can be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Or it is and can't.
It's not possible to observe yourself existing.
I am that which observes the existence of myself.
Sure, Fred.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
27 Nov 2005 07:26:54 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote in news:lxgif.6144
$wf.306@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97195AC23BBE7fstone69@213.155.197.138...
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:k_vhf.5229$wf.2810@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:kuidnZajebnhbhjeRVn-vA@io.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132850473.072381.263280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and
can be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Or it is and can't.
It's not possible to observe yourself existing.
I am that which observes the existence of myself.
Sure, Fred.
Certainly, Ike. It's called "Self-awareness". You should try it some
time.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 02:04:37 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:k_vhf.5229$wf.2810@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:kuidnZajebnhbhjeRVn-vA@io.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132850473.072381.263280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Erich Kohl wrote:
Has it been proven yet (through some sort of logical argument) that
existence itself MUST exist? It would seem to me that if that were
true, it means that the universe was ALWAYS here, always WAS here, and
didn't have a beginning. Therefore, no first cause, no "God."
Granted, I'm using "existence" and "universe" as synonyms here, but I
can't think of any reason it would matter. After all, the universe is
that in which everything "exists."
Thoughts?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Or it is and can't.
It's not possible to observe yourself existing.
Then what the ***** am I talking to?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
27 Nov 2005 05:13:22 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:46WdnUXwAPOSWxveRVn-hA@io.com...
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:k_vhf.5229$wf.2810@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:kuidnZajebnhbhjeRVn-vA@io.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132850473.072381.263280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Or it is and can't.
It's not possible to observe yourself existing.
Then what the ***** am I talking to?
No idea.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L.Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 09:32:20 AM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:kuidnZajebnhbhjeRVn-vA@io.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132850473.072381.263280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Or it is and can't.
It's not possible to observe yourself existing.
not even indirectly? and does that mean that that funny looking guy I
see reflected off the mirror every morning is not me after all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
27 Nov 2005 05:13:20 AM |
|
|
"L.Roberts" <ozzcat2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132932740.146238.53120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ike wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:kuidnZajebnhbhjeRVn-vA@io.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132850473.072381.263280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Or it is and can't.
It's not possible to observe yourself existing.
not even indirectly? and does that mean that that funny looking guy I
see reflected off the mirror every morning is not me after all?
It would seem that the qualifier -indirectly- is a vague term which implies
evidence of selfhood. If what were in the mirror were a self, then it would
also see another self looking into it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Erich Kohl" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 10:58:31 AM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2005 08:41:13 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Jim
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist? That's why I lean toward thinking that the
universe was always here, and didn't need a creator.
After all, before "God" created everything, there was nothing, right?
But then, I'm not a total physics expert (or philosophy, or whatever
category of knowledge this would fall into), so I'm not sure.
Maybe this is more of a semantic issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 11:17:02 AM |
|
|
"Erich Kohl" <ekohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:01sbo19graid1nq2dq7jkvap3jjd0ruu0v@4ax.com...
On 24 Nov 2005 08:41:13 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Jim
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist? That's why I lean toward thinking that the
universe was always here, and didn't need a creator.
I agree, however, I have a problem with the fact that the universe is always
expanding. If it is always expanding outward, then where is it expanding
into? Nothing? They say the universe is about 20 billion years old, but what
held the space of the universe before the big bang that started it? Probably
something we will never figure out because looking backwards in time is no
different than looking forward, we simply don't know what will happen 20+
billion years from now, nor what was going on 20+ billion years ago.
After all, before "God" created everything, there was nothing, right?
Gods were characters and stories made by man to try and explain what he
cannot explain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erich Kohl" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 09:33:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:17:02 -0500, "ManMadeGod" <spamhere@nospam.com>
wrote:
I agree, however, I have a problem with the fact that the universe is always
expanding. If it is always expanding outward, then where is it expanding
into? Nothing? They say the universe is about 20 billion years old, but what
held the space of the universe before the big bang that started it? Probably
something we will never figure out because looking backwards in time is no
different than looking forward, we simply don't know what will happen 20+
billion years from now, nor what was going on 20+ billion years ago.
I'm sure gasoline prices will have skyrocketed in 20+ billion years.
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 12:14:11 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet ManMadeGod
(spamhere@nospam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist? That's why I lean toward thinking that the
universe was always here, and didn't need a creator.
I agree, however, I have a problem with the fact that the universe is
always expanding. If it is always expanding outward, then where is it
expanding into? Nothing? They say the universe is about 20 billion
years old, but what held the space of the universe before the big bang
that started it? Probably something we will never figure out because
looking backwards in time is no different than looking forward, we
simply don't know what will happen 20+ billion years from now, nor
what was going on 20+ billion years ago.
We could very well define parts of the universe, such as the vacuum between
stars, as "nothing". Saying "nothing" exists in this context is not the
same as talking about non-existence. It also allows for the universe to be
expanding into "nothing", which is quite feasable to those who believe the
universe is infinite. If parts of the universe can collapse into itself
(example - black hole), then why not allow it to expand into itself?
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
sig under construction
.
|
|
|
| User: "Erich Kohl" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 09:33:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:14:11 -0600, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
We could very well define parts of the universe, such as the vacuum between
stars, as "nothing". Saying "nothing" exists in this context is not the
same as talking about non-existence. It also allows for the universe to be
expanding into "nothing", which is quite feasable to those who believe the
universe is infinite. If parts of the universe can collapse into itself
(example - black hole), then why not allow it to expand into itself?
That's an interesting way to look at it, but it would seem to me that
a vacuum -- or "emptiness" -- is still *something*, which isn't
*nothing*.
On top of that, my understanding is that scientists think that empty
space isn't really empty, that there is "dark matter."
Anyone else have a headache yet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 10:06:36 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Erich Kohl
(ekohl@sbcglobal.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:14:11 -0600, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
We could very well define parts of the universe, such as the vacuum
between stars, as "nothing". Saying "nothing" exists in this context
is not the same as talking about non-existence. It also allows for
the universe to be expanding into "nothing", which is quite feasable
to those who believe the universe is infinite. If parts of the
universe can collapse into itself (example - black hole), then why not
allow it to expand into itself?
That's an interesting way to look at it, but it would seem to me that
a vacuum -- or "emptiness" -- is still *something*, which isn't
*nothing*.
On top of that, my understanding is that scientists think that empty
space isn't really empty, that there is "dark matter."
Anyone else have a headache yet?
Not yet, that'll kick in tomorrow morning.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
sig under construction
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 02:39:38 PM |
|
|
*snip*
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist?
What would you think a vacuum is then? And I don't mean the kind that
clean your floor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 03:51:00 PM |
|
|
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132951178.840448.220020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
*snip*
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist?
What would you think a vacuum is then? And I don't mean the kind that
clean your floor.
There is no such thing as a perfectly empty vacuum. Even if you could
remove all the matter from a volume of space, there would still be
photons passing through it, and there would still be virtual particles
popping in and out of existence.
The emptiest part of "outer space" still contains a few atoms per cubic
centimeter, and more photons.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
| User: "NC" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 07:09:55 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns9719AB8E4C3FDfstone69@213.155.197.138:
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132951178.840448.220020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
*snip*
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist?
What would you think a vacuum is then? And I don't mean the kind that
clean your floor.
There is no such thing as a perfectly empty vacuum. Even if you could
remove all the matter from a volume of space, there would still be
photons passing through it, and there would still be virtual particles
popping in and out of existence.
The emptiest part of "outer space" still contains a few atoms per
cubic centimeter, and more photons.
If they do not fill that entire cubic centimeter, what is inbetween
them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
25 Nov 2005 07:19:19 PM |
|
|
NC <nc@ntrll.net> wrote in
news:Xns9719C36ED2F0nc123token456@207.225.159.7:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns9719AB8E4C3FDfstone69@213.155.197.138:
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132951178.840448.220020@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
*snip*
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing.
How can "nothing" exist?
What would you think a vacuum is then? And I don't mean the kind
that clean your floor.
There is no such thing as a perfectly empty vacuum. Even if you could
remove all the matter from a volume of space, there would still be
photons passing through it, and there would still be virtual
particles popping in and out of existence.
The emptiest part of "outer space" still contains a few atoms per
cubic centimeter, and more photons.
If they do not fill that entire cubic centimeter, what is inbetween
them?
Quantum probability waves fill the whole space.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
26 Nov 2005 11:16:34 AM |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2005 12:39:38 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
*snip*
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist?
What would you think a vacuum is then? And I don't mean the kind that
clean your floor.
The space between Shrubs' ears.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 12:00:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:58:31 GMT, Erich Kohl <ekohl@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
On 24 Nov 2005 08:41:13 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Erich Kohl wrote:
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?
existence seems to be an empirical thing....either it's there and can
be observed, or it isn't and can't.
Jim
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist? That's why I lean toward thinking that the
universe was always here, and didn't need a creator.
After all, before "God" created everything, there was nothing, right?
But then, I'm not a total physics expert (or philosophy, or whatever
category of knowledge this would fall into), so I'm not sure.
Maybe this is more of a semantic issue.
I always wondered what was there until the universe was "created"
assuming it was.
Still, while the universe is fun to wonder about, I can't see how it
should shape our daily, current lives, or asserted as proof of
anything.
TheRain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 02:07:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:58:31 GMT, Erich Kohl <ekohl@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist? That's why I lean toward thinking that the
universe was always here, and didn't need a creator.
"Nothing" is what remains when you take everything else away. It is
largely a philosophical concept because it is outside of human
experience.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Philosophical Question |
24 Nov 2005 04:15:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:58:31 GMT, Erich Kohl <ekohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
What I have a problem with is the notion of "nothing" existing. How
can "nothing" exist? That's why I lean toward thinking that the
universe was always here, and didn't need a creator.
After all, before "God" created everything, there was nothing, right?
Right.
But then, I'm not a total physics expert (or philosophy, or whatever
category of knowledge this would fall into), so I'm not sure.
Maybe this is more of a semantic issue.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
