Existence exists, always has existed and always will exist?
Posted by Solver 10 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
One way this could be is by infinite time theory. But this also would mean that everything has already happened in every way possible beforehand. Yet we all would be totally obvious that it did.
Another opposing theory is one or more God(s), Infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s), created everything.
SO FOR THIS TOPIC, WHICH IS MORE LIKELY AND WHAT IS YOUR REASONING?
Existence exists, always has existed and always will exist?
Or
One or more infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s) created everything?
(Is it also possible that neither is correct.)
Another opposing theory is one or more God(s), Infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s), created everything.
SO FOR THIS TOPIC, WHICH IS MORE LIKELY AND WHAT IS YOUR REASONING?
Existence exists, always has existed and always will exist?
Or
One or more infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s) created everything?
(Is it also possible that neither is correct.)
According to Objectivist metaphysics "Primacy of existence" is a fundamental principle.
"Existence, this principle declares, comes first. Things are what they are independent of consciousness--of anyone's perceptions, images, ideas, feelings. Consciousness, by contrast, is a dependent. Its function is not to create or control existence, but to be a spectator; to look out, to perceive, to grasp that which is." "This is in opposition to primacy-of- consciousness." OTPOAR, pg. 18
"Supernatural" etymologically, means that which is above or beyond nature. "Nature" in turn, denotes existence viewed from a certain perspective. Nature is existence regarded as a system of interconnected entities governed by law; it is the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. What then is a "super-nature"? It would have to be a form of existence beyond existence; a thing beyond entities;a something beyond identity.
The Idea of the "supernatural" is an assault on everything man knows about reality. it is a contradiction of every essential of rational metaphysics. It represents a rejection of the basic axioms of philosophy (or, in the case of primitive men. a failure to grasp them).
This can be illustrated by reference to any version of idealism. But let us confine the discussion here to the popular notion of God.
Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.
Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to "design" is not "chance." It is causality.
Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.
Is god infinite? "Infinite" does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity without identity, i.e., of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of "infinity" denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subdivision. for example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite."
Every argument commonly offered for the notion of God leads to contradiction of the axiomatic concepts of philosophy. at every point, the notion clashes with the facts of reality and with the preconditions of thought. This is as true of professional theologians' arguments and ideas as of the popular treatments.
The point is broader than religion. It is inherent in any advocacy of a transcendental dimension. any attempt to defend or define the supernatural must necessarily collapse in fallacies. There is no logic that will lead one from the facts of this world to a realm contradicting them; there is no concept formed by observation of nature that will serve to characterize its antithesis. Inference from the natural can only lead to more of the natural, i.e., limited, finite entities. Such entities do not fulfill the requirements of "God' or even of "poltergeist." As far as reason and logic are concerned, existence exists, and only existence exists.
OTPOAR, pg.31-32
Leonard Piekoff sure has some brass ones, but his logic is difficult to counter. I do not know the answer and do not believe we can know the answer as to the mysteries of Faith.
I can form no authoritative opinion until I die and then it will be to late to tell anyone.
Respectfully,
O.A.
If her logic is true then it demonstrates that if God = true then the basic axioms of logic = false
No wonder the world is philosophically confused.
“I'll give you a hint. Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Premise: God(s) exist.
Premise: God(s) are one or more infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s) which created and designed everything.
The description above fit some of the characteristics of many Gods worshiped today. yet if they exist, there is CONTRADICTION.
Instead of admitting one or more premises is wrong, I got things like, “You limit the parameters to what you can comprehend. God, in His fullness, is beyond human comprehension.”
At that point the rules of logic won't convince a believer. And if this infinite contradictory God is real, known logic is pretty much meaningless.
I do not reject the notion of a limited God being real, as in the statement, "Money is her God."
I do not live my life for any God.
There is also Rand saying,
"Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.
Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to "design" is not "chance." It is causality.
Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.
Is god infinite? "Infinite" does not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity without identity... But A is A. every entity, accordingly, is finite."
If God exists, there is no reason to suspect that anything would occur any differently or more mystically than the way things already exist. I reject the notion that "some things are beyond human comprehension." Some things are obviously beyond calculation, but that is due to a lack of tools (brain calculation function) or available data with which to assimilate the issue.
Once someone claims that something is "beyond human comprehension," that one is confessing a limit to one`s own unflagging determination to engage in and pursue reason, and furthermore admitting a lack of comprehension for how logic itself is infallible. (The process of rational thinking or comprehension may be flawed, but logic, itself, which is, by definition "merely" the "language of truth," can never be flawed.)
If existence has primacy over consciousness, then "creation" could, theoretically, refer to an organization of already existing elements into what we perceive to be reality today--rather than an abiogenetic emergence of life. Theoretically, design and causality could be poetically viewed as the same instigator. "God" could well be a semantical personification of "the way things are/unfold."
I would just like to just say, logic is true, infinitely all knowing all powerful supernatural God(s) can't exist.
Rand stated, in her way, that existence has primacy over consciousness and A is A, so God can't be the infinite omnipotent creator and designer.
A most perplexing paradox indeed. A is A. The exception that proves the rule? I have considered the notion that matter, energy and time are not infinite, but a finite sum that recycles. One collapse, then expansion, a big bang if you will, and then another cycle and then another, but always the same quantity just is rotated like a skipping record over and over in the same groove. It is a paradox as then the cycles become infinite until/unless they don't. Alternatively it could be that these things are finite, but of such a massive scale and quantity that our inability to quantify them also prevents us from perceiving their origin or end. If only I had all of the answers... I would have no need to study philosophy, or anything else for that matter. :)
Infinity is a concept that is by its very nature something we can not quantify or fully define. Is it not? Where is Steven Hawking when I need him?
I would love to hear your thoughts.
Regards.
O.A.
Thank you for your support. It means a great deal to me. If it weren't for you and others that encourage me on this board, I would not be so productive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAYGz6I...
Best wishes,
O.A.
Your term "has always existed" DEPENDS upon the existence of time. Two definitions of time:
"Time keeps everything from happening all at once."
"Time: it's just one damn thing after another."
I don't recall the sources :-)
As you say, soon enough we will all know.
To claim "understanding" or knowledge of something outside of the realm of human comprehension is a contradiction from which no one making the claim can escape. In other words, it is logically impossible to know that anything exists outside of our ability to comprehend it. It is impossible for us to Know things beyond our understanding. It is something other than rational to Assert that something "doesn't exist in human comprehensible terms" (all the while it is being explained in those terms).
You are correct that "we cannot fathom that which is beyond our understanding." No one can. Asserting that one has knowledge gained beyond human understanding could be viewed as the arrogance of irrationality.
I respect someone's right to believe what they want, but let's be honest when it comes to acquiring or claiming knowledge of existence beyond human comprehension...because human comprehension is all we have.
To "debate" something two people must have a common basis for understanding. This is clearly missing, so a "debate" is not possible on this subject.
Also, have you seen me argue that the philosophy of O must permit my perspective? I don't consider myself an O.
You doubled down on that contradiction with the claim you can arrive at that 'knowledge' via a means that is Only based on human comprehension and understanding - that means being Evidence.
Human comprehension and understanding are all that is available to us. In any attempt to say Otherwise, one uses those abilities to try and explain something that negates those abilities.
You have to work out your "beliefs"; I'm just making a point regarding all of human knowledge.
; )
I watched the cartoon. Of course I am familiar with Plato's allegory of the cave, having read Plato's Republic. This of course is one of the primary differences between Aristotle and his teacher. Aristotle believed we do not live in a cave, can observe reality and that there is nothing more. The empiricist understood we may have false perceptions, but could not make the leap in logic. He believed only in what he could observe, that A is A and that our inability to understand or accept something is not sufficient for conclusions that require speculation without empirical evidence. What Plato does prove in his allegory is not the existence of what cannot be proven, only the fallibility of human perception. The Objectivist position on this issue is of course in alignment with Aristotle and permits no conclusions without evidence. This does not prove things yet without evidence do not exist, only that it is not objectivist doctrine to postulate that which has no empirical evidence or sound theory extrapolated from empirical evidence.
Your counter argument cannot be dis-proven or proven. Such is the nature of faith. The stories in the Bible cannot be verified. The authors cannot be cross examined. We do not witness unassailable miracles in our time. Many brilliant philosophers and men have wrestled with this problem and there remains no consensus.
"God does not play dice" Einstein
I am not as brilliant as Einstein or Aristotle. Many believe. Many wish to hedge their bets. :)
I cannot draw comfortable conclusion.
Life is short. I feel soon enough, may be sooner than desirable.
Regards,
O.A.
Yes. There are multiple possible interpretations. I like to think he meant that there are laws of physics which even God (if you believe in him) did not leave up to chance, that behind everything there are rules that govern. Of course, like Einstein, we do not understand them all yet. :)
Regards,
O.A.
That said, "creation" as it is used in Hebrew is never the act of something from nothing. It is the organization of the existing. In Genesis, when it reads that "God created the heavens and the earth", the more proper translation is organized: nebulae => galaxies, solar systems, etc. Such as with man - we always existed, but not in this form. The spirit or "soul" of man as it were is the core of existence and has no beginning or end, but the form of that existence may change like an element subject to heat may melt or vaporize. The physical body of man was "organized" and the spirit or soul then inhabited said body.
Any more than that and you are getting into the very basis for religion, which while I am happy to go into, I'll wait for the invitation.
"Our universe" is all we can perceive but does not preclude the existence
of multiple universes. The subject is in itself infinite by default. As humans we can posture theories, but that is what they remain- a theory. This discussion has encompassed an extremely vast range of theories and philosophies. However, there is no absolute, no proof of any one theory. Personally, I want to believe that the "spirit", the "anima", does not die with the death of our physical body but continues infinitely in whatever universes, whatever time structure that there might be in the cosmos.
I also entertain the idea that it is highly likely that the human race was "jump started" by visiting aliens at some time in the past... The human DNA is only a fraction of a fraction different than that of a chimpanzee and yet we are where we are today and they remain where they are in the line of evolution. This is a phenomenal difference. In respect to the constant yet slow course of evolution we, humans, have made leaps and bounds above all other animals. It is not unfathomable that we have DNA from an alien race. This does not preclude that a "universal creator" could be behind it all. Why should a "god" create only one mankind? Or, why would not different substances in different quantities in different surroundings not make for a different species?
To remain open to all possible theories and choose not one could be construed as prevaricating but I think not. We seek order and rationale to what is essentially chaotic and instinctive.
In her philosophy of objective reality, Ayn Rand presents these axiomatic concepts: Existence, Consciousness and Identity. She builds her whole Philosophy of Objectivism on these basic concepts. We select only Existence as it relates Existence Exists4
In her philosophy of objective reality, Ayn Rand presents these axiomatic concepts: Existence, Consciousness and Identity. She builds her whole Philosophy of Objectivism on these basic concepts. We select only Existence as it relates Cosmology and express it as an axiom of Existence Exists, as self-evident. We rule out the possibility of Something from/to Nothing.
If Existence exists here it must exist everywhere. It stretches everywhere and is therefore Infinite. If Existence exists here now it must have come from a past eternity and presumably will last another eternity. It is Eternal. There can be no juxtaposition, somewhere out there, of Existence with non-Existence, in time or in space. And, if it is here now, after an eternity of burning, there must be some mechanism at work that results in a 100% efficient self-renewal.
It seems that Existence is, indeed, Infinite and Eternal. It is in such an Existence that our Universe is but a tiny fragment, and toward which our Cosmological studies should aim. And, certainly, there’s no room for an Expanding Universe.
Jim Wright: 10/6/12
Cosmology and express it as an axiom of Existence Exists, as self-evident. We rule out the possibility of Something from/to Nothing.
If Existence exists here it must exist everywhere. It stretches everywhere and is therefore Infinite. If Existence exists here now it must have come from a past eternity and presumably will last another eternity. It is Eternal. There can be no juxtaposition, somewhere out there, of Existence with non-Existence, in time or in space. And, if it is here now, after an eternity of burning, there must be some mechanism at work that results in a 100% efficient self-renewal.
It seems that Existence is, indeed, Infinite and Eternal. It is in such an Existence that our Universe is but a tiny fragment, and toward which our Cosmological studies should aim. And, certainly, there’s no room for an Expanding Universe.
Jim Wright: 10/6/12
"...It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Jefferson
We recognize our existence (I think, therefore I is). Do we exist if we don't possess that level of thought? Do plants not exist because the can not comprehend their own existence? Maybe a plant does recognize it's existence.
To be is to be something... I am, therefore, by my nature, I am human. As a human I must think because to think is my only means of survival.
Yes, kh, that's an ad-hominem. Deserved it.
at least God does not steal my property...currently...
The deal is that you cannot generate a concept of God from man...you have to do it from God's own revelation to man, else, you are just creating man's concept of a god and not God Himself.
We cannot have it both ways....to believe that logical processes exists without acknowledging where the ability to logically processes our world and how we relate to it came from...evolution cannot explain it, so it had to come from somewhere.
Also...why does existence presuppose that a divine entity must have created it? Couldn`t there be a "Grand Original Design" infused into the very causality of existence? Perhaps, if there is a divinity to be celebrated/worshiped, it is the very intricacy of "Truth" itself, and its language by which we can comprehend the unfolding of said existence--logic.
*I thought I published a similar post to this already--but I couldn`t find it on this thread, so I tried to recapitulate. Apologies if I indeed repeated myself.
I have a slightly different take on religion. I do not see an either-or complete conflict. I think it is a matter of, post existence, how we interpret God. I see God as a guide, supporter, but not all controlling. I do not think he grants what we pray for, rather is a source of strength when we must ultimately cope with the toughness of existence as it is. We do not change existence, merely how we respond to it, which may be an infinite number of ways. Our choices determine how we fit in our existence. We can make it rough for ourselves, or we can deal with the issues of existence as they come along, and find a more peaceful fit in existence. In the end, we always have choices in our existence, but we have to function within the existence that exists. One philosophy professor friend told me of a woman, who took to her bed, waiting for God to help her. The man told her to get out of bed, that God helped those who helped themselves. He was putting her into the setting of seeing that existence exists, and she had better deal with it.
Time keeps on slippin', slippin, slippin into the future.
I want to fly like an eagle ....
OK. I have had my Steve Miller rock 'n roll break, and am ready to discuss again.
Instead, imagine the primordial soup without life, and it contains molecules of varying complexity. The probability of the required set of molecules coming together in the right conditions to make the first self-replicating molecule could be huge, lets say billion times less likely than winning the lottery jackpot by buying one ticket.
But over time, there were billions upon billions of instances of those raw materials coming together. So the lottery analogy is more like buying a million tickets every second for millions of years. In which case, NOT winning the jackpot sometime becomes practically impossible.
Why does the "eternity of existence" presuppose any divinity whatsoever? Unless you mean to define (your) consciousness, itself, as the divine miracle. That, too, can be reduced to another primacy...at least as far as *your* subjective experience can relay to you.
Again, could it not possibly be a fundamental that "Grand Original Design" dictates causality, the unfolding of "existence" according to the irrevocably logical principles that underlie existence itself? If A is A, then existence plays out, perhaps, in the only way that it can (and must) according to the causality of events, from Big Bang to "now." If there is any "irrefutable divinity" to be identified, should it not be (the intricacies of) "Truth" itself, whose language is Logic?
My extension was placed as a question, not an axiom.
Is it possible that existence exists, always has and (hopefully) always will?
As far as time goes,
Do things in existence continue to change if no life exists to notice these changes? In my opinion the answer is, yes. Time itself would literally not matter until or if life was created anew.
This is compared to the infinite immortal all powerful all knowing supernatural being(s) that created everything theory, where my own personal opinion is, no.
Normally it would mean that I have been enslaved (or have enslaved myself) in order to give to another of my mind or my labor. But God does not ask that of us. He asks us to love one another as we do ourselves. That is the essence of morality. Even the most prescriptive of the Commandments does not enslave (Keep holy the Sabbath and honor thy mother and father are not enslaving). The remainder are prohibitions on actions. I give not my mind or labor specifically, but rather my heart/soul. And do so of my own free-will.
Yes, there are some religions that demand that (tighthing for example), but not a reading of the New Testament. Even Matthew 19:21 which says: "Jesus said to him, If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me," identifies that this is perfection but God does not demand perfection, for no human (except for Jesus) can be perfect.
That's my interpretation of scripture, not necessarily doctrine of any denomination.
Always wondered, does that mean that if I would have people give stuff to me if I'm poor but take half my money if I'm not, that justifies me doing the same unto others?
I'll give another more understandable example,
If I would like to have people let me live my own life if I'm good but punish me if I'm not, that justifies me doing the same unto others?
Does that follow the golden rule?
What is good? How would, say Obama, define good. What about not being good?
I've been patient with this discussion, in spite of mockery and insolence. We clearly have differing views. I have shown respect but do not get the same in return. Thus, I'm done.
Think of those rich people who want the government to take their earnings and want the government to take other rich people's earnings and actively support that taking of other rich people's earnings.
Warren Buffett comes to mind. He is following the golden rule. Maybe there is a loop hole.
It means: "Put yourself in the other person's place.". That's all.
Most of the problems that arise in human relationships stem from reacting to a created false conflict and subsequently not thinking the situation through to the end.
Not getting involved is an excellent choice when it comes to chaos creation and the ensuing conflict resolution. Good choice.
I tend to think of "lukewarm"as being a middle-of-the-roader where you appear one way on the surface but can't or don't think in principles ... leading to a shallow, moment-to-moment existence.
REAL Christians (meaning "anointed ones") are very few and far between. They are generally loners.
Time and space, however, are flexible and can change scale.
The String Theory will eventually be tested and tried and found to be correct...but probably not in my lifetime.
Is a line infinite in length if it goes on forever, but begins right where you are standing?
I typically don't take anything on faith; logically, I understand the Big Bang theory more than I do the idea of some supreme being that 'always has been and always will Be.'
Solver- both could be dismissed on the same premise; if one discredits the notion that 'existence exists and always has' because there is a question of time/existence being infinite, how could they argue the existence of an all-powerful, supreme being that has 'always been'...which in itself suggests that he is infinite?
I may have gone off on a tangent, I apologize if I did.
Infinite time just means there is no beginning and no end of time itself.
But why would this also have to mean that there would have to be infinite existence?
My conclusion after 70+ years: Belief: A conclusion drawn without rational thought.
A belief is neither fact (it could be proven) nor truth (it could not be refuted). So, if a belief is a choice, the question is: why would one choose a belief that initiates force against another or is self destructive? (You psychiatrists can answer that one; I can't)
Jefferson said "But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
As to existence, I tend to agree with it! And I think it was Joseph Campbell that said God is a metaphor to answer the unanswerable... or something like that.
Regarding existence: "According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_stat... So existence exists, and then it doesn't, and then it does again?
And I really don't care for the implications of the double slit experiment. Can we ever know reality, can we ever say A is A, if the act of our perception renders A unknowable? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdl...
Someone commented above that quantum mechanics is untrustworthy. Is that the consensus? I'd like to know others' thoughts on whether this science can be reconciled with the principles of Objectivism. For me, I think we have to do our best to know reality at any given time, and always try to improve our perception, and also be aware of the potential for error.
Load more comments...