The Logic Table - God Exist (any God) Yes Or No, Hoping to be its own thread! Options

I am creating this topic as a place for people to put arguments based on compounding premises. By that I mean this topic is for logical application to arguments, i.e. reasons for why a god may or may not exist. This is NOT a topic where faith is an axiomatic principle, axiomatic meaning self-evidently true. I'm not against faith but I want a thread area (which I hope this topic eventually evolves into) where I can argue with people who will not say I believe it and the discussion is over.

That being said, this topic/thread is supposed to be completely open-minded. It is a place for people to make arguments and debate them out. Please do not post once, assert something, and never come back. Debate it out, that is the point.

This topic is - God Exist (Any god) Yes or No...

I'll start:

No: the premise that it is necessary for a God to create existence is a false choice. If it is necessary for existence to be created, then it is also necessary for its creator to be created. This principle (when applied more universally than just in reference to religion) is usually called the Primacy of Existence. That is simply existence exists as an axiomatic principle (a self-evident truth). To argue against that (i.e. to say it was created) presupposes that it exists to establish that argument. I.e. God is the creator who created existence, however, if before God there was no existence then where did god exist, in fact how did god exist if there is nothing that existed and if god does not have to have an existence to exist than how is it possible for God to exist, for existence cannot exist in non-existence and it is impossible for non-existence to exist, because it doesn't exist.

I am creating this topic as a place for people to put arguments based on compounding premises. By that I mean this topic is for logical application to arguments, i.e. reasons for why a god may or may not exist. This is NOT a topic where faith is an axiomatic principle, axiomatic meaning self-evidently true. I'm not against faith but I want a thread area (which I hope this topic eventually evolves into) where I can argue with people who will not say I believe it and the discussion is over.

That being said, this topic/thread is supposed to be completely open-minded. It is a place for people to make arguments and debate them out. Please do not post once, assert something, and never come back. Debate it out, that is the point.

This topic is - God Exist (Any god) Yes or No...

I'll start:

No: the premise that it is necessary for a God to create existence is a false choice. If it is necessary for existence to be created, then it is also necessary for its creator to be created. This principle (when applied more universally than just in reference to religion) is usually called the Primacy of Existence. That is simply existence exists as an axiomatic principle (a self-evident truth). To argue against that (i.e. to say it was created) presupposes that it exists to establish that argument. I.e. God is the creator who created existence, however, if before God there was no existence then where did god exist, in fact how did god exist if there is nothing that existed and if god does not have to have an existence to exist than how is it possible for God to exist, for existence cannot exist in non-existence and it is impossible for non-existence to exist, because it doesn't exist.

Now Cameron are we assuming God as the all powerful all knowing deity or are we assuming God can be a being with greater knowledge than ourselves?
Assuming the later then I can say yes there can be a God. Lets suppose in theory that the universe started from the big bang and life started. Eventually a thinking being would come about. Now lets say this being is humaniod and is like us. Starts to experiment and creates another being much like himself. Now the new being would see the "creator" as a God. In this sense yes I do think that a God could exist.

I would go with "yes," god does exist...and for a very "simple" reason: the only way to avoid an infinite loop of cause and effect is to accept god as the uncaused cause! god, to me, seems a better explanation than an infinite regress!

And when i weigh "intelligent design" against "chance events," "yes" seems to be an even more viable option!

looks like i love debate, i will take the stance of "no, there is no god" (only because i am bored and have seen this thread, im agnostic and have no idea... but will take a stance for the sake of taking a stance)

ok, so "the only way to avoid an infinite loop of cause and effect is to accept god as the uncaused cause!" onlinetoenjoy
"...I want a thread area where I can argue with people who will not say I believe it and the discussion is over" Cameron

Anyway, God does not exist because the only proof i am aware of for his existance is doccuments written by humans a long time ago. the "eye witness" accounts are by people who saw visions of him or saw him, still a very long time ago. it is always other humans who tell other humans about their god. god does not tell every believer personally(?) he does not himself spread his own word (?) he does not do great works for everybody to see that are so special that ONLY god can do these (?) any and all "works of god" are plausably works of laws of physics or mis-perceptions or concidences (they are interpretations of humans saying "this is so great only god must have done this) (?). we have all sorts of technology and science but not one of them can "prove" god exists. WHY does god not come down and show himself and do miracles for people to prove beyond a doubt that god is real? i am sure he would have so many more followers if god came down and was revealed as a physical being/non physical being, but can be percieved by humans and "prove" once and for all god is REAL.

faith and mysterys and things humans can not access are parts of religion that must say that god does not exist because nothing is proven. only faith and beliefs hold religions.

anyway i just wanted to stir up randomness see people's replys and take note that i do not hold anything for fact about god because i myself do not know, i just wanted to take a position for taking a position.

-peace

how does an uncaused god make sense as a means of ending the cycle of cause and effect

your end game seems to be to remove as much cause from the equation as possible

I'll do your job better

existence is the uncaused cause it exists nothing made it or created it boom, guess what, it also makes logical sense because to assert that something created existence requires some form of existence to exist, that existence being this creator at the least and where it lives etc, meaning that to create would really be to expand meaning not initially create which means the concept of a creator doesn't make any sense because it creates the already created meaning it isn't creating see the contradiction

Now juan - any diety the topic doesn't specify however your example doesn't make sense to me

a deity who learned then created

so a deity who created something into existence

that makes no sense because you can't create what has already been created you can however procreate or expand but that isn't the mark of a god or a deity at least not in how i interpret the concept of a god in reference to creation for more explanation for this contradiction look above

how does an uncaused god make sense as a means of ending the cycle of cause and effect

your end game seems to be to remove as much cause from the equation as possible

I'll do your job better

existence is the uncaused cause it exists nothing made it or created it boom, guess what, it also makes logical sense because to assert that something created existence requires some form of existence to exist, that existence being this creator at the least and where it lives etc, meaning that to create would really be to expand meaning not initially create which means the concept of a creator doesn't make any sense because it creates the already created meaning it isn't creating see the contradiction

Now juan - any diety the topic doesn't specify however your example doesn't make sense to me

a deity who learned then created

so a deity who created something into existence

that makes no sense because you can't create what has already been created you can however procreate or expand but that isn't the mark of a god or a deity at least not in how i interpret the concept of a god in reference to creation for more explanation for this contradiction look above

Ok Cameron lets say a being forms and creates another form of life. The created form of life could consider the being that created him his God. That is my point. Even though the Creator being is mortal and has traits of his creation can still be considered God. Even though the being doesn't posses the all power all mighty attributes we put with God. That was my point. Just cause a greater being maybe bald, big head, grey skin created man doesn't mean the grey skinned being was really God but just considered by his creation.

cameron-how does an uncaused god make sense as a means of ending the cycle of cause and effect

--> if u are up for it...then define or explain "god"

cameron-your end game seems to be to remove as much cause from the equation as possible

--> Remove? on the contrary that gives us something more plausible than an infinite regress!

cameron-I'll do your job better

existence is the uncaused cause it exists nothing made it or created it boom, guess what, it also makes logical sense because to assert that something created existence requires some form of existence to exist, that existence being this creator at the least and where it lives etc, meaning that to create would really be to expand meaning not initially create which means the concept of a creator doesn't make any sense because it creates the already created meaning it isn't creating see the contradiction

--> explain "existence is the uncaused cause"

What makes up this "existence"...it's traits...how it works!

MY ANSWERS ARE BOLDED

cameron-how does an uncaused god make sense as a means of ending the cycle of cause and effect

--> if u are up for it...then define or explain "god"

WHY? YOUR ARTICULATION OF GOD IS THAT OF THE CREATOR ETC. THAT IS WHAT I AM ANSWERING. MY DEFINITION IS IRRELEVANT, IT IS YOUR'S THAT I AM ARGUING AGAINST.

cameron-your end game seems to be to remove as much cause from the equation as possible

--> Remove? on the contrary that gives us something more plausible than an infinite regress!

EXACTLY, YOU ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE REGRESS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. END THE REGRESS. MY POINT IS THAT MY WAY IS MORE EFFECTIVE. EXISTENCE EXISTS, NOTHING CREATED IT (THIS IS BECAUSE TO HAVE CREATED IS TO HAVE EXISTED AND TO CREATE EXISTENCE REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE WHICH DOESN'T EXIST). IF YOU CAN ACCEPT EXISTENCE EXISTENCE THEN YOU HAVE CUT OUR THE EXTRA REGRESS, THAT BEING THAT A GOD CREATED IT.

cameron-I'll do your job better

existence is the uncaused cause it exists nothing made it or created it boom, guess what, it also makes logical sense because to assert that something created existence requires some form of existence to exist, that existence being this creator at the least and where it lives etc, meaning that to create would really be to expand meaning not initially create which means the concept of a creator doesn't make any sense because it creates the already created meaning it isn't creating see the contradiction

EXISTENCE EXISTS. TAKING GOD OUT OF THE QUESTION GETS RID OF AN ADDITIONAL "REGRESS" (I THINK STEP IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND) IN THE CHAIN THAT IS EXISTENCE. HERE, YOU CLAIM MULTIPLE STEPS BUT YOUR SYSTEM REQUIRES AT LEAST THESE THREE GOD EXISTS --> GOD CREATES EXISTENCE --> EXISTENCE EXISTS, MY SYSTEM REQUIRES ONE EXISTENCE EXISTS. THERE ARE TWO STEPS TAKEN OUT WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER WAS WHY GOD MADE MORE SENSE AS A CREATOR THAT BEING THAT IT GETS RID OF THE INFINITE REGRESS.

LET ME ALSO SAY THAT YOUR INFINITE REGRESS IS PROBABLY BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG ETC FUNCTION AS STEPS. IF I AM CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION THEN THAT MAKES NO SENSE. THAT IS NOT THE CREATION OF EXISTENCE BUT RATHER OCCURENCES THAT HAPPENED WHILE EXISTENCE EXISTS (WHICH IS ETERNAL BUT TIME ISN'T A NECESSARY POINT IN THIS PART OF THE DEBATE, IT IS ETERNAL AS YOU WOULD CLAIM GOD IS IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THIS POINT). THESE ARE SIMPLY THINGS THAT WENT ON TO ALTER THE STATE OF EXISTENCE.

--> explain "existence is the uncaused cause"

REALLY JUST LOOK ABOVE. THERE IS NO CAUSE TO EXISTENCE (NO CREATOR ETC.) EXISTENCE SIMPLY EXISTS, IT IS ESSENTIALLY UNCAUSED. THE UNCAUSED CAUSE PHRASE REFERS TO THE EARLY POST SAYING THAT GOD IS UNCAUSED AND IS THE CAUSE OF EXISTENCE, ESSENTIALLY GOD IS THE UNCAUSED CAUSE, MY CLAIM IS THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS AND THAT IT IS THE UNCAUSED CAUSED OF EXISTENCE, THAT IS IT EXISTS BECAUSE IT EXISTS AND NON-EXISTENCE CAN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT IS NON-EXISTENT. THIS IS PHILOSOPHY STEMMING FROM PARMENEDES (I MAY HAVE SPELLED THAT WRONG), WHO IS AN ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHER, AND HAS GROWN INTO MANY PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS TODAY, MOST NOTABLY OBJECTIVISM. THE ESSENTIAL STATEMENT IS EXISTENCE EXISTS, NON-EXISTENCE DOES NOT EXISTS OR BEING BE'S NON-BEING BE'S NOT.

What makes up this "existence"...it's traits...how it works!

THAT WHICH IS. EXISTENCE IS EVERYTHING, IT DOESN'T WORK IT IS, IT EXISTS. EXISTENCE IS AN AXIOM (A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH). IT IS ONE OF THREE AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES ACCORDING TO OBJECTIVIST (WHICH IS SOMEWHAT THE BASE SYSTEM FOR THE ARGUMENT I AM PRESENTING SO I WILL CONTINUE USING ITS TERMINOLOGY). THE OTHER TWO PRINCIPLES ARE CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY. EXISTENCE HOWEVER HAS PRIMACY, THAT IS TO SAY, EXISTENCE IS THE CAUSE, THE BASIS, THE STEM FOR EVERYTHING. CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE AND IDENTITY IS HOW WE IDENTIFY IT. I.E. YOUR COMPUTER EXISTS, YOUR SENSES ALLOW YOU TO PERCEIVE IT, YOUR PAST INTERACTION ALLOWS YOU TO RECOGNIZE IT AND ITS CAPABILITIES, ESSENTIALLY THESE FUNCTION AS PERCEPTION AS WELL WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO PERCEIVE THE EXISTENCE OR TO CONSCIOUSLY REALIZE THIS EXISTENCE THEN WITH YOUR SENSES AND EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR COMPUTER YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT, AS YOUR COMPUTER. IT EXISTS, YOU PERCEIVE, YOU IDENTIFY.

This post has been edited by Cameron: Jun 1 2008, 04:35 PM

Ok Cameron lets say a being forms and creates another form of life. The created form of life could consider the being that created him his God. That is my point. Even though the Creator being is mortal and has traits of his creation can still be considered God. Even though the being doesn't posses the all power all mighty attributes we put with God. That was my point. Just cause a greater being maybe bald, big head, grey skin created man doesn't mean the grey skinned being was really God but just considered by his creation.

that is not the traditional notion of god but ok let's take up your claim. as proven by the fact that things occur post the initial creation i.e. miracles.

Let's take the premise of the "creator" creating the person who address the other as god. It requires that the necessary things to create that person existed. This is because if that "creator" created the necessary things to create that person he would be creating existence meaning you fall prey to my earlier post about how existence cannot be created.

Now assuming this creator manipulated essentially ingredients then they made this person.

If the creator made the person then it is essentially what occurs when a person makes a table or when a chef bakes a cake, why does that person gain reverence, should cakes pray to the chef to be digested by a good person as opposed to someone with irritable bowl syndrome so they don't become diarrhea? That makes no sense. The essence of worship etc is that the person has the capability to alter your future. I.e. you can go to heaven or hell. This maker doesn't have that capability. Also, how doesn't this person make you it doesn't make much sense. What does it mean to say that someone understands existence. Existence is existence, you aren't created but occurred. Define what it means to be created then I can explain why this concept doesn't make sense.

Also, the essential question, who made this grey skinned creator thing? Why do they not have to be created an we do.

cameron-WHY? YOUR ARTICULATION OF GOD IS THAT OF THE CREATOR ETC. THAT IS WHAT I AM ANSWERING. MY DEFINITION IS IRRELEVANT, IT IS YOUR'S THAT I AM ARGUING AGAINST.

--> How can u argue against the definition? what u can argue against is the existence of an entity so defined!


cameron-EXACTLY, YOU ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE REGRESS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. END THE REGRESS. MY POINT IS THAT MY WAY IS MORE EFFECTIVE. EXISTENCE EXISTS, NOTHING CREATED IT (THIS IS BECAUSE TO HAVE CREATED IS TO HAVE EXISTED AND TO CREATE EXISTENCE REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE WHICH DOESN'T EXIST). IF YOU CAN ACCEPT EXISTENCE EXISTENCE THEN YOU HAVE CUT OUR THE EXTRA REGRESS, THAT BEING THAT A GOD CREATED IT.

-->From where did u get that non-existence doesn't exist? Have u seen flying tigers?

cameron-EXISTENCE EXISTS. TAKING GOD OUT OF THE QUESTION GETS RID OF AN ADDITIONAL "REGRESS" (I THINK STEP IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND) IN THE CHAIN THAT IS EXISTENCE. HERE, YOU CLAIM MULTIPLE STEPS BUT YOUR SYSTEM REQUIRES AT LEAST THESE THREE GOD EXISTS --> GOD CREATES EXISTENCE --> EXISTENCE EXISTS, MY SYSTEM REQUIRES ONE EXISTENCE EXISTS. THERE ARE TWO STEPS TAKEN OUT WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER WAS WHY GOD MADE MORE SENSE AS A CREATOR THAT BEING THAT IT GETS RID OF THE INFINITE REGRESS.

--> It is not about "fewer steps," but "making sense".

But if it makes u happier, i can reduce it to a single step: God exists.

Whatever exists is, then, by the virtue of existence of god, the way u would state that whatever exists is by the virtue of existence of existence.

cameron-LET ME ALSO SAY THAT YOUR INFINITE REGRESS IS PROBABLY BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG ETC FUNCTION AS STEPS. IF I AM CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION THEN THAT MAKES NO SENSE. THAT IS NOT THE CREATION OF EXISTENCE BUT RATHER OCCURENCES THAT HAPPENED WHILE EXISTENCE EXISTS (WHICH IS ETERNAL BUT TIME ISN'T A NECESSARY POINT IN THIS PART OF THE DEBATE, IT IS ETERNAL AS YOU WOULD CLAIM GOD IS IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE THIS POINT). THESE ARE SIMPLY THINGS THAT WENT ON TO ALTER THE STATE OF EXISTENCE.

--> So allow us to know the state of "primordial" existence...what was the earliest occurrence?

Also, u have to explain the flow of time...and, ofcourse, the claim that it is eternal!

cameron-REALLY JUST LOOK ABOVE. THERE IS NO CAUSE TO EXISTENCE (NO CREATOR ETC.) EXISTENCE SIMPLY EXISTS, IT IS ESSENTIALLY UNCAUSED. THE UNCAUSED CAUSE PHRASE REFERS TO THE EARLY POST SAYING THAT GOD IS UNCAUSED AND IS THE CAUSE OF EXISTENCE, ESSENTIALLY GOD IS THE UNCAUSED CAUSE, MY CLAIM IS THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS AND THAT IT IS THE UNCAUSED CAUSED OF EXISTENCE, THAT IS IT EXISTS BECAUSE IT EXISTS AND NON-EXISTENCE CAN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT IS NON-EXISTENT. THIS IS PHILOSOPHY STEMMING FROM PARMENEDES (I MAY HAVE SPELLED THAT WRONG), WHO IS AN ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHER, AND HAS GROWN INTO MANY PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS TODAY, MOST NOTABLY OBJECTIVISM. THE ESSENTIAL STATEMENT IS EXISTENCE EXISTS, NON-EXISTENCE DOES NOT EXISTS OR BEING BE'S NON-BEING BE'S NOT.

--> greek philosophy is in no way fool-proof...philosophy of parmenides and zeno included!

It has nothing to do with proving and disproving!

cameron-THAT WHICH IS. EXISTENCE IS EVERYTHING, IT DOESN'T WORK IT IS, IT EXISTS. EXISTENCE IS AN AXIOM (A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH). IT IS ONE OF THREE AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES ACCORDING TO OBJECTIVIST (WHICH IS SOMEWHAT THE BASE SYSTEM FOR THE ARGUMENT I AM PRESENTING SO I WILL CONTINUE USING ITS TERMINOLOGY). THE OTHER TWO PRINCIPLES ARE CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY. EXISTENCE HOWEVER HAS PRIMACY, THAT IS TO SAY, EXISTENCE IS THE CAUSE, THE BASIS, THE STEM FOR EVERYTHING. CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE AND IDENTITY IS HOW WE IDENTIFY IT. I.E. YOUR COMPUTER EXISTS, YOUR SENSES ALLOW YOU TO PERCEIVE IT, YOUR PAST INTERACTION ALLOWS YOU TO RECOGNIZE IT AND ITS CAPABILITIES, ESSENTIALLY THESE FUNCTION AS PERCEPTION AS WELL WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO PERCEIVE THE EXISTENCE OR TO CONSCIOUSLY REALIZE THIS EXISTENCE THEN WITH YOUR SENSES AND EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR COMPUTER YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT, AS YOUR COMPUTER. IT EXISTS, YOU PERCEIVE, YOU IDENTIFY.

--> Resorting to objectivism doesn't help ur cause...u first need to prove it, rather than accept it as an infallible philosophy!

So, what i await is some stuff on: the state of primordial existence; the first occurrence; timelessness of time (paradox?); flow of time; evolution of "consciousness" and "identity"; irrefutability of greek and objectivist philosophy!

--> How can u argue against the definition? what u can argue against is the existence of an entity so defined!

I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST A DEFINITION, I'M SAYING THAT THE ENTITY OF GOD AS YOU DEFINE IT IS FALSE.

-->From where did u get that non-existence doesn't exist? Have u seen flying tigers?

THAT ISN'T NON-EXISTENCE, THAT IS AN ENTITY THAT DOESN'T OCCUR. NON-EXISTENCE IS THE POINT WHERE THERE IS NO EXISTENCE. WHERE THIS IS NO THING AKA NOTHING. PICTURE AS A VOID OF EXISTENCE, THAT CAN'T BE POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF THERE IS A GOD THAT CREATED EXISTENCE THEN THERE WAS A TIME BEFORE EXISTENCE THAT BEING NON-EXISTENCE AND THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. EXISTENCE ALWAYS EXISTED, IT WAS NOT CREATED BECAUSE TO CREATE REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

--> It is not about "fewer steps," but "making sense".

But if it makes u happier, i can reduce it to a single step: God exists.

Whatever exists is, then, by the virtue of existence of god, the way u would state that whatever exists is by the virtue of existence of existence.

YOU ARTICULATED IN YOUR FIRST POST THAT STEPS MATTER TO END THE REGRESS. NOW YOUR SINGLE STEP IS FLAWED BECAUSE IF IT IS ONLY GOD EXISTS THEN THERE IS NO CREATION. EXISTENCE EXISTS, AS IN WE DO THE WORLD DOES AS DOES THIS UNIVERSE, THEREFORE YOU REQUIRE THE THREE STEPS I DESCRIBED EARLIER. YOUR NEXT STEP PROVES THIS. MY CLAIMS IS THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS, IT ALWAYS HAS AND ALWAYS WILL. YOU SAY THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE MY QUESTION IS HOW DOES GOD MAKE SENSE. SOMETHING THAT WASN'T CREATED MAKING EVERYTHING (IF GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CREATED WHY DOES EXISTENCE?).

--> So allow us to know the state of "primordial" existence...what was the earliest occurrence?

Also, u have to explain the flow of time...and, ofcourse, the claim that it is eternal!

THERE IS NO PREDECESSOR TO EXISTENCE, IT ALWAYS WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE. TO ASSUME THAT THERE WAS A BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE (I.E. A CREATION) IMPLIES THAT THERE WAS A TIME BEFORE EXISTENCE THAT BEING A TIME OF NON-EXISTENCE WHICH CANNOT OCCUR BECAUSE NON-EXISTENCE CANNOT EXIST. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY THAT I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE FLOW OF TIME. EXISTENCE IS ETERNAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE THAT IS POSSIBLE, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS NON-EXISTENCE, WHICH I HAVE EXPLAINED IS IMPOSSIBLE.

--> greek philosophy is in no way fool-proof...philosophy of parmenides and zeno included!

It has nothing to do with proving and disproving!

I NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS FOOL-PROOF, I AM SIMPLY EXPLAINING WHERE MY ARGUMENT STEMS FROM. IT DOESN'T MEAN I AM RIGHT. I DON'T EVEN NECESSARILY BELIEVE IT, BUT IT IS THE ARGUMENT THAT I AM MAKING THAT YOU SEEM TO NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER. YOUR RIGHT PARMENIDES DOESN'T EQUAL TRUE BUT WHEN I APPLY IT AND YOU CAN'T RESPOND AGAINST THE REASONS BUT SIMPLY RESTATE WHAT YOU SAY YOU AREN'T WINNING IN YOUR ARGUMENTS.

--> Resorting to objectivism doesn't help ur cause...u first need to prove it, rather than accept it as an infallible philosophy!

ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS TRUE BECAUSE AYN RAND SAID IT. I AM SIMPLY EXPLAINING WHAT I AM REFERENCING AS THE BASIS OF MY ARGUMENT. I AM SORRY FOR TELLING YOU SOURCES FOR MY ARGUMENTS I WILL BE SURE TO NEVER AGAIN GIVE YOU A SEARCH TERM TO LOOK UP TO FIND PEOPLE WHO ARGUE AGAINST THE ARGUMENTS THAT I AM SAYING. SORRY FOR TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE FIND SOURCES TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT I AM TRYING TO GET ACROSS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT OBJECTIVISM MAKES ME WIN BUT SIMPLY EXPLAINING WHERE I AM GETTING MY LINE OF LOGIC FROM. ARGUE THAT POINT THEN I WILL RESPOND TO YOU.

So, what i await is some stuff on: the state of primordial existence; the first occurrence; timelessness of time (paradox?); flow of time; evolution of "consciousness" and "identity"; irrefutability of greek and objectivist philosophy!

THE ONLY THING HERE THAT MAKES ANY SENSE AS A QUESTION (OR IS AT LEAST NOT ANSWERED ABOVE) IS THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY. THE THREE AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES ARE EXISTENCE, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND IDENTITY. EXISTENCE IS THAT WHICH IS - BEING, EXISTNCE, ETC. CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE PERCEPTION OF EXISTENCE - THE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH IS. IDENTITY IS WHAT IS - THE WAY TO DISCERN THAT WHICH WE PERCEIVE (A TABLE IS A TABLE, NOT A CHAIR BECAUSE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES IT HAS).

ONCE AGAIN WHAT IS PRIMORDIAL EXISTENCE, THE FIRST OCCURRENCE, AND WHEN DO I SAY THAT GREEK/OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY ARE IRREFUTABLE, I AM SIMPLY STATING WHERE MY LOGIC IS BASED. FYI OBJECTIVISM IS AN EXTENSION OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY FROM PARMENIDES.

OH, ZENO ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, HE IS SIMPLY A FOLLOWER OF PARMENIDES BUT IS NOT PART OF THE BEGINNING OF OBJECTIVISM, SOME OF HIS LOGIC MAY HAVE COME OVER BUT MOST DOESN'T AS HE IS SIMPLY TRYING TO EXTEND PARMENIDES TO AN ABSURD POINT WHICH HAS BEEN MOSTLY REFUTED.

Before i turn my attention to ur post, i would want this clarified: do u intend a discussion based on logic, or on philosophy?

I hope u understand u need to do more than just base ur arguments on any philosophical school of thought! It is a gross abuse of common sense when somebody states that "the three axiomatic principles are...", when, in fact, these are naught more than tenets of a particular philosophy!

As for zeno: he was more than just a "follower," he was a disciple of parmenides, and his staunchest supporter and most devoted perpetrator of his cause! what zeno and his teacher did prove, if anything they could prove, was that misapplication of logic (based on unsound premises) spawns fallacious philosophy!

Before i turn my attention to ur post, i would want this clarified: do u intend a discussion based on logic, or on philosophy?

PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS (ESPECIALLY OBJECTIVISM) FORM THEIR IDEOLOGIES AS CHAINS OF LOGIC. OBJECTIVISM SPECIFICALLY BEGINS AS A CHAIN FROM 3 SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS THAT CANNOT BE LOGICALLY PROVEN INCORRECT BECAUSE TO ATTEMPT TO PROVE THEM FALSE REQUIRES FIRST ACCEPTING THEIR TRUTH (I.E. TO SAY EXISTENCE DOESN'T EXIST REQUIRES YOU TO ASSUME THAT YOU EXIST TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT) AND IT BUILDS UPON THOSE SYSTEMS. MY POINTS HAVE BEEN LOGICAL ENDPOINTS OF THESE ARGUMENTS. LOGIC ISN'T ONE STATMENT AT A TIME BUT RATHER A CHAIN, LOGIC IS VERY MUCH LIKE MATH WHERE PRIMISES ARE USED TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS TO BE USED LATER AS PREMISES.

I hope u understand u need to do more than just base ur arguments on any philosophical school of thought! It is a gross abuse of common sense when somebody states that "the three axiomatic principles are...", when, in fact, these are naught more than tenets of a particular philosophy!

AS STATED BEFORE. i AM SIMPLY EXPLAINING THE ROOT OF SOME OF MY ARGUMENTS. AND FURTHERMORE THEY ARE TENETS OF THAT PHILOSOPHY ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS. AS STATED ABOVE THEY ARE LOGICALLY PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT TO PROVE THEM FALSE REQUIRES THEIR ACCEPTANCE. YOU WANT AN ANSWER LOOK TO THINGS LIKE THE DIALETIC BY HEGEL AND STOP SAYING THAT BECAUSE I SAID OBJECTIVISM THAT I NOT ARGUING BUT SAYING BOOM I WIN, BECAUSE I AM NOT I AM USING THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS AS A ROOT FOR MY ARGUMENT JUST AS YOU ARE USING RELIGION FOR YOURS (RELIGION BEING VERY MUCH A PHILISOPHICAL SYSTEM).

As for zeno: he was more than just a "follower," he was a disciple of parmenides, and his staunchest supporter and most devoted perpetrator of his cause! what zeno and his teacher did prove, if anything they could prove, was that misapplication of logic (based on unsound premises) spawns fallacious philosophy!

I UNDERSTAND THIS. ZENO DID NOT USE UNSOUND PREMISES BUT RATHER USED A LOGICAL PRINCIPLE AND THAT IS REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM (REDUCED TO ABSURDITY). NOW MANY OF ZENO'S EXTENSIONS WERE PROVEN WRONG BUT NOT FOR OVER 1000 YEARS LATER WHEN NEWTON DEVISED CALCULOUS AND WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A SET DISTANCE BETWEEN 0 AND 1. IT WASN'T UNFOUND PREMISES BUT SIMPLY ONE UNKNOWN FACT. HOWEVER, THE EXTENSION OF PARMENIDES THAT I AM REFERENCING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ZENO'S EXTENSION ONLY THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE (WHICH HASN'T BEEN PROVEN WRONG BUT SIMPLY HAS COUNTER THEORIES HENCE WHY NO ONE HAS SAID HEY I HAVE SOLVED THE ULTIMATE EXISTENTIAL QUESTION OF ALL TIME) THAT PREMISES BEING THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS. PROVE THIS WRONG AND DON'T CRITICIZE FOLLOWERS OF THEORIES. THAT IS LIKE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REGARD OSAMA BIN LADEN AS THE PREEMINENT SCHOLAR IN ISLAMIC STUDIES BECAUSE HE USES SOME IDEAS FROM ISLAM AND THEN CREATES HIS OWN LOGICAL ENDPOINTS.

cameron-PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS (ESPECIALLY OBJECTIVISM) FORM THEIR IDEOLOGIES AS CHAINS OF LOGIC. OBJECTIVISM SPECIFICALLY BEGINS AS A CHAIN FROM 3 SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS THAT CANNOT BE LOGICALLY PROVEN INCORRECT BECAUSE TO ATTEMPT TO PROVE THEM FALSE REQUIRES FIRST ACCEPTING THEIR TRUTH (I.E. TO SAY EXISTENCE DOESN'T EXIST REQUIRES YOU TO ASSUME THAT YOU EXIST TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT) AND IT BUILDS UPON THOSE SYSTEMS. MY POINTS HAVE BEEN LOGICAL ENDPOINTS OF THESE ARGUMENTS. LOGIC ISN'T ONE STATMENT AT A TIME BUT RATHER A CHAIN, LOGIC IS VERY MUCH LIKE MATH WHERE PRIMISES ARE USED TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS TO BE USED LATER AS PREMISES.

-->Philosophical systems are based not necessarily on logic but on premises (which may lead to application or misapplication of logic)!

Talking about "flying tigers," the flying tigers definitely existed the moment i (or u) perceived them! Further, can i perceive something that was never in existence? Either way, flying tigers exist!

cameron-AS STATED BEFORE. i AM SIMPLY EXPLAINING THE ROOT OF SOME OF MY ARGUMENTS. AND FURTHERMORE THEY ARE TENETS OF THAT PHILOSOPHY ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS. AS STATED ABOVE THEY ARE LOGICALLY PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT TO PROVE THEM FALSE REQUIRES THEIR ACCEPTANCE. YOU WANT AN ANSWER LOOK TO THINGS LIKE THE DIALETIC BY HEGEL AND STOP SAYING THAT BECAUSE I SAID OBJECTIVISM THAT I NOT ARGUING BUT SAYING BOOM I WIN, BECAUSE I AM NOT I AM USING THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS AS A ROOT FOR MY ARGUMENT JUST AS YOU ARE USING RELIGION FOR YOURS (RELIGION BEING VERY MUCH A PHILISOPHICAL SYSTEM).

-->Saying "I am" does not equal to "I always was and will be"!

The question here is not whether "existence exists," but whether existence has always existed! I hope u understand the difference! If u could prove via "logic" that "existence always existed" instead of just force-approving it as self-evident truth (and thus not violate ur own rule), u would greatly contribute to the furthering of this discussion!

cameron-I UNDERSTAND THIS. ZENO DID NOT USE UNSOUND PREMISES BUT RATHER USED A LOGICAL PRINCIPLE AND THAT IS REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM (REDUCED TO ABSURDITY). NOW MANY OF ZENO'S EXTENSIONS WERE PROVEN WRONG BUT NOT FOR OVER 1000 YEARS LATER WHEN NEWTON DEVISED CALCULOUS AND WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A SET DISTANCE BETWEEN 0 AND 1. IT WASN'T UNFOUND PREMISES BUT SIMPLY ONE UNKNOWN FACT. HOWEVER, THE EXTENSION OF PARMENIDES THAT I AM REFERENCING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ZENO'S EXTENSION ONLY THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE (WHICH HASN'T BEEN PROVEN WRONG BUT SIMPLY HAS COUNTER THEORIES HENCE WHY NO ONE HAS SAID HEY I HAVE SOLVED THE ULTIMATE EXISTENTIAL QUESTION OF ALL TIME) THAT PREMISES BEING THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS. PROVE THIS WRONG AND DON'T CRITICIZE FOLLOWERS OF THEORIES. THAT IS LIKE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REGARD OSAMA BIN LADEN AS THE PREEMINENT SCHOLAR IN ISLAMIC STUDIES BECAUSE HE USES SOME IDEAS FROM ISLAM AND THEN CREATES HIS OWN LOGICAL ENDPOINTS.

-->That zeno's fallacy was categorically refuted through calculus doesn't at all add to it's glory! It remains that he would lay down an unsound premise to come up with a nonsense conclusion!

Again, nobody is refuting that existence exists. What is being challenged is whether "existence always existed"! Ayn or parmenides can choose to not be able to conceptualize "non-being," but it doesn't amount to much, does it? Please prove the identity of the first existent (evolution of identity), and when it was first perceived (evolution of consciousness)! Also, what role do time and space play?

If u think achilles can never overtake the tortoise...it's ur philospohy; but don't equate criticizing parmenides or zeno with endorsing laden!

-->Philosophical systems are based not necessarily on logic but on premises (which may lead to application or misapplication of logic)!

PREMISES LEAD TO CONCLUSIONS. HOW? THROUGH LOGICAL APPLICATION HENCE WHY PREMISE IS A TERM OF ART FOR LOGICAL APPLICATION. EITHER WAY THIS IS IRRELEVANT AS THAT IS HOW OBJECTIVISM FORMS ITS SCHOOL OF THOUGH. ALSO WHY DOES IT MATTER? I SAID I AM USING AN OBJECTIVIST ARGUMENT NOW ANSWER THE ARGUMENT, STOP ARGUING WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

Talking about "flying tigers," the flying tigers definitely existed the moment i (or u) perceived them! Further, can i perceive something that was never in existence? Either way, flying tigers exist!

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. YOUR PERCEPTION DOESN'T CREATE EXISTENCE. HENCE WHY THERE AREN'T FLYING TIGERS EVERYWHERE. WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING IS THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE, EXISTENCE HAS PRIMACY BECAUSE CONSCIOUSNESS IS FIRST THE PERCEPTION OF THAT WHICH EXISTS AND SECONDLY EXISENCE IS THE NECESSARY PRECONDITION FOR CONSCIOUSNESS.

-->Saying "I am" does not equal to "I always was and will be"!

UM, WHAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN HERE PLEASE EXPLAIN.

The question here is not whether "existence exists," but whether existence has always existed! I hope u understand the difference! If u could prove via "logic" that "existence always existed" instead of just force-approving it as self-evident truth (and thus not violate ur own rule), u would greatly contribute to the furthering of this discussion!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING, IT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED BECAUSE TO HAVE NOT EXISTED REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE TO HAVE EXISTED, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. EXISTENCE CANNOT NOT EXIST. THAT IS LOGIC BECAUSE THE CONTRADICTION PROVES IMPOSSIBILITY. I HAVE NOT BEEN JUST SAYING IT'S SELF-EVIDENT, I HAVE EXPLAINED MULTIPLE TIMES WHY IT IS, READ THEN ENTIRE POST NEXT TIME MAYBE.

-->That zeno's fallacy was categorically refuted through calculus doesn't at all add to it's glory! It remains that he would lay down an unsound premise to come up with a nonsense conclusion!

ZENO IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION DUDE, I AM REFERING TO ONE STATEMENT THAT PARMENIDES SAID. SAYING THAT BECAUSE I STEM FROM ONE AUTHOR THAT I ASSUME EVERYTHING THEY SAID. THAT IS LIKE SAYING ALL NON-CHRISTIANS BELIEVE MURDER IS OKAY BECAUSE TO SAY THAT IT ISN'T RIGHT MAKES THEM CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THAT IS ONE STATEMENT OF CHRISTIANITY.

Again, nobody is refuting that existence exists. What is being challenged is whether "existence always existed"! Ayn or parmenides can choose to not be able to conceptualize "non-being," but it doesn't amount to much, does it? Please prove the identity of the first existent (evolution of identity), and when it was first perceived (evolution of consciousness)! Also, what role do time and space play?

EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED LOOK ABOVE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE FIRST EXISTENCE? EXISTENCE IS, WAS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE. CONSCIOUSNESS HAS EXISTED SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THEIR SURROUNDINGS, AKA TO CONSCIOUSLY PERCEIVE EXISTENCE. I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST CREATURE, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT. ABOUT THE PERCEPTION OF NON-BEING. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. EXPLAIN HOW NON-EXISTENCE CAN EXIST? IT IS NON-EXISTENCE MEANING IT DOES NOT EXIST. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER WAYS I CAN EXPLAIN THAT EXISTENCE IS INFINITE. IT CANNOT NOT EXIST WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS NOTHING SURROUNDING IT BECAUSE TO HAVE SOMETHING SURROUND IT WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT IS NON-EXISTENT (WHICH MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST) AND TO HAVE HAD SOMETHING BEFORE IT WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T EXISTENCE AND THAT IS NON-EXISTENCE AS WELL SO IT DOESN'T EXIST.

If u think achilles can never overtake the tortoise...it's ur philospohy; but don't equate criticizing parmenides or zeno with endorsing laden!

ONCE AGAIN, WHY DOES A CLAIM BY ZENO MAKE ME WRONG. LOOK ABOVE AT THE CHRISTIANITY EXAMPLE. NOW GUESS WHAT, NO ONE COULD PROVE ZENO WRONG FOR OVER 1000 YEARS. NOW EVEN WITH CALCULUS YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO PROVE ME WRONG BECAUSE GUESS WHAT, MY PHILOSOPHY ISN'T USING THE CONCEPT OF INFINITE DIVIDE BETWEEN 1 AND 0. THIS IS WHY ZENO IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. PARMENIDES SAID ONE BASIC STATEMENT WHICH I HAVE STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. EXISTENCE EXISTS AND NON-EXISTENCE DOES NOT EXIST. ARGUE THAT POINT (WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE OBJECTIVIST DISCUSSION BUT ONCE AGAIN I AM ONLY USING IT AS A REFERENCE SO YOU CAN GO FIND SOME ACTUAL ANSWERS I.E. THE DIALECTIC ETC). IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT EXISTENCE DOESN'T EXIST OR THAT NON-EXISTENCE DOES THEN WE CAN CONTINUE BUT ARGUING A POINT ABOUT ZENO THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS DISCUSSION IS GETTING RIDICULOUS GET BACK TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD AND STOP DRIVING OTHER PEOPLE AWAY FROM THIS THREAD BECAUSE YOU WON'T ARGUE THE ACTUAL TOPIC.

camaron-PREMISES LEAD TO CONCLUSIONS. HOW? THROUGH LOGICAL APPLICATION HENCE WHY PREMISE IS A TERM OF ART FOR LOGICAL APPLICATION. EITHER WAY THIS IS IRRELEVANT AS THAT IS HOW OBJECTIVISM FORMS ITS SCHOOL OF THOUGH. ALSO WHY DOES IT MATTER? I SAID I AM USING AN OBJECTIVIST ARGUMENT NOW ANSWER THE ARGUMENT, STOP ARGUING WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.

--> Do u understand the difference between premises and logic?

Premises lead to conlcusions...but not always the correct ones; reaching the *right* conclusion involves laying down the correct premises and applying (against misapplying) logic.

If u don't understand this much, let's try and/to clear it up for u. Else make an admission that it is not logic but premise that spawns philosophy, especially faied ones!

And refrain from telling me what i do and do not know...sounds like cribbing!

camaron-WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. YOUR PERCEPTION DOESN'T CREATE EXISTENCE. HENCE WHY THERE AREN'T FLYING TIGERS EVERYWHERE. WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING IS THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE, EXISTENCE HAS PRIMACY BECAUSE CONSCIOUSNESS IS FIRST THE PERCEPTION OF THAT WHICH EXISTS AND SECONDLY EXISENCE IS THE NECESSARY PRECONDITION FOR CONSCIOUSNESS.

Where do u think my perception exists? In a non-existent world, outside the real world?

If my perception exists (in the real world), then what i perceive must also exist in the real world.

I (personally) find pretty embarrassing having to explain this to somebody who wants a logical conlcusion to the existence of god!

UM, WHAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN HERE PLEASE EXPLAIN.

--> Do u exist? In the real world? Have u always existed?

camaron-THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING, IT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED BECAUSE TO HAVE NOT EXISTED REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE TO HAVE EXISTED, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. EXISTENCE CANNOT NOT EXIST. THAT IS LOGIC BECAUSE THE CONTRADICTION PROVES IMPOSSIBILITY. I HAVE NOT BEEN JUST SAYING IT'S SELF-EVIDENT, I HAVE EXPLAINED MULTIPLE TIMES WHY IT IS, READ THEN ENTIRE POST NEXT TIME MAYBE.

-->What is this "it" that has always existed? Existence or an existant?

A painting is non-existent until the artist puts it down on the canvass!

Go back to my flying tigers...either accept that flying tigers exist simply because i perceive them, or accept that there can be a state of non-existence for the painting (and, yeah...don't camouflage it as non-occurrence...doesn't sell!)

So why must it be that non-existence never existed? Don't just fire blanket statements!

camaron-ZENO IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION DUDE, I AM REFERING TO ONE STATEMENT THAT PARMENIDES SAID. SAYING THAT BECAUSE I STEM FROM ONE AUTHOR THAT I ASSUME EVERYTHING THEY SAID. THAT IS LIKE SAYING ALL NON-CHRISTIANS BELIEVE MURDER IS OKAY BECAUSE TO SAY THAT IT ISN'T RIGHT MAKES THEM CHRISTIANS BECAUSE THAT IS ONE STATEMENT OF CHRISTIANITY.

--> If names are irrelevant then don't throw in names; i am interested in the nature of ur refuge...not the names of those u seek refuge with!

camaron-EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED LOOK ABOVE.

--> Blanket statement!

camaron-WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE FIRST EXISTENCE? EXISTENCE IS, WAS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

--> First existant...not existence; who or what first had the ability to perceive or be perceived? And how did existence seperate into identity and consciousness?

camaron- CONSCIOUSNESS HAS EXISTED SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THEIR SURROUNDINGS, AKA TO CONSCIOUSLY PERCEIVE EXISTENCE.

--> Since when have these things been? What "things"? What "surroundings"? When did state of identifying and perceving come about? And how?

Was that the start of time? Did space already exist? Or did time exist before space?

I can do without blanket statements!

I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST CREATURE, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

--> Why is it irrelevant?

Did the first existant have the ability to perceive?

Or was the first existant not conscious?

Don't try to brush it away as irrelevant!

camaron- ABOUT THE PERCEPTION OF NON-BEING. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. EXPLAIN HOW NON-EXISTENCE CAN EXIST? IT IS NON-EXISTENCE MEANING IT DOES NOT EXIST. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER WAYS I CAN EXPLAIN THAT EXISTENCE IS INFINITE. IT CANNOT NOT EXIST WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS NOTHING SURROUNDING IT BECAUSE TO HAVE SOMETHING SURROUND IT WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT IS NON-EXISTENT (WHICH MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST) AND TO HAVE HAD SOMETHING BEFORE IT WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T EXISTENCE AND THAT IS NON-EXISTENCE AS WELL SO IT DOESN'T EXIST.

--> Hmmm...u are right, I don't understand blank statements! Please prove something, else i can say with equal abrasiveness, "what kind are u? can't u understand god always existed because god can not be non-existent!"

Not meaning to embarrass u, but blanks statements have nothing to do with logic!

camaron-ONCE AGAIN, WHY DOES A CLAIM BY ZENO MAKE ME WRONG. LOOK ABOVE AT THE CHRISTIANITY EXAMPLE. NOW GUESS WHAT, NO ONE COULD PROVE ZENO WRONG FOR OVER 1000 YEARS. NOW EVEN WITH CALCULUS YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO PROVE ME WRONG BECAUSE GUESS WHAT, MY PHILOSOPHY ISN'T USING THE CONCEPT OF INFINITE DIVIDE BETWEEN 1 AND 0. THIS IS WHY ZENO IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.

--> No, zeno or parmenides got nothing to do with u...(so,) how can they make u wrong? I wonder what made u think my condemning zeno is ur condemnation!

And, no, zeno is not irrelavant because he exemplifies the abuse of logic...and blank statements have nothing to do with logic, either!

camaron- PARMENIDES SAID ONE BASIC STATEMENT WHICH I HAVE STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. EXISTENCE EXISTS AND NON-EXISTENCE DOES NOT EXIST. ARGUE THAT POINT (WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE OBJECTIVIST DISCUSSION BUT ONCE AGAIN I AM ONLY USING IT AS A REFERENCE SO YOU CAN GO FIND SOME ACTUAL ANSWERS I.E. THE DIALECTIC ETC). IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT EXISTENCE DOESN'T EXIST OR THAT NON-EXISTENCE DOES THEN WE CAN CONTINUE BUT ARGUING A POINT ABOUT ZENO THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS DISCUSSION IS GETTING RIDICULOUS GET BACK TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD AND STOP DRIVING OTHER PEOPLE AWAY FROM THIS THREAD BECAUSE YOU WON'T ARGUE THE ACTUAL TOPIC.

--> Exactly! Do u understand the difference between "non-existence doesn't exist" and "non-existence never existed"?

If u don't, then i would be glad to see u carry on this "discussion" with somebody who shares a similar lack of understanding!

And like i said, there is also the factor of "intelligent design" versus "chance events"! For me, it is about being logical and picking that which is more plausible...and not just losing the entire exercise in assumptions!

The way i see it, it is not logic but blank statements that u are banking on...I admit i was deceived by the clever use of the word "logic" in the title!

camaron- CONSCIOUSNESS HAS EXISTED SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THEIR SURROUNDINGS, AKA TO CONSCIOUSLY PERCEIVE EXISTENCE. I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST CREATURE, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

--> Okay, the way u have put it there, it does seem that u are suggesting that consciousness is not as primeval as existence; as u put it, "consciousness has existed since there have been things..."

So what u seem to be saying is that the "state of consciously perceiving" was an evolution! Put differently, u have said that the state of not perceiving preceded the state of perceiving! In other words, u have just stated that a state of being (consciousness) came out of a state of not-being (not-consciousness)!

And that is the very impossibility u are supposed to be arguing against!

--> Do u understand the difference between premises and logic?

Premises lead to conlcusions...but not always the correct ones; reaching the *right* conclusion involves laying down the correct premises and applying (against misapplying) logic.

If u don't understand this much, let's try and/to clear it up for u. Else make an admission that it is not logic but premise that spawns philosophy, especially faied ones!

And refrain from telling me what i do and do not know...sounds like cribbing!

YES I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT A PREMISE IS A FACTOR OF LOGICAL EQUATION? YES A PREMISE DOES SPAWN PHILOSOPHY, BUT YOU MISUNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THROUGH PREMISES THAT WE CAN DRAW CONCLUSIONS. YES WE MUCH CHECK THOSE PREMISES TO ENSURE THEY ARE ACCURATE, BUT YOU HAVE NEVER DISPROVEN THE PREMISES THAT I HAVE DEFENDED. STOP TALKING ABOUT THE THEORY OF PHILOSOPHY AND START ANSWERING THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS. ONLY I HAVE DEFENDED THE PREMISE THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS AND WHY THAT DISPROVES YOUR CLAIM, ONLY I CONTINUE TO ARGUE THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD. DO IT OR STOP POSTING. OH, AND DOESN'T WHAT YOU JUST POSTED TELL ME WHAT I DO AND DON'T KNOW? EXCEPT THAT YOUR EXPLANATION DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN YOUR DEFENSE.

Where do u think my perception exists? In a non-existent world, outside the real world?

If my perception exists (in the real world), then what i perceive must also exist in the real world.

I (personally) find pretty embarrassing having to explain this to somebody who wants a logical conlcusion to the existence of god!

WHAT DO YOU MEAN THIS IS EMBARRASSING, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. YOU PERCEIVE WHAT IS EXISTENCE, CONSCIOUSNESS IS YOUR SENSORY PERCEPTION OF THAT WHICH EXISTS. IT DOESN'T CREATE EXISTENCE OR ALTER ITS STATE. THERE IS A PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE WHICH YOU HAVE NOT ARTICULATED AN ANSWER FOR AND WHICH I HAVE EXPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES. WHAT YOU PERCEIEVE IS IN EXISTENCE BUT YOU DID NOT CREATE THAT EXISTENCE, IT WAS ALREADY THERE FORE YOU TO PERCEIVE AT THE TIME IN WHICH YOU PERCEIVED IT.

UM, WHAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN HERE PLEASE EXPLAIN.

--> Do u exist? In the real world? Have u always existed?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IN THE REAL WORLD? IS THERE SOME NON-REAL WORLD? NO BECAUSE IF IT IS NOT PART OF EXISTENCE THEN IT DOESN'T EXIST. YES I EXIST. I WAS BORN YES, BUT THE MATTER OF WHICH I WAS MADE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. BUT I ALSO DON'T CLAIM TO HAVE EXISTED PREEXISTENCE, THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH GOD, HE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE EXISTED IN NON-EXISTENCE AND TO HAVE CREATED IT, THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.

-->What is this "it" that has always existed? Existence or an existant?

A painting is non-existent until the artist puts it down on the canvass!

Go back to my flying tigers...either accept that flying tigers exist simply because i perceive them, or accept that there can be a state of non-existence for the painting (and, yeah...don't camouflage it as non-occurrence...doesn't sell!)

So why must it be that non-existence never existed? Don't just fire blanket statements!

EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. THE PAINTING ISN'T NON-EXISTENT BUT SIMPLY IS IN AN ALTERNATE STATE. IT ISN'T CREATED OUT OF NON-EXISTENCE, THIS IS A HORRIBLE ANALOGY FOR GOD. TIGERS DO NOT EXIST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE THEM. YOUR SENSES HAVE NEVER CREATED THAT PERCEPTION FOR YOU. WHEN HAVE YOU TOUCHED, OR TASTED, OR SMELLED, A FLYING TIGER. YOU DON'T PERCEIVE BUT IMAGINE THIS IS NOT THE TOOL OF CONSCIOUSNESS. AND AS EXPLAINED ABOVE CONSCIOUSNESS DOESN'T MAKE EXISTENCE ONLY PERCEIVES THAT WHICH EXISTS. AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN NON-OCCURRENCE DOESN'T SELL, IT HASN'T OCCURRED, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN FLYING TIGERS, IT ISN'T POSSIBLE THAT TIGERS CAN EVOLVE BUT THAT ISN'T A CREATION FROM NON-EXISTENCE BUT AN ALTERATION TO THE STATE OF THE TIGER USING ALREADY EXISTING ELEMENTS OF EXISTENCE. ALTERATION AND DIFFERENCE ISN'T CREATION.

NOW ARE YOU BEING INTENTIONALLY THICK? HOW CAN NON-EXISTENCE EXIST? IS IT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE REALM WHERE THINGS DO NOT EXIST DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING EXISTING THERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO THERE THAT EXISTS? NON-EXISTENCE IS NON-EXISTENCE. NOW IF I WERE TO TRAVEL BEYOND EXISTENCE, REACH ITS OUTER LIMIT (WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE, HERE'S WHY) THEN I SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND SOMETHING THAT ISN'T EXISTENCE (THAT IS NON-EXISTENCE) BUT WHAT WILL I FIND? I CANNOT FIND ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING EXISTING THERE. BECAUSE THAT IS NON-EXISTENCE. SO HOW DOES THAT NON-EXISTENCE TAKE UP SPACE? ESPECIALLY WHEN TO TAKE UP SPACE MEANS THAT IT IS AN EXISTENCE BUT IS BY NAME NON-EXISTENCE AND IS THUS BY DEFENITION, NON-EXISTING.

--> If names are irrelevant then don't throw in names; i am interested in the nature of ur refuge...not the names of those u seek refuge with!

I WAS GIVING YOU A SOURCE. CALM DOWN. BESIDES YOU INTRODUCED ZENO INTO THE DISCUSSION I SIMPLY STATE THE ORIGIN OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE I WAS ARGUING AND THEN NAMING THE PHILOSOPHY FROM WHICH MOST OF MY ARGUMENTS DERIVE.

camaron-EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED LOOK ABOVE.

--> Blanket statement!

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN, BLANKET STATEMENT. LOOK ABOVE WHERE THE POST PROVING THAT STATEMENT WAS. JUST SAYING BLANKET STATEMENT ISN'T AN ARGUMENT, IT IS A BLANKET STATEMENT. LOOK I'M NOT GOING TO RETYPE EVERYTHING BECAUSE YOU ASK THE SAME QUESTION MULTIPLE TIMES AND DON'T GET THAT I ANSWER THEM THE SAME WAY BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENTS HAVE THE SAME FLAW. I HAVE EXPLAINED EXISTENCE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED ALMOST 5 TIMES NOW, SORRY FOR NOT WANTING TO REWRITE IT AGAIN.

--> First existant...not existence; who or what first had the ability to perceive or be perceived? And how did existence seperate into identity and consciousness?

EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS RELEVANT. NEXT I DON'T KNOW I WAS CONSCIOUSLY AWARE AT THIS TIME, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT WASN'T A BEING THAT CREATED EXISTENCE BECAUSE THAT MEAN IT WAS AN EXISTANT IN NON-EXISTENCE. A FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTION.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN EXISTENCE SEPARATE. CONSCIOUSNESS IS A WAY OF PERCEIVING EXISTENCE, IT ISN'T EXISTENCE, AND IDENTITY IS THE WAY OF IDENTIFYING EXISTENCE. THEY ARE FUNCTIONS THAT OPERATE IN EXISTENCE NOT A PIECE OF IT. IT ISN'T LIKE A PIECE OF EXISTENCE BROKE OFF AND BECAME THESE TWO PRINCIPLES. THEY ARE TOOLS TO UNDERSTANDING EXISTENCE.

--> Since when have these things been? What "things"? What "surroundings"? When did state of identifying and perceving come about? And how?

Was that the start of time? Did space already exist? Or did time exist before space?

I can do without blanket statements! - SHUT UP!!! I HAVE EXPLAINED EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID, STOP CALLING ARGUMENT THAT I AM NOT GOING TO REPEAT EVERY PROOF I HAVE ARTICULATED TO SHOW THEIR ACCURACY A BLANKET STATEMENT, JUST ANSWER THEM.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER? I WASN'T THERE I DON'T KNOW. BUT IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT CREATED EXISTENCE, AS STATED ABOVE (AND EXPLAINED SO READ IT INSTEAD OF SAYING "BLANKET STATEMENT).

EXISTENCE IS INFINITE, IT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED AND EXISTS EVERYWHERE. THERE IS NO TIME THAT EXISTENCE DIDN'T EXIST BECAUSE TO ASSUME A TIME WITHOUT EXISTENCE ASSUMES A TIME WHERE NON-EXISTENCE EXISTED, THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE AS I HAVE EXPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES. THERE ALSO IS NO SPACE THAT IS NOT EXISTENCE AS THAT MEANS THERE IS SPACE THAT IS NON-EXISTENCE WHICH MEANS THAT NON-EXISTENCE HAS TO EXIST AND TAKE SPACE, I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE.

I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST CREATURE, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

--> Why is it irrelevant?

Did the first existant have the ability to perceive?

Or was the first existant not conscious?

Don't try to brush it away as irrelevant!

EXPLAIN WHY IT IS RELEVANT. I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED ABOUT THE "FIRST CREATURE" ABOVE. I DON'T KNOW IT BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A BEING WHICH CREATED EXISTENCE, AKA GOD.

--> Hmmm...u are right, I don't understand blank statements! Please prove something, else i can say with equal abrasiveness, "what kind are u? can't u understand god always existed because god can not be non-existent!"

Not meaning to embarrass u, but blanks statements have nothing to do with logic!

WHAT IS UP WITH YOU AND YOUR ABILITY TO GET OFF WITH THESE TWO WORDS. TELL ME ONE "BLANKET STATEMENT" THAT I HAVE MADE THAT I HAVEN'T EXPLAINED. LISTENT I HAVE POSTED PAGES OF ARGUMENTS FOR YOU. I DON'T EXPECT TO MAKE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. BUT I DO EXPECT YOU TO HAVE THE CURTIOSY TO READ MY POSTS AND NOT MAKE ME RETYPE EVERYTHING. I HAVE EXPLAINED, IN MULITPLE WAYS, EVERY STATEMENT I HAVE. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEN ASK BUT DON'T TRY TO SAY THAT MY ARGUMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T EXPLAINED THEM, I HAVE. THEY ARE ONLY BLANKET STATEMENTS BECAUSE YOU ARE ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND I AM NOT GOING TO ANSWER THEM BY WRITING MY ENTIRE LIFE THE FULL EXPLANATION MULTIPLE TIMES. OH, AND NOT ARGUING OR NOT LOOKING AT EXPLANATIONS BUT IGNORING THE LOGIC ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGIC.

--> No, zeno or parmenides got nothing to do with u...(so,) how can they make u wrong? I wonder what made u think my condemning zeno is ur condemnation!

And, no, zeno is not irrelavant because he exemplifies the abuse of logic...and blank statements have nothing to do with logic, either!

YOU ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT MY ARGUMENTS BY TIEING IN SOMEONE WHO IS IRRELEVANT TO MY ARGUMENT. AND I AM NOT USING BLANKET STATEMENTS.

--> Exactly! Do u understand the difference between "non-existence doesn't exist" and "non-existence never existed"?

If u don't, then i would be glad to see u carry on this "discussion" with somebody who shares a similar lack of understanding!

And like i said, there is also the factor of "intelligent design" versus "chance events"! For me, it is about being logical and picking that which is more plausible...and not just losing the entire exercise in assumptions!

The way i see it, it is not logic but blank statements that u are banking on...I admit i was deceived by the clever use of the word "logic" in the title!

I HAVE EXPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR NON-EXISTNCE TO HAVE EVER EXISTED, THAT IS BECAUSE NON-EXISTENCE CAN'T EXIST. NOW INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CHANCE EVENTS, WHAT THE HELL DOESN'T THAT HAVE TO DO WITH A TIME OF NON-EXISTENCE? LISTEN THERE CANNOT HAVE BEEN A CREATION (AKA INTELLIGENT DESIGN) BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES NON-EXISTENCE TO EXIST, THAT ISN'T POSSIBLE (I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT ABOVE AND IN OTHER POSTS). CHANCE EVENTS AREN'T CREATION BUT AND ALTERATION IN EXISTENCE THAT IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT ISN'T THE CREATION OF EXISTENCE.

NOW SERIOUSLY IF YOU ARGUE THAT I SAY BLANK STATEMENTS AGAIN OR THAT I AM NOT USING LOGIC I AM GOING TO BLOW. ARE YOU READING WHAT I'M WRITING OR DOES IT JUST GO OVER YOU. I HAVE EXPLAINED WHY MY PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS MUST BE TRUE VIA LOGICAL ANALYSIS. YOU HAVE NOT EVEN MADE ONE ARGUMENT IN THIS POST BUT ASKED THE SAME QUESTION OVER AGAIN. THAT ISN'T LOGIC, LOGIC ISN'T NOT MAKING ARGUMENTS. LOGIC IS FORMING EQUATIONS OF THOUGHT TO PROVIDE CONCLUSIONS FROM PREMISES. I HAVE BEEN DOING THAT WITH EVERY REITTERATION AND DIFFERENT WAY OF APPROACHING THE EXPLANATIONS I HAVE GIVEN YOU. NOW CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE AN ARGUMENT, PREFERABLY ONE RELATED TO THIS THREAD. STOP TRYING TO WEASEL YOUR WAY OUT OF THE DEBATE BY CRITICIZING MY STATEMENTS BUT NOT EVEN EXPLAINING HOW THEY ARE BLANK STATEMENTS. I HAVE EXPLAINED THEM AND PROVIDED ANALYSES AS TO WHY MY PREMISES AND THEIR FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS PROVE YOUR ARGUMENTS WRONG. IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT STOP POSTING.

--> Okay, the way u have put it there, it does seem that u are suggesting that consciousness is not as primeval as existence; as u put it, "consciousness has existed since there have been things..."

So what u seem to be saying is that the "state of consciously perceiving" was an evolution! Put differently, u have said that the state of not perceiving preceded the state of perceiving! In other words, u have just stated that a state of being (consciousness) came out of a state of not-being (not-consciousness)!

And that is the very impossibility u are supposed to be arguing against!

CONSCIOUSNESS WASN'T CREATED. IT ALSO ISN'T A THING. CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ABILITY TO PERCEIVE EXISTENCE. IT HAS EXISTED AS AN ABILITY IN EVERYTHING THAT CAN PERCEIVE ITS SURROUNDINGS. MOUNTAINS DO NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MENS OF IDENTIFYING THEIR SURROUNDINGS THEY HAVE SIMPLY NO SENSE PERCEPTION, HOWEVER A FLY DOES HAVE THIS ABILITY, AS DOES A FISH, BIRD, AND HUMAN.

IT WAS NOT CREATED FROM NON-EXISTENCE. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE MATERIALS TO BE USED IN ITS CREATION ASIDE FROM WHAT SCIENCE MAY LATER DETERMINE AS A CERTAIN BALANCE OF CHEMICALS IN THE BRAIN OR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF BRAIN MASS OR WHAT NOT. ALL OF THESE THINGS OCCUR ALREADY HENCE THEY ARE NOT CREATED. WHEN A BABY IS PROCREATED, IT DOESN'T COME FROM NOTHING, IT REQUIRES OF COURSE THE SPERM AND THE EGG BUT THEN REQUIRES NUTRITION FROM THE MOTHER TO SUSTAIN IT. IT GROWS VIA THE NUTRITIONAL ELEMENTS FROM THE FOOD AND IS EVENTUALLY BORN TO CONTINUE GROWING VIA FOOD NUTRITION. THAT BABY DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE THE MOTHER AS THAT BABY BUT DID EXIST AS THE SUSTINENCE THAT CREATED IT IN OTHER FORMS. THAT IS WHY I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST CREATURE (TO ANSWER YOUR OTHER POST, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE IT). NOW CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ABILITY, NOT A THING TO BE CREATED BUT A TOOL TO BE USED BY BEINGS THAT CAN POSSES IT, WHETHER BY BRAIN MATTER ETC.

I am creating this topic as a place for people to put arguments based on compounding premises. By that I mean this topic is for logical application to arguments, i.e. reasons for why a god may or may not exist. This is NOT a topic where faith is an axiomatic principle, axiomatic meaning self-evidently true. I'm not against faith but I want a thread area (which I hope this topic eventually evolves into) where I can argue with people who will not say I believe it and the discussion is over.

That being said, this topic/thread is supposed to be completely open-minded. It is a place for people to make arguments and debate them out. Please do not post once, assert something, and never come back. Debate it out, that is the point.

This topic is - God Exist (Any god) Yes or No...

I'll start:

No: the premise that it is necessary for a God to create existence is a false choice. If it is necessary for existence to be created, then it is also necessary for its creator to be created. This principle (when applied more universally than just in reference to religion) is usually called the Primacy of Existence. That is simply existence exists as an axiomatic principle (a self-evident truth). To argue against that (i.e. to say it was created) presupposes that it exists to establish that argument. I.e. God is the creator who created existence, however, if before God there was no existence then where did god exist, in fact how did god exist if there is nothing that existed and if god does not have to have an existence to exist than how is it possible for God to exist, for existence cannot exist in non-existence and it is impossible for non-existence to exist, because it doesn't exist.

You like to create the typhoon confined within the dew
You seek hidden ALLAH to become public view