Existence is secondary hence all ontological argument are false

[Bahman]

A tools with many purposes:

Assume a system in a given state/form, lets call it S. This state can cause another state, lets call S’. Two states cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ takes place which requires the existence and non-existence of S which is problematic. Hence the awareness of S must exist in consciousness which can create S’.

Proof of all ontological arguments are false:
This means that existence is subjected to decay hence it is secondary meaning that it could only exist in presence of consciousness. Hence all ontological arguments for existence of God are false since existence owe its essence to consciousness.

 

[edarlitrix]

Have you read George Berkeley’s works? I think you would find them interesting.

Thank you for posting.

I am not sure though, isn’t consciousness a manifestation of existence?

 

[Tomdstone]

A tools with many purposes:

Assume a system in a given state/form, lets call it S. This state can cause another state, lets call S’. Two states cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ takes place which requires the existence and non-existence of S which is problematic. Hence the awareness of S must exist in consciousness which can create S’.

Proof of all ontological arguments are false:
This means that existence is subjected to decay hence it is secondary meaning that it could only exist in presence of consciousness. Hence all ontological arguments for existence of God are false since existence owe its essence to consciousness.

IMHO, awareness that a rock exists and the fact that it exists without our being aware of it are two different things.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A tools with many purposes:

Assume a system in a given state/form, lets call it S. This state can cause another state, lets call S’. Two states cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ takes place which requires the existence and non-existence of S which is problematic. Hence the awareness of S must exist in consciousness which can create S’.

Proof of all ontological arguments are false:
This means that existence is subjected to decay hence it is secondary meaning that it could only exist in presence of consciousness. Hence all ontological arguments for existence of God are false since existence owe its essence to consciousness.

If you are saying that the oak tree must vanish before it produces acorns, you are wrong. If you are saying that the chicken must die before it produces an egg, you are wrong.
If you are saying that Mom must die before she gives birth, you are wrong.
St. Thomas gives six or seven arguments which prove you are wrong.
None of these have nothing to do with consciousness.
Your argument has nothing to do with consciousness.

But no one ever understands what you are talking about ::

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

A tools with many purposes:

Assume a system in a given state/form, lets call it S. This state can cause another state, lets call S’. Two states cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ takes place which requires the existence and non-existence of S which is problematic. Hence the awareness of S must exist in consciousness which can create S’.

Proof of all ontological arguments are false:
This means that existence is subjected to decay hence it is secondary meaning that it could only exist in presence of consciousness. Hence all ontological arguments for existence of God are false since existence owe its essence to consciousness.

This is only problematic if you assume that all essences are identical with the act of existence. If there are natures that are caused and held in existence by that which is “essentially-existence” we can say that such natures are not existence in and of themselves but are merely participating in the act of existence. In other-words potential natures that are contingent on existence for their actuality can be said to be decaying because their essence was never identical with the act of existence in the first place. Natures come into existence, but existence itself just is. In fact it is the very fact that they are decaying which proves that such natures are not essentially identical with the act of existence and thus one must say that “existence” is a nature in and of itself distinct from potential essences. If they were identical with existence they would exist eternally without beginning or end. Natures can only change and have potency if their intrinsic nature is not existence itself.

Existence has never come into existence. That is meaningless. Existence as a nature simply exists because thats what its nature essentially is - Existence.

 

[Bahman]

Have you read George Berkeley’s works? I think you would find them interesting.

I am not a philosopher so I have a very little time to read the work of philosophers. I would be happy to read some of his related works.

Thank you for posting.

Your welcome.

I am not sure though, isn’t consciousness a manifestation of existence?

No. Consciousness is primary since otherwise it could not affect existence.

 

[Bahman]

IMHO, awareness that a rock exists and the fact that it exists without our being aware of it are two different things.

Yes and that means that there exist another awareness which sustain the existence of a rock.

 

[Bahman]

If you are saying that the oak tree must vanish before it produces acorns, you are wrong. If you are saying that the chicken must die before it produces an egg, you are wrong.
If you are saying that Mom must die before she gives birth, you are wrong.
St. Thomas gives six or seven arguments which prove you are wrong.
None of these have nothing to do with consciousness.
Your argument has nothing to do with consciousness.

But no one ever understands what you are talking about ::

Linus2nd

No. I am saying at any change requires the former state to vanishes to give room for a new state yet it cannot be a direct cause of new state since it does not exist meaning that awareness of of former state exist in consciousness which can cause new state. This means that existence owe its essence to consciousness hence it cannot be used as fact for proving the existence of God.

 

[Bahman]

This is only problematic if you assume that all essences are identical with the act of existence.

All essences can only manifest themselves through act of existence otherwise they cannot exist.

If there are natures that are caused and held in existence by that which is “essentially-existence” we can say that such natures are not existence in and of themselves but are merely participating in the act of existence.

There are not such a thing like essentially-existence. Existence owe its very essence to consciousness.

In other-words potential natures that are contingent on existence for their actuality can be said to be decaying because their essence was never identical with the act of existence in the first place. Natures come into existence, but existence itself just is.

The colored response is related to colored comment.

Potentiality resides in consciousness hence it does not need existence for their actuality.

What is potential is needed to be experience hence it did exist.

Everything which is present including existence owes its presence to consciousness.

In fact it is the very fact that they are decaying which proves that such natures are not essentially identical with the act of existence and thus one must say that “existence” is a nature in and of itself distinct from potential essences.

They decay to give the room for change with the aim to become perfect which is the state of no change.

If they were identical with existence they would exist eternally without beginning or end.

That is definition of perfection. Whether perfection exists or not is subject of another thread.

Natures can only change and have potency if their intrinsic nature is not existence itself.

Nature can only change in presence of consciousness.

Existence has never come into existence. That is meaningless. Existence as a nature simply exists because thats what its nature essentially is - Existence.

That is correct but what does exist on the spot comes into existence and goes out of existence. Existence is a quality hence it is secondary, consciousness is an ability hence it is primary.

 

[ChainBreaker]

All essences can only manifest themselves through act of existence otherwise they cannot exist.

Potential essences cannot manifest themselves from nothing. That is a contradictory concept. All Potential essences are brought into existence by that which is identical with existence. Otherwise essences are coming into absolutely nothing and therefore remain nothing.

There are not such a thing like essentially-existence. Existence owe its very essence to consciousness.

It would be more correct to say all contingent natures owe their very actuality to an intellect that is identical to the act of existence. It is meaningless to speak of a consciousness that doesn’t have an act of existence in some sense, much-less be the cause of anything.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing because there is nothing in nothing - there are no objectively true states of affairs in absolute nothingness because it is not a state but rather it is the absence of a true state of affairs. Nothing is just a word we use to symbolize the absence of potential things or states in comparison to things or states that actually exist.

2. Absolutely nothing cannot actually exist because it is nothing true - it cannot be a true objective state because a true state of affairs is always something.

Conclusion: Therefore there is a nature that is the act of “existence” itself; Its isness is identical with its whatness. It exists necessarily because thats what its nature is - Existence. All potential natures owe their actuality to the “act of existence” because that which is existence can share existence with potential things. Hence there is a being that is essentially the act of existence. This is the being that i worship.

You cannot just make assertions without giving a rebuttal. Otherwise you are just dictating what you believe. You are not doing philosophy.

To speak of consciousness you have to speak of it as either coming into the act of existence, or you must speak of it as being identical to existence. If it doesn’t have an act of existence, or if it is not identical to its act of existence, it is meaningless to speak of a real consciousness in the first place.

You cannot say that existence is secondary because existence is required to speak meaningfully of anything. Otherwise you are not talking about something that truly exists.

Existence is primary and everything else is contingent.

They decay to give the room for change with the aim to become perfect which is the state of no change.

I don’t know how this follows logically.

That which changes is imperfect by definition because it is not identical with the act of existence. That which is imperfect cannot become perfect through its own nature.

That is correct but what does exist on the spot comes into existence and goes out of existence. Existence is a quality hence it is secondary, consciousness is an ability hence it is primary.

Existence is not a quality. Existence is the antithesis of nothing. You cannot speak meaningfully of natures without first speaking of the fact that they exist. They cannot have an act of without existence and so it is contradictory to speak of existence as being secondary to the fact of a things nature. Insofar as the act of existence is concerned you can only speak of a nature as being either contingent upon the act of existence or identical to the act of existence.

 

[Bahman]

Potential essences cannot manifest themselves from nothing. That is a contradictory concept. All Potential essences are brought into existence by that which is identical with existence. Otherwise essences are coming into absolutely nothing and therefore remain nothing.

Potential essences resides only in consciousness whereas actual essences are created with consciousness hence they reside outside.

It would be more correct to say all contingent natures owe their very actuality to an intellect that is identical to the act of existence. It is meaningless to speak of a consciousness that doesn’t have an act of existence in some sense, much-less be the cause of anything.

No it is more correct to say that** all contingent natures owe their very actuality to an intellect that is** consciouses since that is only consciousness with the power to create.

1. Out of nothing comes nothing because there is nothing in nothing - there are no objectively true states of affairs in absolute nothingness because it is not a state but rather it is the absence of a true state of affairs. Nothing is just a word we use to symbolize the absence of potential things or states in comparison to things or states that actually exist.

Nothingness is just a word that we use the absence of actual and not potential.

2. Absolutely nothing cannot actually exist because it is nothing true - it cannot be a true objective state because a true state of affairs is always something.

Nothingness exist at the moment of experience and it necessary otherwise no change takes place since stuff which is there must vanishes to give room for new stuff.

Conclusion: Therefore there is a nature that is the act of “existence” itself; Its isness is identical with its whatness. It exists necessarily because thats what its nature is - Existence. All potential natures owe their actuality to the “act of existence” because that which is existence can share existence with potential things. Hence there is a being that is essentially the act of existence. This is the being that i worship.

Are you worshiping consciousness? Consciousness by definition is the ability to experience and create mental states.

You cannot just make assertions without giving a rebuttal. Otherwise you are just dictating what you believe. You are not doing philosophy.

This is discussed in OP. I can open the argument if you wish.

To speak of consciousness you have to speak of it as either coming into the act of existence, or you must speak of it as being identical to existence. If it doesn’t have an act of existence, or if it is not identical to its act of existence, it is meaningless to speak of a real consciousness in the first place.

Consciousness is primary hence does not need to come into existence. It dose not equal to existence either since potential essence can only exist in consciousness and actual essence are created by consciousness so whatever exist as potential and actual owe its presence to consciousness.

You cannot say that existence is secondary because existence is required to speak meaningfully of anything. Otherwise you are not talking about something that truly exists.

Existence is secondary since it is subject to change,

Existence is primary and everything else is contingent.

No. Consciousness is primary and existence is secondary. Consciousness is simple. Existence is contingent and complex. You might need to read my argument in OP again which clearly shows that existence is secondary.

I don’t know how this follows logically.

Please read the first part of my argument in OP. I repeat it here again: Assume a system in a given state/form, lets call it S. This state can cause another state, lets call S’. Two states cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ takes place which requires the existence and non-existence of S which is problematic. Hence the awareness of S must exist in consciousness which can create S’.

That which changes is imperfect by definition because it is not identical with the act of existence. That which is imperfect cannot become perfect through its own nature.

I can argue that two set related to existence and what is experienced exist the first one is a chain of E={existence, non-existence, existence, non-existence,…} and the second C={absence of existence, experience, absence of existence, experience,…}. And what is imperfect has the potential to become perfect and that is the main reason for change.

Existence is not a quality. Existence is the antithesis of nothing. You cannot speak meaningfully of natures without first speaking of the fact that they exist. They cannot have an act of without existence and so it is contradictory to speak of existence as being secondary to the fact of a things nature. Insofar as the act of existence is concerned you can only speak of a nature as being either contingent upon the act of existence or identical to the act of existence.

What is exist does not have any potentiality to act since only what resides in consciousness has the potentiality to act. In another word, what is subjective has the potential to act and what is objective can only be experienced.

Existence is a quality similar to be and nothing is a quality similar to not to be.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Potential essences resides only in consciousness whereas actual essences are created with consciousness hence they reside outside.

Does consciousness “exist”? yes or no.

 

[fhansen]

A tools with many purposes:

Assume a system in a given state/form, lets call it S. This state can cause another state, lets call S’. Two states cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ takes place which requires the existence and non-existence of S which is problematic. Hence the awareness of S must exist in consciousness which can create S’.

Proof of all ontological arguments are false:
This means that existence is subjected to decay hence it is secondary meaning that it could only exist in presence of consciousness. Hence all ontological arguments for existence of God are false since existence owe its essence to consciousness.

What does conciousness owe its existence to?

 

[Bahman]

Does consciousness “exist”? yes or no.

Consciousness is or consciousness is God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No. I am saying at any change requires the former state to vanishes to give room for a new state yet it cannot be a direct cause of new state since it does not exist meaning that awareness of of former state exist in consciousness which can cause new state. This means that existence owe its essence to consciousness hence it cannot be used as fact for proving the existence of God.

Well, that is false. Even a child can see that. Your consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of anything, present, past, or future.

If beings did not actually exist, your conscious mind would have no knowledge of them. Further, you would not be conscious of anything, you would not be able to post here, you would not be able to communicate with anyone - because you wouldn’t know whether or not they existed. This is why your whole ’ philosophy ’ is wrong.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Well, that is false. Even a child can see that. Your consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of anything, present, past, or future.

That is not false and in fact you can affect future.

If beings did not actually exist, your conscious mind would have no knowledge of them. Further, you would not be conscious of anything, you would not be able to post here, you would not be able to communicate with anyone - because you wouldn’t know whether or not they existed. This is why your whole ’ philosophy ’ is wrong.

Linus2nd

I do actually exist because I am conscious. Existence owe its very essence to consciousness.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Consciousness is or consciousness is God.

What do you mean by “Consciousness is”?

 

[Bahman]

What do you mean by “Consciousness is”?

Consciousness is the ability to experience and create mental stats.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Consciousness is the ability to experience and create mental stats.

Does consciousness exist?

 

[Bahman]

Does consciousness exist?

Not in a sense that a thing exist. It is pure existence, uncaused caused in your language.