Existence is the default

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
Nothing could not existed since the act of creation is problematic (this is discussed in this thread). Therefore existence is the default.
 
STT said:
Nothing could not existed since the act of creation is problematic (this is discussed in this thread). Therefore existence is the default.
Click to expand...
Hi!

…well, yeah, but not…

…way back when there was no such thing as currency exchange… people exchanged goods for other goods or services… money, in the form of coins and paper/notes did not exist… it took man’s ingenuity and creative prowess to bring into existence a more universal and better functioning financial exchange.

Creation is only problematic for those who reject the Creator Who brings everything that is into existence.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Borrowing the definition of default from Merriam-Webster and omitting the definitions related to financial defaulting :cool:, we are confronted with a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative. Here is your error. Existence isn’t a selection without conscious thought or attention, it is an eternal act supremely understood, and that act is Existing, and God is Existing Perfectly. A selection as used here implies non-necessity as it pertains to a careful choice of being the best or most suitable with alternatives. Maybe you were erroneously equating existing with instantiating and sustaining contingencies 😉

(I now jump off my high horse.)
 
jcrichton said:
Hi!

…well, yeah, but not…

…way back when there was no such thing as currency exchange… people exchanged goods for other goods or services… money, in the form of coins and paper/notes did not exist… it took man’s ingenuity and creative prowess to bring into existence a more universal and better functioning financial exchange.

Creation is only problematic for those who reject the Creator Who brings everything that is into existence.

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
I am so sorry to say that I don’t understand how what you said is related to the topic of this thread.
 
worldwideweary said:
Borrowing the definition of default from Merriam-Webster and omitting the definitions related to financial defaulting :cool:, we are confronted with a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative. Here is your error. Existence isn’t a selection without conscious thought or attention, it is an eternal act supremely understood, and that act is Existing, and God is Existing Perfectly. A selection as used here implies non-necessity as it pertains to a careful choice of being the best or most suitable with alternatives. Maybe you were erroneously equating existing with instantiating and sustaining contingencies 😉

(I now jump off my high horse.)
Click to expand...
Have you been following the other thread? If you wish I can present the argument here or you can join the discussion there.
 
STT said:
Nothing could not existed since the act of creation is problematic (this is discussed in this thread). Therefore existence is the default.
Click to expand...
This seems like an argument for the Creator. Certainly existence from nothing is problematic, so existence as some ultimate, foundational, ultimate reality underlying the finite and contingent existence we see must actually be. Something which is simple existence itself.

😛

There’s nothing problematic about that, as pointed out multiple times in your prior thread.
 
Wesrock said:
This seems like an argument for the Creator. Certainly existence from nothing is problematic, so existence as some ultimate, foundational, ultimate reality underlying the finite and contingent existence we see must actually be. Something which is simple existence itself.

😛
Click to expand...
Well, it depends how do you define God. God is by definition the creator. The act of creation is meaningless if you are certain that nothing cannot exist. Therefore there is no creator.

😃
Wesrock said:
There’s nothing problematic about that, as pointed out multiple times in your prior thread.
Click to expand...
There is a problem with that. How do you define the act of creation?
 
STT said:
The act of creation is meaningless if
Click to expand...
Buttin’ In
Question: Is this to imply you believe meaning is contingent upon the state of the receiver rather than the one signifying?
 
jcrichton said:
Creation is only problematic for those who reject the Creator Who brings everything that is into existence.
Click to expand...
When I say that existence is the default, I mean that “why is there something instead of nothing” is the equivalent of asking “why are triangles triangular instead of round?”

That is to say, “a state where nothing exists” is logically impossible, just like a round triangle. Therefore, there is no demand for any higher explanation of why something exists instead of nothing, just like we don’t need any higher explanation of why a triangle isn’t a round triangle. “The alternative is logically impossible” IS the sufficient explanation.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
When I say that existence is the default, I mean that “why is there something instead of nothing” is the equivalent of asking “why are triangles triangular instead of round?”

That is to say, “a state where nothing exists” is logically impossible, just like a round triangle. Therefore, there is no demand for any higher explanation of why something exists instead of nothing, just like we don’t need any higher explanation of why a triangle isn’t a round triangle. “The alternative is logically impossible” IS the sufficient explanation.
Click to expand...
Even if I were to cede a partial allowance for that statement, and I wouldn’t, that explanation is ultimately insufficient to explain why things exist in the current way at all, why one configuration over another, etc… Hence the only thing that follows as truly necessary existence for which it would be logically impossible to be without is that which we refer to as God.

It boils down to nothing exists or (at least) God exists. So unless we’re comfortable stating that the truth is that nothing exists, denying not just the existence of the external world but even going so far as the solipsist denying himself…
 
JapaneseKappa said:
When I say that existence is the default, I mean that “why is there something instead of nothing” is the equivalent of asking “why are triangles triangular instead of round?”

That is to say, “a state where nothing exists” is logically impossible, just like a round triangle. Therefore, there is no demand for any higher explanation of why something exists instead of nothing, just like we don’t need any higher explanation of why a triangle isn’t a round triangle. “The alternative is logically impossible” IS the sufficient explanation.
Click to expand...
Why that (bold part) is true?
 
JapaneseKappa said:
That is to say, “a state where nothing exists” is logically impossible, just like a round triangle. Therefore, there is no demand for any higher explanation of why something exists instead of nothing, just like we don’t need any higher explanation of why a triangle isn’t a round triangle. “The alternative is logically impossible” IS the sufficient explanation.
Click to expand...
Aside :twocents: Musing:
I still have the ability to demand with ‘understood’ logical impossibilities a contrary mystical experience, but I might be a little off the mark! To say an alternative is logically impossible when dealing with the act of existing, this doesn’t seem to satisfy the intellect since logic is contingent upon a quality of existing and finitely a mere derivative way of thinking. I don’t mean to offend logic in the least bit, but to say “I have concluded the impossibility of the opposite” doesn’t necessitate the possibility due to my inability to account with my provided functions, unless your logical functions are capable of pontificating necessities and/or impossibilities regarding Existence. If so, it sounds very, in the image of God-like, doesn’t it? If but only very slightly.
 
STT said:
Nothing could not existed since the act of creation is problematic (this is discussed in this thread). Therefore existence is the default.
Click to expand...
You can’t thread jump like this. It’s invalidating discussion in that thread. We were not discussing existence as a default. We were discussing when time started.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top