Proof Of The Ultimate Reality In 3 Steps

[Linux]

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth
3. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

The only way of defeating this argument is to show that my notion of objective truth as it relates to existence and absolutely nothing is a tautology.

Good luck.

 

[TomD123]

Interesting…from what I can tell is that it works. The next step would be to develop what this “ultimate reality” is…and what its attributes are

 

[Linux]

Interesting…from what I can tell is that it works. The next step would be to develop what this “ultimate reality” is…and what its attributes are

That’s the goal.

 

[1AugustSon7]

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth
3. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

The only way of defeating this argument is to show that my notion of objective truth as it relates to existence and absolutely nothing is a tautology.

Good luck.

Reminds me of (in that #1 seems reducible to) Alexander Pope’s (in his poem, Essay on Man ) “WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT.” “Objective truth” here, for you, seems to be truth in the sense of the actual: e.g., even something like ‘John killed Joe’ is true and ‘right’ in the sense of correct in that it actually happened. Seems closely related to the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Here it seems you are talking about being in the sense of something’s existence (as distinct from something’s essence ).

Still, to play the devil’s advocate, I would think a clever atheist might try to make the buck stop short: e.g., he may posit something like physical space as being a sufficient absolute or condition for existence: he may argue that space ‘just is’ ; or in other words, he may claim the eternity of the universe, with the universe being basically (i.e., space and basic physical laws, say) the “ultimate reality”.

 

[J_Peterson]

That says nothing about what the Ultimate Reality is. It could be mindless and blind like folks like Stephen Hawking claim.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth
3. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

The only way of defeating this argument is to show that my notion of objective truth as it relates to existence and absolutely nothing is a tautology.

Good luck.

A. You have to prove step #1. It is not an self evident truth.
B. Step #2 is would seem to be true.
C. Step # 3 is not necessarilly true.
D. Because of A and C are not established ( proven ), your conclusion is invalid.

Linus2nd .

 

[openmind77]

Interesting…from what I can tell is that it works. The next step would be to develop what this “ultimate reality” is…and what its attributes are

Hindus call this ‘ultimate reality’ - brahman. Brahman is totally impersonal and unknowable. It is neither a thing or a non-thing, it does not have a gender, nor does it have a number - it is almost like a substance. At the beginning of every universe, the Trinity (the three main Gods) emerge from brahman and create the rest the world out of this same substance. At the end of the universe, everything dissolves back into brahman. There is nothing preventing multiple such universes to be formed at the same time. It is also not know if every universe has a Trinity (maybe some have a Quadranity and also different laws of physics - nobody knows).

This ‘ultimate reality’ can not be worshiped neither can we have a relationship with it. We can however, have the experience of being One with it and that is the goal of all meditation and yogic practices - to experience being brahman itself.

The ‘ultimate reality’ according to Hinduism has only three (knowable) attributes - it is existance/being, it is consciousness and it is bliss - Sat, Chit, and Ananda - Satchidananda.

 

[jimmy]

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth
3. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

The only way of defeating this argument is to show that my notion of objective truth as it relates to existence and absolutely nothing is a tautology.

Good luck.

What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling incoherent response did you say anything that resembled a rational thought. Everyone is now dumbed for having read it. I award you zero points and may God have mercy on your soul.

More seriously though. What you just said doesn’t make much sense to me. I have come to the conclusion that all ‘proofs’ of God are meaningless. No one has ever been convinced by an objective argument. The only way anyone will ever be convinced is through a subjective argument.

You think you have created a fail proof argument for the existence of God. Does that mean that a big enough computer could come to the conclusion that there is a God? If your argument is a subset of reason and it is purely objective there is no reason why a computer couldn’t come up with the same argument.

 

[Linux]

A. You have to prove step #1. It is not an self evident truth…

Its not self evident that 2 + 2 = 4, but a sufficiently reasonable person knows that the answer is 4 and would not hesitate to use it as a premise assuming that other people are just as reasonable. That.s my only mistake.

The absence of reality is not objective; and this is to say that there is no such thing as an object called nothing. Nothing is not real a thing. It is purely a negation; a concept describing a distinction between particular states of being and non-actual possibilities. Objective truth is about things or comparative distinctions between things and possibilities…

For example room (b) has a bike, and room (a) does not have a bike. Alice says to bob I found a bike in room (b) so go and look in room (a) to see if there is a bike. Bob says that there is nothing in room (a). But bob is not saying that a thing called nothing has an objective existence in room (a), and neither is he saying that there is an object called no-bike. He saying there is no-thing “comparable” to the bike Alice found in room (b). “The bike does not objectively exist” rather than “there is non-existence in room (a)”.

If the term nothing is to have any ontological objective significance at all it can only make sense as a comparative distinction between particular objects and objects that could possibly exist but do not. Nothing in and of its self has no meaning accept as a **comparative distinction **between real things. Thus we cannot say that all existence can be negated and at the same time say that it would be objectively true because then we wouldn’t really be talking about nothing in terms of its real function as a concept. We would in fact be saying that a thing called “no-bike” objectively exists, which is evidently nonsense.

In absolutely nothing there is no objectivity. If absolutely nothing existed, it would be objectively true and would exist contrary to the fact that nothing is the absence of existence and therefore objective truth, which would be a metaphysical contradiction.

Once you accept what I have said above, the following premises follow necessarily.

 

[jonathan_hili]

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth
3. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

The only way of defeating this argument is to show that my notion of objective truth as it relates to existence and absolutely nothing is a tautology.

Good luck.

Hi Linux, an interesting argument. I’ve got a few questions thought:

(i) In your first premise, you state that “objective truth is a function of existence”. What do you mean by “function”? Do you mean “quality” or “attribute”?
(ii) How would you understand “truth”? The argument makes it sound as if you take truth to be a self-sustaining reality, that is, like a Platonic ideal.
(iii) With the second premise, I think you equivocate on the term “exist”. I don’t think anyone would claim that “nothing” exists, that is, has the quality of existence. Rather, I suppose, people would say, “There is nothing”, that is, an absence of existent things.
(iv) Also, I’m not sure - with the second premise - what you mean by “absolutely nothing cannot…be objectively true”, since states of being are not true or false, but statements about states of being are true or false. While it could be false to say: “The cow exists”, it cannot be false that the cow exists.
(v) I don’t see how the conclusion follows from the two premises, since I can’t see how they show that “absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible”. If they show something, they show that if objective truth exists as a necessary, self-existent reality, then it is necessary that something has always existed, and must always exist.

 

[Pugsly]

That says nothing about what the Ultimate Reality is. It could be mindless and blind like folks like Stephen Hawking claim.

I think…the next step in the OP is to point out that existence is “good” because of it’s ability to hold together…to exist. Thus, existence=goodness…and goodness=some kind of order…and order must follow a pattern to maintain existence…kind of “law” of life.

Hence, we reason to several absolutes…that existence always was…thus truth exists eternally…goodness and order and a law of life are eternal.

 

[Pugsly]

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth
3. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

The only way of defeating this argument is to show that my notion of objective truth as it relates to existence and absolutely nothing is a tautology.

Good luck.

It seems that you’re saying…I exist…therefore I reason to an eternal absolute truth…that existence always was.

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by Linux

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth

1. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth

1. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

The only way of defeating this argument is to show that my notion of objective truth as it relates to existence and absolutely nothing is a tautology.

Good luck.

The objective truth is that the universe could not have existed through an infinite past and it could not have started itself, so there had to be a being who started it all.

Now we’ll hear the usual bluster about “who started God?” and all that hokey stuff.
Bring it on!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Its not self evident that 2 + 2 = 4, but a sufficiently reasonable person knows that the answer is 4 and would not hesitate to use it as a premise assuming that other people are just as reasonable. That.s my only mistake.

Still having trouble with your manners I see.

Once you accept what I have said above, the following premises follow necessarily.

The point is you have stated your case badly and need to reformulate it.

Or - " …Ite ad Thomam…"

Linus2nd

 

[jonathan_hili]

Its not self evident that 2 + 2 = 4, but a sufficiently reasonable person knows that the answer is 4 and would not hesitate to use it as a premise assuming that other people are just as reasonable…
In absolutely nothing there is no objectivity. If absolutely nothing existed, it would be objectively true and would exist contrary to the fact that nothing is the absence of existence and therefore objective truth, which would be a metaphysical contradiction.

Once you accept what I have said above, the following premises follow necessarily.

Hi Linux, again, I think there is a confusion in terms here.

But, firstly, it is self-evident that 2+2=4. I would assume self-evident means that, once you see it, you see that it must be so and cannot be otherwise. Obviously, a three-year-old doesn’t recognise 2+2=4 as self-evident, but neither does he recognise “I am, therefore I am” as self-evident.

Secondly, I still think the fundamental problem with your argument is the use of terms, such as “existence” and “truth”, particularly the latter as an ontological quality rather than a descriptive one.

E.g.

“If absolutely nothing existed, it would be objectively true and would exist contrary to the fact that nothing is the absence of existence and therefore objective truth, which would be a metaphysical contradiction.”

If absolutely nothing existed, that is, the absence of existing things, it would not be objectively true since P being objectively true is applied to propositions or statements, not to metaphysical beings. Jim can be 10 feet tall and weight 300 kilograms but he can’t be “true”. Likewise, the absence of existing things could not be objectively true, only statements about such absence could be objectively true. So, I don’t see how it follows that there is any metaphysical contradiction going on here.

I think the claim above is better stated in this way (to make it clearer):
(i) If absolutely nothing existed
(ii) saying that absolutely nothing existed would be objectively true
(iii) but therefore the statement of such conditions would exist
(iv) and be contrary to the statement of “absolutely nothing existing”,
(v) consequently, this is contradictory.

 

[reb108]

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth
3. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

The only way of defeating this argument is to show that my notion of objective truth as it relates to existence and absolutely nothing is a tautology.

Good luck.

I think it’s easier to say that “absolutely nothing” is impossible because it doesn’t make sense that something came from nothing. And if nothingness is impossible, then there always has been, and always will be something… which amounts to a more simple version of what is above, without using “antithesis” which is not provable anyway. I see no proof that each thing needs to have an antithesis, and if everything does have an antithesis, then his thesis has one also.

In any case, I don’t think that any of this really matters. If there is something or not, the bigger problems are things like “what is life”, “what is the purpose of life”, “what is my place in life”… to simply say that something will always/always has existed doesn’t answer any important questions from my perspective.

 

[empther]

Well of course the mistake everybody is making,
and which Linux and people like him capitalize on,
is to argue within Linux’s argument,
but Linux’s argument is restricted to the natural world.

Like on the other thread, where he equates God’s “esse” with the world’s “esse”, he started with :

1. Nothing comes from nothing.

which is true, in the natural world, but God is not part of the natural world. Rather, he created nature.

And similarly here he leaves God out of the equation in his semantic trickery about objective truth,
although God is Truth!

It’s a shame this has to be pointed out. :crying:

 

[JDaniel]

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth
2. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth
3. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

The only way of defeating this argument is to show that my notion of objective truth as it relates to existence and absolutely nothing is a tautology.

Good luck.

Hello, Linux:

I’m left in a quandary: if #1 is true (as stated), then what is that void/space within which an electron moves about in that so-called “shell” in proximity to that atom’s nucleus? That void/space is typically 50,000 times greater than the nucleus. (One could also say that that electron is almost infinitely smaller than that shell.) Yet, the electron exists.

Furthermore, the electron - being a point particle - is dimensionless. In a way, it is itself like “nothingness,” in that it doesn’t exist either, especially if existence is defined as something having weight and taking up space.

As we walk outside our homes, we encounter air. Air consists of loosely packed oxygen atoms and molecules, nitrogen atoms, carbon atoms, carbon-oxygen molecules, and a plethora of other things separated by what? Something-ness, or nothing-ness? Then we happen upon our automobile. It, unlike air, is densely packed. But, it is densely packed with atoms (of various kinds) that have the same properties that were described above, i.e., atoms with electron shells that are 50,000 time greater than their nuclei.

I’m not sure that “Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth.”

This puts #2 in a similar quandary for me; and, as well, #3.

God bless,
jd

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by Linux

1. Objective truth is a function of existence and therefore absolutely nothing is a negation of objective truth

That something exists may be true, but its existence doesn’t create truth and truth isn’t a function of existence. On the contrary, the eternal Truth in God’s mind created the universe and preceded it. The “nothing” before God created the universe did not negate his Truth.

1. Absolutely nothing cannot exist or be objectively true because absolutely nothing is the absence of existence and therefore also all objective truth

God’s Truth existed before the universe, so there could be absolutely nothing in the natural sense. God could have chosen to remain alone, but he didn’t.

1. Thus there has to be an absolute antithesis of nothing which cannot fail to exist or begin to exist because absolutely nothing is metaphysically impossible.

There was absolutely nothing in the natural sense before God created the universe, but God, the Necessary Being, existed eternally and could not not exist.

Conclusion: An Ultimate Reality (with no beginning or end) exists.

That’s right, and we call this Ultimate Reality God.
( But this Ultimate Reality couldn’t be a lifeless natural thing because that couldn’t tell a knock knock joke. )

Nice that you’re trying to prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, Linux,
but your proof has some holes in it and is false.
Try Aquinas. :egyptian:

 

[SurfsUp]

Its not self evident that 2 + 2 = 4, but a sufficiently reasonable person knows that the answer is 4 and would not hesitate to use it as a premise assuming that other people are just as reasonable. That.s my only mistake.

Your mistake is to believe that brain meat “calculations” correspond to some kind of platonic realm of mathematical self evident truths. Math is only a language like regular language in the ‘emergent’ ape brain, math has zero credibility for a materialist. Its just the ape trying to use his mushy mysterious language faculties to articulate quantities, an evolving tradition that is now a rich language, but ultimately limited. Why would the brain, of all the emergent structures, suddenly tap into some platonic math-truth?