There is no God

[hurst]

Alois:

Originally Posted by hurst
I am not addressing “a monotheistic God as described in the scriptures”. I am addressing existence, and the manner in which the recognition of existence leads logically to “a God”.

That is the definition of a monotheistic God. A God as described in the scriptures.

Please read what I said more closely. I said I am not addressing what scriptures describe. I am not basing my case on the scriptures. My whole point is that you do not need faith, religion, or a religious book to reach the conclusion that there is “a God”.

I am showing that it is logical to believe in “a God”. I did not always know that you wanted to address the “God” as described in the Bible. And after I knew you did, I felt that it was still not the main point, for the Scriptures are meant for those who already believe in God, and who believe it is the revelation of God. They are not for those who have no intention of exercising faith.

Alois:

More specifically, I have shown intrinsic existence in that post. I followed up with post #791 to show that “intrinsic existence” is the source and cause of “extrinsic existence”. I showed this clearly and logically. This is indeed God as knowable by us through inference in our nature.

You’re misusing the definition of intrinsic.

I don’t see how I am misusing that definition. I even posted the definition. Intrinsic means the opposite of extrinsic. Extrinsic means unessential. For there to be anything besides the perfect somethingness, it has to have been formed by the p.s. and not be essential to it. Is it any different from clay being independent of the possible shapes it could take? It could take the shape of a bowl, but the bowl is extrinsic to the clay, for the clay is still clay whether it is formed into a bowl or not. In a similar manner, the perfect somethingness can form such non-essential entities out of itself, but those entities do not exist in themselves intrinsically but only extrinsically in the p.s. (Note: this is an imperfect comparison meant to convey a notion from my mind).

Alois:

Existence is intrinsic of itself and everything is intrinsic to existence.

No, not everything is intrinsic to existence. I have shown clearly that existence has two modes, because that which existed from all eternity cannot be the same as that which has a beginning and/or is composed.

Alois:

There is no seperation between intrinsic existence and extrinsic existence, because of all existence is contained within existence. Saying otherwise is changing the meaning of the word itself. Changing the meaning is a leap not supported by logic, and only support by your own claims.

There is indeed a separation.

Even extrinsic existence has observable levels within itself:

• A body consists of hands, feet, etc. But a foot is not the body. You can still have a body without the foot. The foot is not intrinsic to the existence of a body, for it is not essential.
• An atom is not intrinsic to the existence of a proton. But a proton must first exist for there to be an atom. Yet, the existence of protons do not require that atoms exist. Atoms are extrinsic and unessential to the existence of protons. Protons came first, because atoms are made from them. Protons came first, and atoms did not need to exist in order for protons to remain in existence.
• A doughnut hole can be a reference to the portion cut out and eaten, or the gap remaining after cutting it out. The material hole is separate and of the same substance as the doughnut. But the hole having lack of substance only exists insofar as it subsists in the rest of the doughnut. If you eat that doughnut, the hole disappears, but not because you ate it. It never existed of itself, but only as an image formed by the substance of the doughnut itself. The existence of the hole is extrinsic to the existence of the doughnut.
• etc.

So that there is a separation between intrinsic and extrinsic existences should be no surprise.

Alois:

To get to the root of the matter I’ll go back and show you again the fallacy in that argument. You claim that existence is “white lettering on a colored background”, rather than “white letter on a black background”.

You quoted me wrong. But I know you meant “rather than black lettering on a white background”…

Alois:

Essentially, that existence isn’t contained in nothingness, but is contained with in somethingness.

Correct. Just as the cutout hole exists within the doughnut only, and not of itself. (Note: this is just an analogy, and not a technical description of actual functionality.)

(continued)

 

[hurst]

Alois:

This is completely illogical as existence can not logically be shown to exist with an even greater existence.

It is logical that a substance that is perfect somethingness has always existed, and must exist of itself, and be its own essence.

It is observed that other things exist that are not like this substance, and thus must participate in the substance that already exists. (An imperfect comparison would be that the hole participates in the existence of the doughnut).

It is the only logical conclusion to the observed facts.

But since, as you say, it doesn’t make sense for “existence to exist in a greater existence”, since existence is existence, it follows that we don’t fully understand the term “existence”. We therefore have learned, through reasoning, that our generic understanding of the term “existence” is incomplete. It must also allow for the distinctions between that substance which has always existed, and those things which we observe as temporarily existing. And the only way to make sense of this is to see the temporary things as participating in the existence of other things, some of which participate directly in the substance that has always existed.

It is clear that using the term “existence” to refer to whatever exists, is a general meaning. It is used to denote the set of all things said to exist. It does not refer to the essence of existence, that which constitutes what is essential to existing.

Alois:

In a phrase, existence IS the background. Existence isn’t “contained” within something, it is everything. I have explain this so many times over now that I’m just stunned you’ve failed to see it.

I partially agree. Existence is the background. That is, intrinsic existence is the background, and is not contained.

But no, it is not everything, because we find things that don’t really exist of themselves, such as the image of a teapot in an inkblot, or horses in clouds. Again, we find things composed of other things, as an atom is of proton and electron, etc. So these composed things are not part of the ever-existing “background”. They are as if drawn on it.

An analogy (don’t take this literally) would be a computer monitor with images that change. In fact, these images are made from the pixels of colored light, and are more of a virtual reality extrinsic to the pixels. The pixels do not need the images to exist, but the images depend on the pixels to exist. In the same way, atoms are not essential for protons to exist, protons are not essential for quarks to exist, and in general, anything that has not always actually existed is not essential for the “perfect somethingness” to exist.

So you can’t say the whole collection of things actually existing is the same as the substance that must have always existed, for not all things are essential to have always existed. Only that which is essential to existence must have always existed.

Alois:

Stop changing the meaning of words and definitions,.please.

It is the only logical conclusion. Don’t restrict reality by limiting yourself to preconceived terminology. If new things are discovered, new words, terms, and meaning are added to the language. This happens all the time, even nowadays.

From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Existence : \Ex*ist"ence, n. [Cf. F. existence.]

1. The state of existing or being; actual possession of being; continuance in being; as, the existence of body and of soul in union; the separate existence of the soul; immortal existence.
2. Continued or repeated manifestation; occurrence, as of events of any kind; as, the existence of a calamity or of a state of war.
3. That which exists; a being; a creature; an entity; as, living existences.

Even here we see different meanings. It can be the state of being, or it can denote that which is already.

Alois:

What more can I show you? For you to reject this is to reject logic and natural sense.

You can respond to my posts that show the fallacy in your logic.

You often claim and assert fallacy in my logic, but have you substantiated it? I received outright denials from you of what I showed.

Alois:

I’m not going to continue debating with you if you continue to dodge points as you have been.

But I have not dodged points. How can you say that? If there are points you think I have dodged, then list them in a separate post and I will address them.

(continued)

 

[hurst]

Alois:

You told me you could prove the existence of a God logically.

I can do that, and have done that.

But recall that you said you didn’t care about the existence of “a God”, but only cared to debate whether it was “logical to believe in a God”.

I added that I could also demonstrate that “a God” exists through logic, natural sense, and human reasoning. No faith is required to know for certain that “a God” exists, (unless you count the faith we need to have in logic, senses, and reasoning).

Alois:

Don’t try to shift the burden of proof, as you have still failed to shoulder it.

I do bear the burden, but once you make counter-assertions, you have a burden of proof for them.

Alois:

I have responded to your false analogies, (posts 773, 775, and 780) and have shown you the definition of existence: everything that exists.

I show you something and you label it as false, asserting it is not so, and returning to your preconceived idea of existence as the collection of all things that exist or could possibly exist.

That is not the only definition, as I have shown and demonstrated.

Alois:

You are making the claim that we do not exist, I have shown that to be logically false as not only is the basis for it false, but the claim itself is illogical.

I did not say we do not exist. I said we do not exist of ourselves. We are not our own essence. We are made from something that existed before us.

I explained, showed, demonstrated, etc. etc. how this is logical, sensible, and reasonable. You reply by misrepresenting my words, calling them false analogies, and in general refusing to see my point.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Am I? Here’s what you said right above the number analogy.

It seems logical to me for there to be such an infinite source providing our own instances of power, time, dimensions, intellect, will, and etc. Let me explain by way of analogy where people already accept such a thing.

People don’t accept such things.

You misunderstood me. The example I gave should be sufficient to show that I didn’t mean where people accept it as a source of power, time, etc., since it was an analogy of numbers, which do not contain power, will, etc. I was only focusing on a part of what I said that people did accept. And I was inferring that if it is logical in one aspect, then it is also in the others.

Alois:

The number system was the basis of your argument. It MUST be correct for you to continue using the point. If it is not, your points based on it are faulty.

It was an illustration of a portion of it. And for the purpose I used it for, and the understanding that I have of it, it was correct.

Secondly, none of my points are based on it, though some of my attempts to illustrate my points were based on it. There is a difference. I am sorry if you feel jerked around by relying on what you thought I meant. I know that can be annoying.

Alois:

My logic was that people already accept the notion of infinite sources without questioning, so therefore they should not suddenly question it in regards to existence.

They don’t. People regard the number system as an infinite series of numbers, and that’s in fact what it is. The infinite sum of all numbers. It is not a formula that produces a result, it is all of the numbers there are. There is nothing we use as a source of numbers, we use the number system composed of the numbers themselves.

So in other words, they do.

Alois:

An example that you’ve founded point after point on. If it were a poor example, it can not hold up any of the things you attempt to base off of it.

No, I didn’t. There are other “infinite sources” besides a set of numbers. That was just one I thought you’d pick up on easily. I was wrong.

My point is valid even if the basis of illustration is imperfect.

Alois:

But there are other examples I could use to show the reasonableness of accepting an infinite God.

Anytime you’re ready, go ahead and share them.

Ok, here is one.

The p.s. can be likened to an infinite lump of dough leavened with yeast. The activity of the yeast causes bubbles that leave gaps throughout the dough. These gaps only exist as such because of the dough forming the boundary - they “exist” “in” the dough. The dough did not become less or more in itself.

This illustrates (imperfectly) that God can be infinite while yet causing extrinsic existences, with Himself as the boundary. He does not change size. He “contains” these existences, but they are not essential to His own existence. They did not always exist, and even now they are “nothing” in themselves. He knows them, but they are limited in their knowledge forever, for they always only know what the boundary reveals to them.

If you have a problem with this incomplete, imperfect simile, then l will adjust it or provide a different one. But I like this one also, even though it is limited in the concept it can convey.

Alois:

You have yet to provide another analogy that logically shows the possibility for a God to exist. The number system was suppose to be it, but it now seems that you are saying otherwise. Do you have another analogy, or another logical reason to believe in a God?

Yes. One of them is above. It shows how one might understand how there can be two modes of existence even though the p.s. is already infinite. All the actuality is in the p.s., and all the potential is in the nothing.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

For one, numbers aren’t manifested. They remain a logical concept applied to reality. For instance, you see apples on a table. You logically state that there are 2 apples.

Yes, but there is another perspective. You can take one of those apples and decide to slice it into four pieces. The number 4, which is a concept, is now being manifested in the apple by the person who used the concept, which he did not invent.

But nevermind, because you don’t accept this comparison.

Alois:

Secondly, you continue to assume that there is a pool in which we pull numbers out of. We don’t, we use a particular part of the infinite number set to logically state that there is an “x” amount of something. There isn’t some entity that gives us these numbers.

As I said, you can do other things with number besides assinging a matching value. You can decide to manifest a quantity by creating something based on that number. You can invent a formula and see what the answer is, relying on the existence of the number.

But anyway, I don’t need to use the number analogy.

Alois:

Furthermore, you state that the set of integers provides numbers. This brings up a good question: How could numbers be the source of themselves? The answer: they aren’t. There isn’t a “source” of numbers.

I thought we agreed that the numbers had to have always existed. But those already existing numbers in concept then serve as the “source” for us as we refer to them in our minds and manifest or otherwise use them in our activities.

But this number example is too much of a hindrance for you, so we should use something else.

Remember, I only meant to make use of some aspects of it, like a person who uses a napkin or the back of an envelope to write on - he ignores the irrelevant portion.

Alois:

You haven’t provided logical and reasonable evidence. The only thing that could coerce me to follow you is blind faith, and I guess I lack that trait.

I would say I have. You do not need blind faith, but you do need to be willing to rely on logic, natural sense, and human reasoning.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

A constituent of existence? You’re taking a step of regression that isn’t logically possible. Existence is everything, existence is the base. There is nothing more fundamental then existence.

As I showed in an earlier post, that is not the only meaning of the term “existence”. You are using it as the collection of all things, rather than as the state of a thing existing or being.

And rather than “a constituent of existence”, it would be “the consituent substance of existence”. It is this constituent substance that is all that actually exists. Not a collection, but a simple substance containing only and all that is essential to existence. Because what else could possibly have always existed?

Alois:

This is akin to trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint something smaller than 0, you can’t. Using your definition of essence, it is existence. Existence is the essence of everything.

Essence is existence only for essential existence. The essence of existence is that which is essential to existence. What is essential is whatever has always existed without change.

Example.

Carbon is essential for coal to exist. Carbon is the essence of coal. But coal is not essential for carbon to exist. Coal is not the essence of carbon.

Protons are essential for atoms such as carbon to exist. But atoms such as carbon are not essential for protons to exist.

Quarks are essential for protons to exist, but protons are not essential for quarks. Quarks are the essence of protons.

What is the essence of a quark? Where does it stop? It must stop somewhere, and it has stopped, because these things truly exist that are built upon whatever it stopped at. Wherever it stops is the essence of its existence - that which is truly essential to it for it to actually be.

What is the essence of light? What is the essence of gravity? The common unifying essence of these things must somehow coincide with the essence of all existence, namely, the p.s. that always existed of itself and as its own essence.

Alois:

This “p.s.” you speak of is a product of wishful thinking, not one of logic. More on this in the next paragraph.

You previously accepted it, now you don’t. I showed it is the product of a 4-step process of logic, sense, and reason. You deny this?

Alois:

Do you not see what I’ve been saying? You’re defining existence when you speak of perfect somethingness. It has always existed, is by itself (because there is nothing more), and is compose of what’s in itself.

Yes, but that is not existence in general, but rather it is existence as it essentially must be.

Alois:

You then have to connect this to a sentient God that is the source of everything, not just everything.

It is really not my concern to associate the p.s. to a “sentient God”. How do you define “sentient”? Well, regardless, if sentient-ness exists, then it had to come from the p.s. somehow, for it can not come from anything else.

I have already shown that whatever the p.s. is called, it is the source of everything, but not merely the “set” of everything.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

This must be, for nothing can come from total nothingness. Everything we encounter is from the p.s., whether visible or invisible, whether physical or logical, etc. The p.s. is the essence of its own existence, and it is also the essence of created existences.

Agreeable so far, except for your slight-of-hand trick in replacing definition with “perfect somethingness”. Can you differentiate the two?

The two what?

Alois:

This causes a fork in the road for the meaning of “existence”, for now we must distinguish between the intrinsic existence and the extrinsic existences.

No, it doesn’t. Everything within existence and perfect somethingness is intrinsic, for it is what makes up the totality of existence, or the perfectness of perfect somethingness.

While it applies to the p.s., it cannot apply to everything, because as I showed already, some things actually exist which are not essential to the p.s. always existing. The hole in a doughnut is not essential for the doughnut to exist, but it is there in many doughnuts. Water bubbles are not essential for water to exist, so they are not intrinsic to water, but still may be present.

Alois:

Why do you say total nothingness rather than perfect nothingness?

I considered saying total somethingness, but then thought it would be better to associate “total” with nothingness, and “perfect” with somethingness, because “perfect” connotes having something special, whereas “total” is nothing special. But I would not object to using total nothingness and total somethingness.

Alois:

You have not shown that we are extrinsic.

I haven’t? Well, would you at least agree our feet are extrinsic? Legs? Arms? Even if you boiled it down to just a brain, heart, and lungs, those also are extrinsic to the elements making them up. Certainly we are not intrinsic to the elements making us up. They will exist without us just fine. And the atomic elements are extrinsic to subatomic particles. This continues until one reaches the essence of existence itself. So at a minimum I have shown that our physical bodies are extrinsic, and nested a number of levels deep.

If anything, it is more logical to believe “a God” exists, then that we should believe that “we” exist, for we are not essential to any existence except perhaps those of our children and others we help in emergencies.

Alois:

It is an illogical position to take that this existence is extrinsic, because existence consists of all possibilities, and we are one of those possibilities.

We are a manifested possibility, and the very fact that we did not need to be manifested proves that our manifestation is not essential. It also proves that there is a difference between possible existence and manifested existence. The manifestation is outside of total somethingness, and yet is something that was always possible. It is exterior to somethingness, and yet is a concept made manifest out of nothing, like a bubble in the dough. Total somethingness is not lessened or increased in itself. The manifestation is not intrinsic to somethingness, though the somethingness makes it apparent. It reveals something that was possible in total somethingness that always was and always will be.

So it is logical.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Originally Posted by Alois
Things that are supernatural are beyond logic. If we observe something that is supernatural and logical, it then becomes natural.

Not quite. It is more that they are beyond the “reach” of logic, for natural logic only deals with natural extrinsic existences. But logic still can apply in the supernatural, only more things are taken into account.

We even see this in the natural world. Recall that Newton’s laws of physics …

On to the issue itself in this paragraph; this is my point. If we understand their logic, and can observe them, they then become natural.

I wouldn’t say they “become” natural, as much as we become supernatural (by faith). But without faith, we still may observe their natural effects, for they incorporate the natural. A shadow provides a 2-D shape and information about 3-D movement, but no color or interior details. We only see the boundaries at the edges. Likewise, inside a dough bubble one can observe its boundary, and naturally know it is there, but it cannot immediately know everything about the nature of what is beyond that bound containing it.

The natural can only observe so much. It is limited. But what it observes is nonetheless real. For it did not come from nothingness.

Alois:

In a similar way, the supernatural does not destroy anything of the natural, but rather enhances it to account for the new observations, and it will be seen that they were always there in waiting.

This is, again, my point. It no longer remains supernatural if it is logical, it becomes natural.

Logic itself is something that originates from the supernatural, even as the natural originates from the supernatural. So your point doesn’t make sense to me. Because logic is not restricted to the natural. But the natural is not able to reach all aspects of the logical. Or at least not easily. Certainly this is indicated by the fact that certain mathemetical proofs took centuries, and some are still unsolved. I say that loosely, because you might not allow math to include logic.

Alois:

It would not be illogical with the new knowledge.

Not really. If we saw randomness, we would conclude that there is no guiding logic behind the realm. It wouldn’t be logical, and therefore, not natural either.

I don’t follow you here. Are you saying randomness is illogical and supernatural?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

I am showing the first knowable aspect of existence, which is the p.s. from post #735.

No, you define infinite existence in that post.

I did not merely define. I used logic, sense, and reason to demonstrate that there could never have been total nothingness, which means total or perfect somethingness actually exists. This is not just a definition. It is a logical conclusion.

Alois:

You then throw in the catch phrase of “perfect somethingness” to make existence seem closer to the definition of a God. More on this next.

Or is it that this is proving something exists that you recognize is called “God”, and are thinking that I am trying to trick you into it?

Alois:

In post #791 I go on to give the p.s. a name, “God”, because all existence subsists in it: “God” subsists in Himself, and all creation also subsists in “God”. “God” exists intrinsically, creation exists extrinsically. I started elaborating on the other attributes of this intrinsic existence, but you are still stuck on whether existence is God. I have shown you how it is so, but you are going to have to stop clinging to your presumed definitions in order to see what I am showing you. This is not faith, this is understanding a concept. Are you deliberately refusing because you predicted the outcome? But at least I give you a new understanding of “existence”. It is not just the sum of all manifested and possibly manifested things.

Faulty logic.

1.) Perfect somethingness is your reclassification of existence, you have not seperated the definement of the two terms.

I explained it below the 4 steps. I explained in in other posts. Did you not read them? Perhaps I should lengthen the step to make it more explicit?

1. Therefore, there was never total nothingness
2. Therefore, there must have always been somethingness
   4a. But somethingness that always existed must be sufficient for itself, because it didn’t need anything else to exist
   4b. But something that doesn’t need anything else is already perfect and complete
   4c. Therefore, there must have always been perfect somethingness

Is this faulty to you?

Alois:

2.) You name existence God because it contains all existence, this is not the definition of a God by any means. It is the definition of existence.

I showed that intrinsic existence is God, and that all existence subsists in intrinsic existence. I showed that only intrinsic existence always existed, because all else is not essential, and also because it is obvious that we did not always exist as babies and also as adults. This is logical, and instructive. Why do you refuse to learn from the conclusions of logic, sense, and reason?

Perhaps we should reference the term “subsist”?

Subsist : \Sub*sist", v. i. [imp. & p. p. Subsisted; p. pr. & vb. n. Subsisting.] [L. subsistere to stand still, stay, remain alive; sub under _ sistere to stand, to cause to stand, from stare to stand: cf. F. subsister. See Stand.]

1. To be; to have existence; to inhere.
2. To continue; to retain a certain state.
3. To be maintained with food and clothing; to be supported; to live.

Somethingness is not just the collection of all that exists or could exist. It is only that which is actually essential to existence, which would be the essence of itself and all that can possibly be.

Also, the p.s. could not possibly be just a collection of all kinds of existence, because then that would not allow for anything to happen. It would just be static because everything would already exist. Even now we see that we can make decisions as to which of several possible actions we will take, and so determine which possibilities to manifest. Even if you call these the existence of events, not all events became manifested. So if you consider your senses, you will see that things are happening right now that did not already happen, and thus could not have always existed as already manifested.

This shows that the somethingness must have a will and power to cause something to happen that did not happen before.

(continued)

 

[hurst]

Alois:

3.) God - aka perfect somethingness - aka existence exists due to everything within in it.

More specifically, due to everything essential to it. As a comparison, water doesn’t exist due to the air bubbles in it, but rather due to the water molecules it subsists in, for the water molecules are the essence of water.

Alois:

4.) Existence does not create anything, as I have shown you. It is everything.

I already know and agree with that, from the perspective of definition #3 for the word “existence” that I provided.

However, that is not the definition I have used for some time now. I use definition #1. You are still stuck on my illustration of the set of Integers as a source, aren’t you? It was only a comparison, and I assure you that I do not view the p.s. as a set of things. It is not logical or reasonable to do so. If existence is just the set of everything that is or could be, then what determines which possible event actually takes place in our lives?

Alois:

5.) Your last sentence is unclear, but I assume you’re saying that existence is contained within in PS, otherwise known as God. Of course, this is blatantly false logic because you have failed to seperate the definition of PS from that of God. It’s like saying that a cell phone only exists because of the cell phone it is.

I say existence subsists in the PS, and not that the PS contains it. There is a difference. The PS is the existence that has existed always. But we learn from our senses that not all kinds of “existence” have always existed, so therefore there must be at least two kinds of existence: that which always existed, which has to exist by itself; and that which later existed, which has to subsist in something already existing (making it extrinsic). Show how this is false logic?

The p.s. is not a definition. It is a logical conclusion. The further “definition” of the p.s. is discovered by additional logic, sense, and reasoning. For example, we deduce that it must have a will because it is the only possible cause available for the hierarchy of later-existing existences.

“God” is commonly defined as that from which all else has been created.

I didn’t get your reference to the cell phone.

Alois:

6.) What are you defining creation as? Our world?

Anything not essential to that which always existed. It would include the world, the universe, and anything else that did not always exist.

Alois:

Like I have said, you can not reclassify something and say it is something else. Existence is defined (and not just by me) as everything that exists. Your PS is defined as everything that exists. Your PS is, therefore, existence coated in a new, God friendly paint color. Is a switch a router because they both handle network flow?

I am not reclassifying PS as “God”. I am calling the PS “God”, and in doing that I am establishing clearly what it is that “God” must be, as far as is naturally knowable. If anything, I am reclassifying “God” as the PS, which I have established as essential intrinsic existence, distinguished from unessential extrinsic existence. Obviously then, if “God” is the intrinsically existing somethingness, then “God” exists, and all the attributes we can deduce about the PS are actually the naturally knowable ones of “God”.

So I have shown both that it is logical to believe in “a God”, and also that “God” must be the essential somethingness that always existed and caused later-existing things to participate in the essential somethingness.

Existence is defined as:

From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Existence : \Ex*ist"ence, n. [Cf. F. existence.]

1. The state of existing or being; actual possession of being; continuance in being; as, the existence of body and of soul in union; the separate existence of the soul; immortal existence.
2. Continued or repeated manifestation; occurrence, as of events of any kind; as, the existence of a calamity or of a state of war.
3. That which exists; a being; a creature; an entity; as, living existences.

The “PS” is the somethingness that always essentially existed, not merely “everything that exists”.

(continued)

 

[hurst]

Alois:

… It is not just the sum of all manifested and possibly manifested things.

You have not shown your last sentence to be true. You’ve defined PS as existence, if you wish for it to be more, then give me some examples on how it differs from “everything that exists”.

The PS has to be different from definition #3 of “existence” for at least three reasons:

1. manifested things are not essential to the existence of possibly manifested things, because the possibility remains whether or not it ever becomes manifested
2. possibly manifested things cannot manifest themselves; the PS must also have a will somehow, and power to effect it
3. manifested things did not always exist and thus cannot possibly be intrinsic to the PS

I’ve shown that the PS must be somethingness that always existed. This differs from “everything that exists” because of common sense, which tells us that not everything we experience exists all at once.

Example: We do not exist as a baby and an adult at the same time. So you see already that there is a difference between our existence as either. If these were all in the set of “everything that exists”, then at one point the baby possibility would be real, then at another point the adult possibility would be real. And the old man possibility may or may not happen. Since they may or may not happen, without loss to the existence of those before us, then they are non-essential to the somethingness that always existed. How then could they have all always existed as manifested?

Alois:

You shot yourself in the foot here. I think we both know that I have been classifying existence as all possibilities, I mean, I’ve only said that in just about every post… It is not just the manifested universe. It is all possibilities, it is all that is.

I know you have, but you have presented it as a passive set of things, a basket of eggs. I have shown that the PS is not, can not, be like that, because the manifested universe did not always exist as we know it. It changes moment to moment.

Alois:

Furthermore, you still haven’t proven your intrinsic and extrinsic claims. You happily ignored my posts concerning the topics and have asserted them as truth.

I have deduced, shown, and demonstrated why and how it is that existence must be distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic. I don’t understand how that counts for mere assertion.

hurst

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

I think I mentioned this previously on this thread, but it’s so neat that I’ll run the risk of repeating myself. We actually have at least seven senses, and possily more (I’m not entirely sure). The sixth is obvious - our sense of balance. The seventh is less well-known - proprioception. It’s the sense that tells us what position our body is. For example, if you wake up blindfolded, you can tell how you’re arranged without using your other senses. This particular sense is actually fairly important - it becomes rather difficult to walk without it.

i can buy this (even though i think that proprioception is really just a use of the sense of touch more than it is a wholly separate sense).

i would say that yet another sense that people have is the sense of the divine. and a moral sense. we perceive god (or a more than human source of meaning and value) with the former, and right and wrong with the latter.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

I’m sorry for ever continuing the discussion about the car. You’ve already asserted that there cannot be any evidence against this causal principle; if there appears to be such evidence, we just haven’t looked hard enough. But since you ask, it would actually be pretty hard to take a single event as evidence of noncausality. On the other hand, if we had a repeated phenomenon (say ping pong balls popping into existence), and we saw that there was no other phenomenon which was correlated with this one, then that would be pretty good evidence of noncausality (since causality implies correlation). But this doesn’t matter; you’ve asserted that causality is a necessary, a prioiri principle. QM doesn’t matter in that case, nor does any other piece of evidence, as you previously argued.

let’s forget the car example - you never actually provided me an answer to my principle question: when does not knowing if there’s a cause entail non-causation, and when does it only entail unawareness of causation?

why would our not being able to find a cause for something ever be greater evidence for the proposition “there is no cause”, than it would be for the proposition “our current instrumentation is insufficiently sensitive to detect the cause”?

EnterTheBowser:

I previously argued that science would not, in fact, break down in a universe where ping-pong balls randomly popped into existence without cause. If we admit that some things begin without cause it does not follow that everything begins without cause.

sure. but how would you ever know when something did or did not have a cause? i mean, if simply not being able to find one is sufficient reason to posit its non-existence, then when would you know when to stop looking? why begin looking in the first place?

EnterTheBowser:

The point is that the premise that the universe began is not yet supported or denied by physics - science is inconclusive on this fairly empirical question. So an argument based on that premise is similarly inconclusive.

ok, now this is simply and straightforwardly false - the only (serious) physical theory that makes an attempt to eliminate the initial singularity is hawkings’, and it makes no ontological sense. every other contending cosmological theory implies a beginning of the universe, and their proponents understand and acknowledge this.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Everything is still a quantity or arrangement of the base partical. We refer to an atom as an atom because it’s much more simple to do so than to name off the attributes of its base partical. Much like we refer to a chair as a chair because it is much easier than calling it “Four wooden legs, a flat wooden board on top of those legs, and a backrest of wood”. They are not extrinsic, because their base is intrinsic.

On the contrary, this is precisely what extrinsic existence is: a new existence formed from something already existing. I see that it should be added that it is more than just a collection of things already existing, but combined so as to make a new and distinct kind of entity.

You can have four wooden legs, a flat wooden board, and a backrest of board. You do not have a “chair” until they are put together in a particular manner. And the individual parts were formed according to the form of the chair for which they were intended. The concept of the chair existed in the mind of the person who was forming the parts before those parts were made.

Same for the atom. You can have protons, neutrons, and electrons, but they are not atoms unless and until they are grouped together as such.

Extrinsic : \Ex*trin"sic, a. [L. extrinsecus; exter on the outside _ secus otherwise, beside; akin to E. second: cf. F. extrins[`e]que. See Exterior, Second.]

1. Not contained in or belonging to a body; external; outward; unessential; – opposed to intrinsic.

Do you see that the existence of the chair is unessential to the existence of its parts? The parts could be assembled in another manner and not be a chair, but those parts still exist.

Do you see that a quark does not need an atom to exist?

In the same way, a lawnmower engine can be removed from the lawnmower, put on a bench, and started up. The lawnmower needs the engine, but the engine does not need the lawnmower. The engine still works as long as it has all its essential components. If you take it apart, it will not work anymore. Then you just have engine parts, and not an engine. The engine needs the parts to be put together properly to be an engine, but a screw is still a screw whether or not it is in the engine. So the screw is intrinsic to the engine, but the engine is not intrinsic to the existence of the screw; rather, the engine is extrinsic to the screw.

These clearly show what I mean by extrinsic existence, and it logical, sensible, and reasonable.

There is a difference between a collection of parts, and those same parts assembled in such a manner as to make a different existence manifest.

Do you accept the above?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

In the same way, the manifested universe is extrinsic to the p.s. because it is not essential that the manifested universe exist in order for the p.s. to exist. So they are not one and the same thing. But that the manifested universe does exist, absolutely proves that the p.s. must also exist.

This is untrue. Existence (aka PS) is defined as everything there is.

No it isn’t. The PS is everything that always was. And that is not a mere definition, but a logical conclusion. Since nothing can come from nothingness, then something always was. I can go along with the fact that the manifested universe “always was possible”, but not that it “always was manifested”. This is instructive for us. Are you willing to follow the evidence where it leads, or not?

Alois:

All possibilities. We are one of those possibilities, and if we were to be removed existence would no longer be complete. We are a part of the composition of existence, and we are insintric because if you were to remove our manifested universe, you would cause existence to not contain all possibilities.

Your logic is flawed. We are only intrinsic to “existence” if you define “existence” as the set of all kinds of existences. But as I have shown, that is not what the PS is. Regardless of what you name the PS, it has to be that which has always actually existed, including actual possibilities. It cannot be manifested possibilities, because they do not remain, even now.

It is instructive to us that manifested existence is not essential to all existence, and not only did it not always exist as a manifestation, but it does not stay in existence as such, even as we are no longer babies.

Where is this illogical, unnatural, or unreasonable?

Again, the fallacy in your logic is that you equate actual possibilities with manifested possibilities. Do you not see that something changed to make it go from one to the other? And the very fact that this change must be made shows that it logcially could not have always been manifested.

And contrary to your assertion, if you removed the manifested universe, you would not remove the possibilities thereof from existence, anymore than removing all cars from the universe removes the possibility of there being another car.

So there is no logical way that everything manifested was always manifested. It is contrary to our very senses and reason. The fact that at least one manifested object did not always exist suffices to prove that it could not have been part of the “somethingness that always was” in manifested form. And manifested form is different from possible form. Thus, “existence” by your definition is always changing, and cannot have been that which always was. Your logic that says for it to be everything in order for it to be existence is short-sighted. The PS that I have shown to logically exist still fulfills the requirement that it is infinite and does not increase in itself, even if it causes new virtual existences from nothing that participate in its somethingness. That is what allows for its actual possibilities to have room to be possible - as manifestations out of nothing, similar to a hole in a doughnut being given its nature by the doughnut, yet being itself nothing without it.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

As I’ve said before, your concept of “essence” is something not present in reality, or logic. This is proof of such. To say that there is something more fundamental than existence is illogical.

I am saying there is something more actual than your use of the term “existence”. You use it as a categorization, sort of like saying “humanity” consists of all men whether possible or manifested. But such a term is meaningless if there were no men to apply it to, for it is only a description, a classification. You can’t really go more fundamental than that, can you? Yet, “humanity” did not exist until there were men. It is a genus, a categorization of something that already exists. And you use the term “existence” in the same way, don’t you?

But that is not what the PS is. The PS is actually somethingness in itself, and always was, because nothing can come from nothingness.

It is illogical to say there is something more fundamental to atoms? We know there protons. Is it illogical to say there is something more fundamental than protons? We know there are quarks.

I am saying there is something more fundamental to extrinsic existence.

Alois:

I remind you again that your term “perfect somethingness” is, as it stands now, just another term for existence. You then try to attach additional traits on to it without founded them in your original proof.

The problem is one of communication and definition. The PS is not another term for the genus of all existence. It is that which actually and essentially exists in itself, and that always existed. There was never total nothingness, so something had to have always existed, and our temporary being somehow subsists in it. It is only logical and sensible to conclude this. It is well founded.

Alois:

We know for a fact that the universe consists of extrinsic existences, as I already showed. These do not exist of themselves, but are composed of other existences. They inherently did not always exist extrinsically, for they were formed at some point. Thus these existences cannot possibly “be” existence themselves, for they were not manifest from eternity. In fact, anything manifested is extrinsic to what it is manifesting.

Nope, shown to be false. In fact, shown to be false in the same manner as I have shown many of your other analogies to be false.

On the contrary, I have shown it again to be so, and refuted your argument in another post. Your approach to showing that my points are false are based on you using the definiton of “existence” as a genus, which is incorrect. The only thing you have shown is that you do not or will not understand what I am talking about.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

It is just you asserting, and claiming that existence isn’t what it is defined as with no evidence (logical or empirical) to prove otherwise.
…
This isn’t even close to the definition of extrinsic.
…
Same issue as above.

Kindly show me where I make that claim without logical basis.

Kindly show me your definition of “existence”.
Kindly show me your definition of "extrinsic ".
Kindly show me your definition of “intrinsic”.

Alois:

Perfect somethingness IS EXISTENCE. If you wish to claim otherwise, you need to have a logical foundation from which to seperate the two. You have NOT established this foundation anywhere.

What you are saying is that the something that “always was” (since there never was total nothingness) “IS EXISTENCE”. But you already have a preconceived notion of what “EXISTENCE” means, and your notion is NOT based on the logical conclusion I demonstrated.

It is you making the false claim that I have not established a foundation, because I have.

It is you twisting the logical conclusion of the existence of “somethingness that always was” into your preconceived notion of existence as that which includes everything, even that which was recently manifested.

I have separated them, but you are the one forming a false dichotomy, perhaps due to your refusal to see what I am showing. It is one thing to demand to be shown something, but it is another to do so while keeping your eyes tightly shut.

However, I am the one doing the demonstration, so you have to take things on my terms. You have to put forth the effort to understand what I am showing. You have to be willing to learn something.

Alois:

Post 735 is nothing more than an attempt to reclassify existence (all that exists) as perfect somethingness, which you yourself define as all that exists.

Correction: as all that always existed.

Alois:

You attempt to make the claim that perfect somethingness is some sort of outside being, but this is not a claim you have supported by your original logical basis.

But I have.

Alois:

It is a seperate claim that you have made, a seperate assumption.

Show me where I make an assumption about the PS. If anything, I have made an “assumption” about what “God” means, and given that name to the PS.

And you are also making an assumption about what “God” is. It is time for you to learn that what you have previously thought of “God” is not logically based. You even admit as much by saying it is not logical to believe in. But now I have demonstrated just what is logical about eternal existence. So now realize finally that “God” must be the PS, because there is nothing greater than the PS. Nevermind that we aren’t done with all the follow-up details. Whatever “God” is, is the same as the logically knowable PS. It is irrefutable. All you are doing is repeating erroneously-based denials and hiding in some irrelevant preconceived definition of terms, while simultaneously saying that I am doing that very thing.

The fact is that even the saints have to base their relationship with “God” on the recognition that He is that which always was, and we are nothing of ourselves, but only participating in existence. This is the basis of faith - the naturally logical, sensible, and reasonable knowledge of “God” and ourselves. It is from there that “God” then reveals Himself in more detail based on our faith. So now you know the secret to holiness and perfection. And it is logical, sensible, and reasonable. Anything else isn’t.

hurst

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

let’s forget the car example - you never actually provided me an answer to my principle question: when does not knowing if there’s a cause entail non-causation, and when does it only entail unawareness of causation?

why would our not being able to find a cause for something ever be greater evidence for the proposition “there is no cause”, than it would be for the proposition “our current instrumentation is insufficiently sensitive to detect the cause”?

sure. but how would you ever know when something did or did not have a cause? i mean, if simply not being able to find one is sufficient reason to posit its non-existence, then when would you know when to stop looking? why begin looking in the first place?

Unless you intend to retract your argument that causality is an a priori principle, there’s no point in discussing this.

ok, now this is simply and straightforwardly false - the only (serious) physical theory that makes an attempt to eliminate the initial singularity is hawkings’, and it makes no ontological sense. every other contending cosmological theory implies a beginning of the universe, and their proponents understand and acknowledge this.

And more importantly… none of these theories is accepted. No astrophysicist is sure about these issues. Given that we shouldn’t accept arguments based on uncertain premises.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

i can buy this (even though i think that proprioception is really just a use of the sense of touch more than it is a wholly separate sense).

i would say that yet another sense that people have is the sense of the divine. and a moral sense. we perceive god (or a more than human source of meaning and value) with the former, and right and wrong with the latter.

I can assure you that proprioception is more than just touch - I’d recommend “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” by Oliver Sacks.

That aside… I don’t think that it would be appropriate to say we have a moral sense like we have a sense of smell. Our moral “sense” is probably more like a faculty of judgment - eg our ability to do math.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Oh, and remember what I said about making elaborate claims without waiting for verification of them?

Follow your own advice. I never agreed to such an arbitrary rule. I am responding to your posts as they appear.

Alois:

I’ll just expose one of the many logical flaws in your statements here and be done with it. - You assert that there is intrinsic existence, and therefore, existence. However…

But “God” is not extrinsic existence…

You here assert that extrinsic existence exists.

Yes, but not of itself. It participates in something else prior to itself.

Alois:

For existence itself to exist, it must contain all forms of existence, and as an infinite set

Do the Integers contain the Rationals? Do the Reals contain the Irrationals? Yet each of them is an infinite set.

Does any set contain all combinations of subsets of itself?

Let me suggest that “existence” need only contain actual existence and actual possibilities. They both have always existed. Nothing else exists by itself. But then where do the manifested possibilities belong? They are unessential, and do not “actually” exist - that is, they haven’t actually always existed as manifestations, and they can’t exist by themselves. They are as much in the “infinite set” as the rationals are in the Integers: they aren’t, yet they can be formed by them. They do not belong to the “Set” of intrinsic existence which always existed. Yet they do exist in a negative sense, just as a hole exists in a doughnut. But what actually exists is the doughnut and the actual possible shapes the doughnut can take. They cannot all be manifested at once, and so make up an unessential part of eternal somethingness. This is instructive of what existence must logically consist of: an actual somethingness, and manifested things that are nothing in themselves. We only know this about the logical somethingness because of our senses detecting such extrinsic things in the universe.

Alois:

defined as being made up of all forms of existence, it must be made up of our existence as well, extrinsic or intrinsic. Thus, there is no extrinsic or intrinsic existence when you’re talking about the totality of existence, and it is a logical flaw to suggest such, in the way you are doing.

I know what you mean, but you are making a logic flaw to assume that an infinite set must already contain all that it can form. The Integers can form all the Rationals, but the Rationals are not properly part of the set of Integers. They are not essential to the Integers. They do not exist apart from the Integers, and are only formed from them.

The same can be said of subsets. The Integers can form more subsets of Integers than there are Integers. But while these subsets must be admitted to “exist”, they only exists extrinsically to the set of Integers from which they are formed. So those subsets are not essential, and do not need to actually already exist in the set in order for them to ever exist. They only need to be actually possible to be formed.

I hope this makes things clearer.

Alois:

It is not the source or cause, it is. I’ve explained this before, and already show one of the logical flaws in your statements, refer to those pervious statements.

You have brought up a good point, but it only strengthens my argument. The Integers are indeed the source for the Rationals. The rationals exist from the Integers without having to be in the set of Integers. (Note: this is just a demonstrative example of extrinsic existence in relation to an infinite set, and not meant to be a direct correlation to the PS, though it is a nice comparison).

Alois:

Making a claim on a broken base.

Thank you for specifying what you thought was faulty. I hope you understand my response.

hurst