What exists on the "other" side of a Mobius strip?

[e_c]

**1. **Yes, it is time to “poke” the hornet’s nest.

**2. **The word “universe” means everything that exists. Therefore the questions like “what exists outside the universe?” and “what existed before the universe came into existence?” or “what caused the universe to exist?” are all illegitimate, invalid questions. Just like what exists to the north from the North Pole. To use the words “outside” or “before” the universe are meaningless. Causation is undefined for the universe, it is only defined inside the universe.

**3. **Of course the definition “everything that exists” does not limit existence to physical existence. There is the conceptual existence, which is the realm of ideas or concepts. And there is the alleged existence of gods, angels, demons, and other hypothetical beings. These alleged entities are not supposed to be physical, but not fully conceptual either. Yet they are able to interact with the physical existence in some nebulous, undefined way. How? No one can establish that.

**4. **The point is that we can experience the physical existence either directly (with our senses) or indirectly, via the extension of the senses. Yet, some believers assert that the physical existence needs some external “explanation”, while the non-physical realm needs no such explanation.

1. Hopefully you’re not allergic.
2. When you define it that way, yes, you are right. The problem is that it renders the word itself rather meaningless… Why not just say “everything”?

Now I am starting to understand your issue though. When you frame the question as you have, yes, it is absurd. But most people don’t think “everything that exists” when they see the word “universe,” at least on these boards… As Aloysium said, that means “creation/everything other than God.”

The question then ought NOT be “why is there something rather than nothing,” since you are associating God as part of the “something” (which is fair enough but abnormal here on CAF). The question ought to be “why is there that which is in this way,” or something similar.

1. Back to flirting with logical positivism. And the interactions between the immaterial and material are certainly not unexplored. Let me share with you a lesson that I had to learn the hard way:

In philosophy and theology, if you’ve thought of it, someone else probably has too. The more basic and important you get, the more likely this is true.

1. Still stuck on logical positivism. And no, the immaterial requires an explanation as well… until you finally arrive at the principle which does not need an explanation. As you say, it is nonsensical to ask for one, as God simply exists and is an absolute condition for reality.

Friend, I invite you to do some more reading, especially on act and potency and causation. We can point you in the right direction, if you’d like. But the things you are saying are simply not as difficult or as groundbreaking as you think they are. “There is nothing new under the sun.”

 

[Ruqx]

When you define it that way, yes, you are right. The problem is that it renders the word itself rather meaningless…

Why would it be meaningless? The universe is not an object, it is a collection of objects. The concept of “sets” and/or “collections” is very meaningful and useful.

Now I am starting to understand your issue though. When you frame the question as you have, yes, it is absurd. But most people don’t think “everything that exists” when they see the word “universe,” at least on these boards… As Aloysium said, that means “creation/everything other than God.”

If so than it would be useful to present a coherent definition of God, and some rational arguments that the physical reality “requires” a creator, and that creator is the Christian God. The trouble is that frequently God is defined into existence, by saying “Being itself” or “Greatest Conceivable Being” some other undefined / loosely defined / meaningless term.

However, I agree that one of the biggest obstacles is the difficulty of having a mutually acceptable definition for the terms we both attempt to use. I would be delighted to conduct a conversation about the basic terms, and attempt to fashion a common understanding for them.

The question then ought NOT be “why is there something rather than nothing,” since you are associating God as part of the “something” (which is fair enough but abnormal here on CAF). The question ought to be “why is there that which is in this way,” or something similar.

The presented argument, which I quoted in the OP is precisely: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and if you think that it is an incorrect question, then we have something in common.

Back to flirting with logical positivism.

Sorry, that is getting tedious. Logical positivism is a defunct concept.

And the interactions between the immaterial and material are certainly not unexplored.

Well, attempts have been made (telekinesis, prayers, etc…) but so far there has been no positive result. I would be happy to see a valid method which would allow me to conduct some experiments that would reveal the interaction with some immaterial entity.

Friend, I invite you to do some more reading, especially on act and potency and causation.

I am quite familiar with these concepts. The details would lead too far from the topic.

 

[e_c]

**1. **Why would it be meaningless? The universe is not an object, it is a collection of objects. The concept of “sets” and/or “collections” is very meaningful and useful.

**2. **If so than it would be useful to present a coherent definition of God, and some rational arguments that the physical reality “requires” a creator, and that creator is the Christian God. The trouble is that frequently God is defined into existence, by saying “Being itself” or “Greatest Conceivable Being” some other undefined / loosely defined / meaningless term.

**3. **However, I agree that one of the biggest obstacles is the difficulty of having a mutually acceptable definition for the terms we both attempt to use. I would be delighted to conduct a conversation about the basic terms, and attempt to fashion a common understanding for them.

**4. **The presented argument, which I quoted in the OP is precisely: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and if you think that it is an incorrect question, then we have something in common.

**5. **Sorry, that is getting tedious. Logical positivism is a defunct concept.

**6. **Well, attempts have been made (telekinesis, prayers, etc…) but so far there has been no positive result. I would be happy to see a valid method which would allow me to conduct some experiments that would reveal the interaction with some immaterial entity.

**7. **I am quite familiar with these concepts. The details would lead too far from the topic.

1. Fine. We’ll play the way you want.

Why is there something more than what has to exist?

1. By the very fact that you can imagine any physical thing not existing, it does not need to exist. And, it could in fact be destroyed, unless we are talking about matter in general… at that point we must ask, “Why this determinate amount of matter (and/or energy) and not some other?”

Then we can talk about act and potency with relation to necessity. This IS the discussion.

Let’s just pretend we’ve “defined God into existence” (which you’ve not explained the meaning of, as I challenged you to do). So what? If I decide to call that God, what is wrong? Do you want to claim there is no such thing as existence?

Again, go ahead and explain what is meant by “defining into existence.” Give multiple examples and provide a rule for how it is done and an explanation for why it is illicit in rational discourse.

1. Then you will have to read. There is just no way around it. Did you bother yet to look at Berkeley or Descartes or anybody I’ve mentioned?
2. Most people think of that question differently than you. It works for them, it doesn’t work for you. Words can have multiple meanings that can interchange with concepts, and this is what is going on here. “Nothing is better than hot dogs. Steak is better than nothing. Steak is better than hot dogs.”
3. Then why do you continue to steal their material?
4. That is simply not what I am talking about AT ALL. (And we’ll leave aside the unreasonable incredulity of intercession… read a biography of almost any saint, you will toss that attitude out the window.) I am referring to something even as simple as how the soul interacts with the body. We come back to act and potency, as well as form and matter…
5. See #2 and #6. This IS the topic. If you don’t want to talk about act and potency, then there is no point in continuing. If you really are familiar with them, then demonstrate that you understand the cosmological argument that uses these concepts by putting it into your own words (it is the first of the five which Thomas gives).

 

[Ruqx]

Why is there something more than what has to exist?

Please explain what do you mean by “more than has to exist”? “Has to”? By what decree?

By the very fact that you can imagine any physical thing not existing, it does not need to exist.

Why limit to “physical things”? I can imagine that Shakespeare never wrote Hamlet, so Hamlet does not exist “necessarily”. Our imagination cannot create or destroy anything. By your reasoning, if I can imagine that God does not exist - and I most certainly can - he does not “need to exist”.

I suggest to slow down a bit. The concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence can only be discussed in a relative fashion. In a sequence of “grandfather → father → son” the existence of the father is contingent in relation to the grandfather, and it is necessary in relation to the son. Without some relationship, the concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence are meaningless.

The concept of “necessary” existence is the result of the thought experiment of “possible worlds”. A possible world is which does not contain a logically impossible state of affairs. If some entity would exist in all possible worlds, it would exist “necessarily”. But it is easy to prove that there is no necessary existence. We can postulate two possible worlds, one of which only contains one electron, and another one which only contains one positron. The two possible worlds have nothing in common, therefore there is no entity which would exist “necessarily”.

By the way, if someone would like to postulate the “necessary” existence of something, or someone, they would have to analyze ALL possible worlds - which is simply impossible, because there are infinitely many possible worlds.

Let me stop here. Not because I have a problem with the rest of your post, but it is next to impossible to avoid side-discussions, and I would prefer to concentrate on one thing at a time. So the point is that the concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence are nonsensical. We all experience the universe directly. That must be a starting point of any discussion.

Do you want to claim there is no such thing as existence?

Darn, it is hard to stop. Of course I claim that there is no such THING as existence. Existence is an abstraction, not a THING.

Then why do you continue to steal their material?

Logical positivism was the idea that a proposition can only be considered “true” if it can be empirically verified. I explicitly deny that validity of this concept - and I gave examples why that idea is invalid. What did I “steal” from them?

 

[GEddie]

Ultimately, only God necessarily exists. Anything else, physical or nonphysical, is dependent upon Him.

ICXC NIKA

 

[e_c]

**1. **Please explain what do you mean by “more than has to exist”? “Has to”? By what decree?

**2. **Why limit to “physical things”? I can imagine that Shakespeare never wrote Hamlet, so Hamlet does not exist “necessarily”. Our imagination cannot create or destroy anything. By your reasoning, if I can imagine that God does not exist - and I most certainly can - he does not “need to exist”.

**3. **I suggest to slow down a bit. The concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence can only be discussed in a relative fashion. In a sequence of “grandfather → father → son” the existence of the father is contingent in relation to the grandfather, and it is necessary in relation to the son. Without some relationship, the concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence are meaningless.

**4. **The concept of “necessary” existence is the result of the thought experiment of "possible worlds". A possible world is which does not contain a logically impossible state of affairs. If some entity would exist in all possible worlds, it would exist “necessarily”. But it is easy to prove that there is no necessary existence. We can postulate two possible worlds, one of which only contains one electron, and another one which only contains one positron. The two possible worlds have nothing in common, therefore there is no entity which would exist “necessarily”.

**5. **By the way, if someone would like to postulate the “necessary” existence of something, or someone, they would have to analyze ALL possible worlds - which is simply impossible, because there are infinitely many possible worlds.

**6. **Let me stop here. Not because I have a problem with the rest of your post, but it is next to impossible to avoid side-discussions, and I would prefer to concentrate on one thing at a time. So the point is that the concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence are nonsensical. We all experience the universe directly. That must be a starting point of any discussion.

**7. **Darn, it is hard to stop. Of course I claim that there is no such THING as existence. Existence is an abstraction, not a THING.

**8. **Logical positivism was the idea that a proposition can only be considered “true” if it can be empirically verified. I explicitly deny that validity of this concept - and I gave examples why that idea is invalid. What did I “steal” from them?

1. By the decree of its own being - is it a perfectly simple thing? If not, then it must have been put together by something else…
2. Now we are getting somewhere… No, you actually can’t imagine God not to exist, except nominally, just as one can only nominally imagine “Hamlet” to exist/not exist, but for the opposite reason.
3. There is something absolutely necessary. Everything else is discussed under relative terms. What MUST exist in order for other things to exist? Something perfectly simple, something first, something with perfect power, something perfectly good, something that is totally in act and not in potential in any way… God - Who is pure subsisting Being.
4. There isn’t a possible world that doesn’t “have existence” (in the hypothetical way we are speaking here). See #3.
5. See #4.
6. Yes, we do experience the world directly, and this indeed must be the starting point. We see that the world is made of parts, these parts are determinate, and things are changing. See #3.
7. You are right, existence is not a thing - it is very special. This is why we say that God is not “a being”. God is Being Itself Subsisting. This is something altogether different from all else that exists. It can’t be treated similarly. You call existence an “abstraction,” and yet you would certainly say that a thing really does truly exist, while something else does not exist. What the heck does “abstraction” mean then? It is certainly not what Aristotle meant by the word. What does it mean to say “it exists”?

If you push it, you will run into a language barrier. You simply can’t explain what existence is in itself. Seems awfully similar to the mysteriousness which Christians attribute to God, eh?

1. If you say so. But there is more to it than that, by the way.

 

[Ruqx]

What does it mean to say “it exists”?

This is THE fundamental question. It means that it is part of the objective reality. This certainly includes the all the STEM (space, time, energy, matter), the physical existence. So the first part of “existence” is the physical existence. (There are certain people, the solipsists, who deny this. It is easy to “argue” against them, all you need is a baseball bat, and hit them on the head…) Then we can say that “ideas, concepts, abstractions” also exist, but the word “exists” means something different in this case. Too bad that the language does not differentiate between the two different types of existence. The most important difference is that ideas, concepts and abstractions are inert, they cannot interact with the physical reality, or with each other. So the second part of “existence” is the “conceptual existence”, which is different from the “physical existence”. Are we on the same page so far? This is a very important question!

Now comes the “third type of existence” - at least according to the believers. They assert that there is a non-physical, yet active existence, the one which is not spatial and not temporal, but which can interact with the physical existence. This is the point where the problems arise. How can a non-physical “entity” (object) interact with the physical reality? Since any “activity” incorporates a “change” (a changeless activity is an oxymoron), there MUST be some kind of “time” in that realm. The trouble with this type of existence is that it leads to logical errors.

No, you actually can’t imagine God not to exist, except nominally, just as one can only nominally imagine “Hamlet” to exist/not exist, but for the opposite reason.

What the heck does “nominally” mean? I gave you two examples of two possible worlds which have nothing in common and therefore it is now proven that there is no entity which exists in all possible worlds.

There is something absolutely necessary. Everything else is discussed under relative terms. What MUST exist in order for other things to exist? Something perfectly simple, something first, something with perfect power, something perfectly good, something that is totally in act and not in potential in any way… God - Who is pure subsisting Being.

And this is the perfect example of attempting to define God into existence. You declare that there “must be” one entity that “absolutely necessarily” exists, and declare it “God”. And then, to add insult to injury you declare “perfectly good” into one of its attributes. Sorry, that attempt simply does not work.

There isn’t a possible world that doesn’t “have existence” (in the hypothetical way we are speaking here).

But “existence” is NOT an object. Since we both agree that the null-world (empty world) cannot “exist”, yes, every possible world must contain at least ONE object.

Yes, we do experience the world directly, and this indeed must be the starting point. We see that the world is made of parts, these parts are determinate, and things are changing.

Well, not all physical existence is “deterministic”, there are stochastic procedures in the micro world (actually, most of them). Yes, change is inherent in the physical existence… why is that a problem? Of course the world is constantly changing.

This is why we say that God is not “a being”. God is Being Itself Subsisting.

Sorry, these are empty words. And I could not care less what Aristotle said.

By the way, the “God” you speak of has nothing to do with Yahweh or Jesus. It is a hypothetical construct with all sorts of logically problematic (incoherent) attributes.

---

We have some agreement. The physical world exists, and we experience it via our senses. That should be the starting point for the continued discussion.

 

[PseuTonym]

This is THE fundamental question. It means that it is part of the objective reality. This certainly includes the all the STEM (space, time, energy, matter), the physical existence. So the first part of “existence” is the physical existence.

What is the connection between objectivity and physicality?

Also, please tell me: are you simply saying that in this thread you want to talk about the physical part of existence before you talk about other aspects of existence, or is there something more permanent about the assignment of “first” position to the physical part?

Repeating what I consider to be the more important question:
What is the connection between objectivity and physicality?

 

[e_c]

**1. **This is THE fundamental question. It means that it is part of the objective reality. This certainly includes the all the STEM (space, time, energy, matter), the physical existence. So the first part of “existence” is the physical existence. (There are certain people, the solipsists, who deny this. It is easy to “argue” against them, all you need is a baseball bat, and hit them on the head…) Then we can say that “ideas, concepts, abstractions” also exist, but the word “exists” means something different in this case. Too bad that the language does not differentiate between the two different types of existence. The most important difference is that ideas, concepts and abstractions are inert, they cannot interact with the physical reality, or with each other. So the second part of “existence” is the “conceptual existence”, which is different from the “physical existence”. Are we on the same page so far? This is a very important question!

**2. **Now comes the “third type of existence” - at least according to the believers. They assert that there is a non-physical, yet active existence, the one which is not spatial and not temporal, but which can interact with the physical existence. This is the point where the problems arise. How can a non-physical “entity” (object) interact with the physical reality? Since any “activity” incorporates a “change” (a changeless activity is an oxymoron), there MUST be some kind of “time” in that realm. The trouble with this type of existence is that it leads to logical errors.

**3. **What the heck does “nominally” mean? I gave you two examples of two possible worlds which have nothing in common and therefore it is now proven that there is no entity which exists in all possible worlds.

**4. **And this is the perfect example of attempting to define God into existence. You declare that there “must be” one entity that “absolutely necessarily” exists, and declare it “God”. And then, to add insult to injury you declare “perfectly good” into one of its attributes. Sorry, that attempt simply does not work.

**5. **But “existence” is NOT an object. Since we both agree that the null-world (empty world) cannot “exist”, yes, every possible world must contain at least ONE object.

**6. **Well, not all physical existence is “deterministic”, there are stochastic procedures in the micro world (actually, most of them). Yes, change is inherent in the physical existence… why is that a problem? Of course the world is constantly changing.

**7. **Sorry, these are empty words. And I could not care less what Aristotle said.

**8. **By the way, the “God” you speak of has nothing to do with Yahweh or Jesus. It is a hypothetical construct with all sorts of logically problematic (incoherent) attributes.

**9. **We have some agreement. The physical world exists, and we experience it via our senses. That should be the starting point for the continued discussion.

1. The objective reality, eh? Great, you’ve solved it… Finally, someone has defined existence. Get the president on the phone.

Sheesh. You’ve just begged the question.

Yes, there are different kinds of existence. Glad you picked up on this. (That doofus Aristotle said people ought to wait until they’re 35 to start doing metaphysics just because of this - they need the time to get used to this fact and have experienced it enough.) But wait - are these part of the “objective reality” or not? If yes, that’s strange, since they’re “just concepts.” If no, that’s even stranger, since they’re “existing.” Back to the same question, in that case.

Aristotle the Clown has a better answer.

1. What exactly is matter? Riddle me that one, it could help. You’ll see your whole worldview start to melt away. “Extension.” Ok, extension of… what? “Substance.” Ok, substance, as in…? “Matter.” So, what is matter? Etc. There is a better answer which plugs into this “physical non-physical interaction” question.
2. I can talk about a square circle. It sort of means something - it means enough for you to get that what I’m “thinking of” doesn’t even exist in my thought… Just like in a world that you imagine without God doesn’t really exist without God, since if something is existing then there is existence in that world, which means God is there.
3. Well let me declare by a similarly baseless proclamation that you are defining a problem into existence. I must have asked 3 times now for an explanation of what that means, why it is a problem, with examples, and then applied to what I have done. Until then, don’t bother with this “criticism” any more.
4. I never agreed to this in the way you’ve presented it. Reread carefully. The universe you describe is perfectly possible - provided there is the potential for things to exist, which means that there is existence itself.

For the record, it seems like you have the classic misconception that people have of Platonic Forms - that there’s just a ball of “Goodness” floating around somewhere, but it’s like, immaterial or something. NO. You allow your narrow experience to shape your thoughts too much. It also seems you have a similar idea of what Christians see God as.

1. You have misunderstood the word “determinate.” It means “defined” or “particular” or “shaped.” This is where reading those ignoramus dead guys is helpful… you learn the tools of the trade.
2. Nice to hear that you think so.
3. See #7. My purpose here is not to connect the two, though once the God of the Greeks is found, it is easy to see that this is the God of the Jews. One is philosophy, one is theology. Check what forum we’re in.
4. That’s a nice thought. The problem is we can’t go back to Miletus. Our minds have a history and a pedigree that shapes everything. So it is not going to work like you imagine, because it really can’t, except with infants.

 

[Ruqx]

The objective reality, eh?

Yes. Anything and everything that is available to our senses, or their extensions. That is physical existence, and we all experience it every moment of our life. Then we use our ability to create abstractions, which MAY reflect this physical existence. However, we are also able to use our fantasy, and “imagine” all sorts of non-physical beings, which do not refer to anything physical.

As I said, the word “exists” can mean different things. That is the problem of linguistics, and we need to make sure that we apply the words correctly. To say that an “apple” exists is not the same as to say that a “leprechaun” exists, or that the “Pythagoras theorem” exist, or that “angels, demons, ghosts” exist. Why do you wish to blame me for the multiple uses of words? If you look up the word “get” in a thesaurus you will find many pages of different meanings, and yet we can conduct a conversation without getting confused.

I was cautious NOT to limit existence to physical existence. I stipulated that there might be some “non-physical” and yet active existence. What is the epistemology to employ to that kind of existence?

Because epistemology is the key. Metaphysics without epistemology is useless. Explain the epistemology one needs to use to separate true and false statements about this hypothetical, third kind of existence. Specifically, what does it mean that “God, gods, angels, demons, poltergeists, etc…” exist? Because capitalizing “being” to “Being” means nothing special - except maybe reverence for that “whatchamacallit”. Get proactive.

 

[e_c]

**1. **Yes. Anything and everything that is available to our senses, or their extensions. That is physical existence, and we all experience it every moment of our life. Then we use our ability to create abstractions, which MAY reflect this physical existence. However, we are also able to use our fantasy, and “imagine” all sorts of non-physical beings, which do not refer to anything physical.

**2. **As I said, the word “exists” can mean different things. That is the problem of linguistics, and we need to make sure that we apply the words correctly. To say that an “apple” exists is not the same as to say that a “leprechaun” exists, or that the “Pythagoras theorem” exist, or that “angels, demons, ghosts” exist. Why do you wish to blame me for the multiple uses of words? If you look up the word “get” in a thesaurus you will find many pages of different meanings, and yet we can conduct a conversation without getting confused.

**3. **I was cautious NOT to limit existence to physical existence. I stipulated that there might be some “non-physical” and yet active existence. What is the epistemology to employ to that kind of existence?

**4. **Because epistemology is the key. Metaphysics without epistemology is useless. Explain the epistemology one needs to use to separate true and false statements about this hypothetical, third kind of existence. Specifically, what does it mean that “God, gods, angels, demons, poltergeists, etc…” exist? Because capitalizing “being” to “Being” means nothing special - except maybe reverence for that “whatchamacallit”. Get proactive.

1. This is not news.
2. Nor is this. I pointed this out on another thread today, actually… “Being is said in many ways…”
3. None of your experiences are physical in themselves. Start with that fact.
4. Round and round we go. You need a metaphysics to have an idea of the mind. But you need to know what you mean by “true” and “false” to have any kind of metaphysics. But you need a study of being to understand the idea of “truth” as it relates to “being.” Where does it end? It doesn’t matter for us here… We just have to go for it. See my earlier comment about Miletus. We can’t restart… Descartes tried, it didn’t work. And we are not smarter than him.

Friend, what is your point?

 

[e_c]

Let’s rephrase the question:

“Why is there something?”

 

[Ruqx]

Round and round we go.

Nope, not “we”, only “you”. I am still awaiting your answer to the questions I presented. What does the word “existence” mean in regards to non-physical, yet active “mode” of existence? How can something that is not physical interact with the physical? How can you gain knowledge about the alleged “non-physical” existence?

These are the questions I am interested in. If you are willing to answer, I will be happy to read it. If you don’t or cannot, then say so and let’s finish. The choice is yours.

 

[e_c]

Nope, not “we”, only “you”. I am still awaiting your answer to the questions I presented. What does the word “existence” mean in regards to non-physical, yet active “mode” of existence? How can something that is not physical interact with the physical? How can you gain knowledge about the alleged “non-physical” existence?

These are the questions I am interested in. If you are willing to answer, I will be happy to read it. If you don’t or cannot, then say so and let’s finish. The choice is yours.

1. It means what it is. If you are looking for a definition of existence, you’ve come to the wrong person. You just have to “get it.” Remember that ignoramus Aristotle thinking 35 was the age to start doing metaphysics? All of a sudden it’s important.

You can’t say what “existence” is, in any way for any thing, except indirectly or by indicating its presence. You must apprehend it.

Here’s a roundabout “definition” of “immaterial beings”: generally speaking, form without matter. It is therefore determinate, being at least differentiated by genus - if not by species - and if possessed of intellect and will, then those operations are carried out without senses but instead through intuition, illumination, revelation, etc. If not possessed of an intellect and will (such as any abstracted form) then it would be a universal - existing both in the mind and in the thing itself - or a product of the mind on its own from previously collected ideas, or merely experience itself.

Here’s the thing - they don’t exist the same way material things exist. It is DIFFERENT. It can’t be treated the same way. Open your mind to this.

1. Again - what exactly is matter? Push this hard enough and you will see that it is a lesser kind of existence than the immaterial, because it is fleeting. Plato was on to this long ago. I don’t intend to answer your question on “how can they interact” until you can get on board with my “answer” to #1. It would be pointless. The short answer is, “power.”

3.I get the idea that when you say things like “non-physical existence” you are talking about something other than what I have in mind. In any event, we know about them through the senses, through intuition, through illumination, through revelation or other forms of testimony.

 

[Aloysium]

Nope, not “we”, only “you”. I am still awaiting your answer to the questions I presented. What does the word “existence” mean in regards to non-physical, yet active “mode” of existence? How can something that is not physical interact with the physical? How can you gain knowledge about the alleged “non-physical” existence?

These are the questions I am interested in. If you are willing to answer, I will be happy to read it. If you don’t or cannot, then say so and let’s finish. The choice is yours.

:twocents:

People mean different things by “being” and “existence”.
We can’t even begin to discuss this meaningfully because even to start I’ve used the word “things” to signify “no-thing”, that which transcends things.
But let’s try to communicate. The word “existence” implies something static, whereas “being” is an act.
Things are brought into existence as an ongoing transformational process.
The Source of the existence of things is Existence itself, the primary, eternal Cause, outside the realm of things, which brings everything into being

You will have to go outside your box.
Think of how ideas pop into existence as you read this and how it is all tied together, the monitor, the imagined photons and central nervous system, the colours, shapes and meanings. They are all happening together and do so cut off from everyone else’'s experience and even your own of a couple of minutes ago. Everything is changing while nothing is changing as you remain ever fixed in a past-present-future. You are not bringing all this into existence. You participate, making decisions as to which path you will take. Do you stop reading now? It all comes together as you-in-the-world, separate and finite, connected with everything through the relationship that defines your existence.

Concepts related to being/relationality/communion/connection address that aspect of ourselves that transcends the physical, although we are 100% physical beings. The physical is the means by which we meet, by defining time, space and its contents. Be clear that even if you have a postgraduate degree in the physical sciences, if you believe you have a sense of what matter is, you are wrong. You may very well know what it does. You should consider that everything we know about the physical world requires a rational mind. As we push the limits in terms of what is greatest and what is smallest in size, we find the mind reflected back and inseparable from the workings of the physical world - in relativity’s, frames of reference, and the observed behaviour of the subatomic.

The supernatural does not affect the natural, it brings it into being. Eastern thought speaks about the first “sound” ॐ; we have energy in science, light in Genesis. All is a myriad of variations on one primary vibration uttered by God, the Father. All Is subsumed within the supernatural. You and I are persons, finite entities, whole. We move ourselves. The brain and muscles do what they do as constituent parts of a unity which exists in relation, potentially connected to everything else, and which thinks, feels and sees. The person who we are, who decides our destiny, is brought into existence. The analogy is limited and fails beyond this limited application, but you may wish to consider this a dream of a greater mind, a dream in which you decide the outcome.

I think the problem with many atheists is trouble reigning in their imagination and focussing on reality. In large part this results from an unwillingness to submit to the truth. This is way to large a generalization, but it’s my default understanding. At any rate, in the chaos of possibilities where the irrational is considered as valid as what is reasonable, the only solid intellectual ground offered by secular society is empiricism. If this is the only light one has to illuminate the darkness, most of what is important in life will remain unseen.

 

[Ruqx]

Here’s a roundabout “definition” of “immaterial beings”: generally speaking, form without matter.

Hmmm. Like a sentence without meaning? Or a hot air balloon, of which the outer layer (made of rubber) was peeled of by a sharp scalpel?

I get the idea that when you say things like “non-physical existence” you are talking about something other than what I have in mind.

I talk about gods, demons, angels, poltergeists, etc… is that not obvious? How do these “things” interact with the physical reality? Magic?

In any event, we know about them through the senses, through intuition, through illumination, through revelation or other forms of testimony.

Senses? Which one of your senses responds to a non-physical “thing”? Testimony? Revelation? How do you know if the testimony is correct? How do you know that you experienced a “revelation”?

Anyhow. Thanks for your contribution. My questions in this post are rhetorical. They do not require an answer. Best wishes.

 

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by e_c View Post
Here’s a roundabout “definition” of “immaterial beings”: generally speaking, form without matter.

Hmmm. Like a sentence without meaning? Or a hot air balloon, of which the outer layer (made of rubber) was peeled of by a sharp scalpel?

I think a “sentence without meaning” would be matter without form.

I’m not sure your balloon example works at all.

ICXC NIKA

 

[e_c]

**1. **Hmmm. Like a sentence without meaning? Or a hot air balloon, of which the outer layer (made of rubber) was peeled of by a sharp scalpel?

**2. **I talk about gods, demons, angels, poltergeists, etc… is that not obvious? How do these “things” interact with the physical reality? Magic?

**3. **Senses? Which one of your senses responds to a non-physical “thing”? Testimony? Revelation? How do you know if the testimony is correct? How do you know that you experienced a “revelation”?

Anyhow. Thanks for your contribution. My questions in this post are rhetorical. They do not require an answer. Best wishes.

I will answer your rhetorical questions.

1. No. Here’s a primer on what I’m talking about when I say “form”:

newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm

1. No. There are many other kinds of immaterial beings, which I listed (back to those silly universals which have been the driving force of philosophy since the Greeks stopped warring all the time and could sit down for a good think or two). As for interaction between angels and the world, and God and the world, here are two Questions from the Summa respectively, if you are actually interested in beginning to try to grasp this, though I think you will find the language difficult:

newadvent.org/summa/1110.htm

newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm

Again, you actually must be willing to do the work if you want to understand. If you just came to CAF to try to throw wrenches, well, whatever.

1. The senses lead us to the knowledge of the immaterial through the knowledge of the material. I can know what velocity is by experiencing moving things, for instance. Testimony does not include verification - this does not mean it isn’t a source of knowledge. You are begging the question… not all knowledge is self-evident. In fact, most isn’t. You’ve never been to the Andromeda galaxy, yet you know it’s there. You have a justified belief formed virtuously in a favorable environment that is presumably true… You know it, even if you haven’t verified it through looking at it in a telescope.