Existence part 2

93 posts / 0 new
Last post
AJ777's picture
I agree the law of non

I agree the law of non contradiction affirms this, something cannot be both a and non a at the same time, can’t be created and eternal at same time.

Peripatetic 's picture
If anything were to exist,

If anything were to exist, then it would exist either eternally meaning that it has always been existent OR it has not always been existent. But for something to exist and not to have always been existent, it would mean necessarily that its existence is accidental. So, anyone asks for a middle between two contradictories must not be taken seriously and we should feel sorry for their ineptitude.

Peripatetic 's picture
And here we have three

And here we have three pathetic Inepts

Nyarlathotep's picture
AJ777 - ...the precise nature

AJ777 - ...the precise nature of the gravitational constant...

Precise, in what way?
--------------------------------------------------

AJ777 - I agree the law of non contradiction affirms this, something cannot be both a and non a at the same time...

You might notice that what he suggested is not necessarily disjoint nor complements. If he had followed my advice and started with:

  • An object either came into existence,
  • or it did not come into existence.

or perhaps:

  • An object either has always existed,
  • or it has not always existed.

then the law of non-contradiction would be useful here.

ZERO's picture
I have stated:

I have stated:

1.coming into existence

2. always existing

The 2 ways for something to exist you say I should have added "to not come into existence"
and "to not always exist" those are not ways for something to exist. How something doesn't exist is not apart of my argument therefore I should not have taken your advice.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ZERO - ...you say I should

ZERO - ...you say I should have added "to not come into existence"
and "to not always exist"...

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is you should make #2 the complement of #1. I suggested two different ways you might go about doing that.

Flamencabot's picture
Yes, @Zero, you stated 2 ways

Yes, @Zero, you stated 2 ways, yet you failed to prove it.

I should have added "to not come into existence" and "to not always exist"

You forgot "have existed", therefore, when dying, it 'll be transformed into something else that exists.

And, again, this only apply to living beings; as I told you, objects and products of abstraction cannot be labeled the same way.

ZERO's picture
"when dying"

@Angiebot

"when dying"

Does it die if it doesn't then its still in existence if it does then it will have to come back into existence to exist.

I don't see how you think your example doesn't fit into the category of coming into existence. transformation or mametamorphosed are changes inside of existence not a way for something to exist. You have to already exist to transform or mametamorph I have given multiple examples on what I am trying to explain and this "theory" works with any example I can think of.

For example: does sand come into existence or does it always exist? If it's neither one of those choices what is a 3 possible way for sand to exist?

You can use this logic in any example you can think of and it works the same, I challenge you to to name a 3 way for sand to exist.

Flamencabot's picture
@Zero. A living being who

@Zero. A living being who dies decomposes and turns into something else. Manure, por example, made of the rests of a living being, it's a subproduct of a dead body. I wouldn't call this "come into existence", just like in the chair example and that of thoughts.

P.S. I can make up a name for a third name for that state (just for living beings, not valid for objects or ideas), but I don't see the usefulness of that, because, again, you're trying to make this a black and white choice, when it's not.

ZERO's picture
@Angiebot

@Angiebot

"A living being who dies decomposes and turns into something else"

If a being has died or is dead how does it exist? Your logic Implies that it switches from nonexistent to existent.

I'm not trying to make it black or white that's how I see it's my opinion is there is only 2 ways for something to exist. I am challenging you guys to state a 3rd way but instead you say you don't see the usefulness in stating 1.

That's is like when someone says they know a secret or something personal about you and when you ask them what it is they say I not telling you because they really don't know SHIT lmao. I swear idk why I come hear smh!!

Flamencabot's picture
@Zero, if an animal dies, it

@Zero, if an animal dies, it doesn't magically disappear... its body is still existent (at least until it decomposed), so what only evanishes is its conciousness, their heartbeat, etc., therefore I say there's a continuum and death doesn't imply cease to exist in the sense you present it.

you don't see the usefulness in stating 1. It's not about usefulness, it's that you're trying to force an argument on this which cannot be validated by your assertions. I already argued about objects, which can't come into existence. They are fabricated from existing elements. I argued about thoughts, they are complex brain processes, they don't come into existence and then they don't "die", because most of them are kept in brain cells, ready to be used in the future, to be remembered, transformed, refuted or eventually, forgotten.

(edited to fix grammar mistakes)

P.S. "SHIT lmao. I swear idk why I come hear smh!!" My English is not good enough to understand this. Sorry.

ZERO's picture
@Angiebot

@Angiebot

"I already argued about objects, which can't come into existence. They are fabricated from existing elements"

Now we're getting somewhere so those existing elements that are used to create whatever your imagination can think of, do they come into existence or did they always exist?I keep saying that you can use this logic to find out the origins of literally anything you can imagine, everything has to fall in one of these two categories there is no 3rd way in my opinion. Nobody has come close to supplying a solid argument for a 3rd way.

"if an animal dies, it doesn't magically disappear... its body is still existent"

In the context of living beings death by definition means to no longer exist. You used the word dead which makes your point about the body still existent invalid because once a being is classified as dead its no longer in existence.

Flamencabot's picture
@Zero: those existing

@Zero: those existing elements that are used to create whatever your imagination can think of, do they come into existence or did they always exist?

Neither any of those options, hahaha. Considering that any non-eternal object is fabricated by pre-existing materials, which are not eternal either; or made of any eternal element in turn, I wouldn't call it eternal. But as I repeatedly say, fabrication, for me, it's not the same as coming into existence, 'cause the combination of its material and change of function creates a completely different object, something similar to what happens to butterflies, except we consider the butterfly, the same entity as the worm, but should we consider a car different object from its wheelcars+ wheelchair+windows, etc? As a whole, it's the same. (*)

death by definition means to no longer exist. Okey, but not "to cease to exist", that I think you're implying... It's a nuance, but makes a big difference.

Objects don't fall into that description. If you insist on applying your concept to fabricated objects, then I'd say BEING IN PROCESS (fabrication) is a 3rd way. And it could be apply to living beings (as Chimp said, from the moment the egg and the sperm encounter to the moment you get out of your mother's vagina), and to thoughts (process of creation).

Nobody has come close to supplying a solid argument for a 3rd way. It ain't over til it's over, Zero, don't you think? ;)

P.S. It took a woman to kill the Witch-king of the Nazguls.

(*) edited to rephrase this.

ZERO's picture
@Angiebot

@Angiebot

"from the moment the egg and the sperm
encounter to the moment you get out of your mother's vagina)"

At what point would you consider me to exist?

Even for the butterfly example when would consider the butterfly to exist?

If you are claiming something is jumping in and out of existence it has to have an a original starting point or multiple starting points , if not that implies it has always existed.

If you are claiming something has no beginning or starting point that implies it has always existed!!

If you are not claiming either one of those arguments then you are recanting your position but that's exactly what you have been explaining its just not logical.

P.S. CHECK MATE!

Flamencabot's picture
@Zero:

@Zero:

At what point would you consider me to exist? No, I consider your "fabrication" process begins when the egg meets the sperm.

Even for the butterfly example when would consider the butterfly to exist? Since it was a worm/caterpillar; yet it turned into a butterfly, the moment its cocoon breaks.

If you are claiming something has no beginning or starting point that implies it has always existed!! What would you call it then?

its just not logical. If you are so kind, please, explain how I'm not.

P.S. Check mate??? You wish.

ZERO's picture
@Angiebot

@Angiebot

Your use of the the word "fabrication" is incorrect or invalid to your argument. I can prove that your fabrication process as a 3rd way is incorrect based on basic definition or words.

Fabrication is associated with the word invention

Invention is associated with the words origination or creation

Creation means to bring something into existence

Origination is associated with the word beginning

Beginning means the point in space or time that something starts

Start by definition: come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space.

I know you will ignore this fact but alot of the words associated with the word "fabrication" deals with coming into existence, words like start, beginning, create, orgins, are words I have been using in my argument.

"If you are claiming something has no beginning or starting point that implies it has always existed!! What would you call it then?"

I would call it one of the ways I have been explaining that is my question to you, what would you call it let me guess "FABRICATION".

Keith Raye's picture
@Zero

@Zero

Are you aware that you are conversing with someone who speaks English as a second language, and yet both her proficiency in that language and her ability to express herself in it, are way beyond your own? Watching your posts is like watching a dog trying to teach a human mathematics.

ZERO's picture
@Keith Raye

@Keith Raye

She's been very capable of expressing herself in the English language up until this point I was not aware though, I will take note of that for future reference.

AJ777's picture
https://www.discovery.org/f
mykcob4's picture
@AJ777

@AJ777
Both of those sites are propaganda, pseudo-science with a predetermined outcome in mind. They aren't worthy of the time it took for me to read them. You talk about education, well you keep posting propaganda and brainwashing material. None of them have any scientific credibility.

Nyarlathotep's picture
discovery.org - The strong

discovery.org - The strong nuclear force is 10^40 times stronger than gravity...

Well that is non-sense. If you believe that; post the two values so we can all compare them.

Nyarlathotep's picture
No response?

AJ777: Should I assume you won't be doing that?

AJ777's picture
Your claim is that the

Your claim is that the article is untrue, you have the burden of proof.

Nyarlathotep's picture
OK fine.

AJ777 - Your claim is that the article is untrue, you have the burden of proof.

OK fine.

discovery.org - The strong nuclear force is 10^40 times stronger than gravity...

That ratio is non-sense because there is no objective way to compare those two values. To compare them you have to choose two objects and calculate the forces between them. Depending on which objects you choose you can get just about any result you want.

Want the strong force to be X times stronger than gravity? Just pick suitable objects to ensure you get the result you want!

Want gravity to be X times stronger than the strong force? Same situation; pick suitable objects to give you the result you want!

AJ777's picture
Can you give an example of an

Can you give an example of an object and show the calculations?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Sure:

Sure:

I pick 2 electrons separated by 1 meter:

Gravitation force (in the direction toward the other electron): m1*m2*G/r^2
9^(-31) kg* 9^(-31) kg* 7^(-11) m^3 s^(-2) kg^(-1) * 1^(-2) m^(-2) ≈ 3^(-69) N

The strong force: is much simpler, since electrons do not have color charge it is 0.

So it turns out that gravity is infinitely stronger than the strong force! Well at least in this example. With a little work you can get just about any answer you want.

AJ777's picture
So you’ve proved that you can

So you’ve proved that you can manipulate information to align with your opinions.

Nyarlathotep's picture
No; I demonstrated that

No; I demonstrated that anyone can get pretty much any number they want for the ratio between those forces. So when someone tells you the ratio is X; they are playing fast and loose.

AJ777's picture
I appreciate your knowledge

I appreciate your knowledge in this area and your efforts to educate me. I’ll study this and maybe we can talk about it again in the future.

LostLocke's picture
The article is the one making

The article is the one making the claim. And there are no references, footnotes, etc at all when it states that number. He needs to show how he got it, or list references to sources where he read it.
The writer does neither.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.