I ask this question about a year ago the conversation got a little watered down and the question was lost and I would just like to revisit this topic. Some of you guys also corrected me which the way I worded the question was wrong so I going to attempt to correct it and try again.
There is only 2 way for something to exist, to come into existence or to always exist. Is this correct? If you know another way for something to exist please explain.
My opinion is that anything that is physical or metaphysical has to fit in one of those two categories. I do not believe there is a third option for existence, I think it's impossible for a third option to even be explain and I would like you guys to correct me if I'm wrong.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Hi, Zero. Could you define in which terms should we consider "exist"? Is it "to be", "to be real", "to live", "to survive"...?
The definition for it is objective reality I think that's accurate.
Okey, I have another question for you...
Did these beings in objective reality come to existence? Are any of them in a third state?
1. A butterfly which metamorphosed from a worm.
2. A very recent dead animal's body.
3. The same animal totally decomposed and turned into manure.
.
This theory is not just for beings but literally any thing you can think of darkness, a jacket, chair etc anything you can think of has to either come into existence or always exist.
Like your butterfly example: would you say that the worm and butterfly comes into existence at some point?
Funny how your question morphed into a theory in less than 2 hours.
It's a question not a theory my bad.
@Zero: would you say that the worm and butterfly comes into existence at some point?
That was precisely my question to you. For me, the butterfly metamorphosed, it didn't pop into existence.
What would you say about the other two examples? Dying is the opposite to coming into existence, yet the dead body is not the same being that it used to,... or is it?
P.S. (edited)This theory is not just for beings but literally any thing you can think of darkness, a jacket, chair etc anything you can think of has to either come into existence or always exist.
So this theory it's about beings (alive or not) and... abstract concepts? Are the same states we're trying to elucidate then applicable to both beings and concepts???
@Angiebot
I think the butterfly is born or reborn as a butterfly, which would mean it comes into existence you don't agree?
"What would you say about the other two examples? Dying is the opposite to coming into existence, yet the dead body is not the same being that it used to,... or is it?"
I think something that transforms still has a starting point or a beginning. If something dies and comes back to life in a different body I would actually say it comes into existence twice, which is one of the ways I stated something can exist.
But this "theory" does not have to be a being or alive for example does a chair come into existence or does it always exist if not what is a 3rd way for a chair to exist? Which I do not believe there is a 3rd way.
@Zero, "reborn as a butterfly, which would mean it comes into existence you don't agree?". I'm sorry, I don't. It already existed, it just changed. It supposedly hasn't died at this point (they're in a "sleeping" state during the larva stage), so there's no new starting point to existence, but a point of living in a new body and a different behavior.
If you need more info about the metamorphosis of worms into butterflies: https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/animals-ecology/how-caterpillar-turn-...
A chair doesn't "come into existence", it is built from a previous tree's wood... Because if you consider it did, when would you consider its existence began? When the tree was cut, when the wood was cut and curved, when the pieces joined are able to stand up, when it's already screwed, when it's painted, when it has dried, when it's varnished, when it has dried, when it's stored, when it's sold, when it's used for the first time... Is there a clear starting point?
That's precisely my argument, there's no white (come into existente) or black (always existed), there are greys in between.
And if you ask me about abstract concepts... I can imagine so many states I don't know where to begin...
P.S. You keep reapeting "theory", when I think you mean "hypothesis"... Please, be clear on this.
(edited)
Angiebot
" It already existed, it just changed."
So if it already existed there is no starting point or beginning to a butterfly? Would you say the caterpillar is the starting point which changes into a butterfly?
A chair is created the definition of create is to bring something into existence
@ZERO
The reason that your first attempt was "watered down" was because you attempted to pose a question to have a predetermined outcome. You are STILL attempting that intellectually dishonest position. You are basically attempting to paint atheists in a corner so they will have to answer "the question" the way you want. NOT GONNA HAPPEN!
The problem with your "question" is that you make a fundamental error in that you assume something without any proof. You assume that there are only two ways anything can come into existence.
You want very much to FORCE atheists to agree with your logic. The thing is that it isn't at all logical.
Even if you were to be successful, you can never prove that a god created anything. You'd have to prove a god which you will not and cannot do.
But IF and it is a BIG FUCKING IF, we were to agree to follow your ill-fated logic and answer the way you have predetermined us to do, you'd have to follow your own logic. That is to say that YOU would have to admit that YOUR god could not have created himself.
So I propose this to you ZERO. You prove your god with REAL evidence. When and if you do (and you never will) we'll go for there!
@mykcob4
Its is simply a question I have a opinion on the topic but I could be wrong. I'm not putting you guys in a corner my opinion is there is only 2 ways for something to exist and I am challenging you guy to prove me wrong if you can't do that don't get mad.
No ZERO, that is not what you are doing. BTW I am not mad.
You posed a question with a predetermined answer. That is intellectually dishonest.
There is no reason to prove you wrong, it is illogic to try and do so. It is up to you to prove yourself right. You say that there are only two ways that anything can come into existence. Okay bright guy, prove it.
Do use psycho-babble or word salad, just prove what you claim.
Oh does that make you mad that I won't play your silly game? Tough shit!
See you can't just make up rules then ask a ridiculous question and expect intelligent people to play. We know the outcome and it isn't reality.
I told you what you need to do. I was very plain.
Let me give YOU an example of what you did in a way that you may understand.
Example of an intellectually dishonest or a push poll question.
"Since god is perfect, and he made imperfections can you explain why the creator that created god made god imperfect?"
That is a "push poll" question. It is designed to have a predetermined outcome.
Here is another.
I ask you "Did your dad ever catch you jacking off in the closet?"
If you answer "NO", I reply "good hiding place isn't it?"
If you answer "YES", you just admitting to masturbating in secret.
Either way, I have controlled the outcome to make you look like an ass. Of course, you don't need any help doing that.
Mykcob is 100% right, @Zero. You are the one who claims there are only two states, but you're not proving that yourself... And what I try to make you see in my last post is that you're mixing rules for beings, objects, concepts, and you don't give a satisfactory explanation for doing this...
The burden of proof is certainly yours, since you're the one with the "theory" whose proposals seem tampered btw.
P.S. A chair is created the definition of create is to bring something into existence Then, I have to ask again: Where's the starting point of the existence of a chair?
I only stated that my opinion is that there is only 2 states of existence I never said I had proof or that I was right.
I first ask if this assumption is correct and if not please explain another way for something to exist outside of the 2 ways I have stated.
A chair does not have to be made from wood or a tree but I would say idk I do know that the chair did not always exist and my opinion would be it has a starting point which falls under one of the two ways I have stated something to exist and my question to you is, is there a 3rd state for the chair to exist?
For something to come into existence it can be a a living thing or and objects and idk what to categorize some like darkness or energy probably concepts but do they exist what is a 3rd state for there existence?
Living beings can exist, can experiment deep changes which can alter their existence, have existed (therefore being transformed into something else that exists) or not exist.
Objects can be built, transformed or destroyed. Ideas (thought, dreamt, remembered, forgotten...) are the result of previous complex processes of the brain to mold them.
They don't come into existence.
I'm definitely not talking about dreams or thoughts but my definition of concepts in this context is like energy, light, or darkness. Do they have starting points or beginnings? We're they created or did they always exist? If not what is a possible 3rd state of existence for these concepts.
Also objects can be created which like I said before the definition of create is to "bring something into existence" which is one of the 2 ways I have stated for something to exist.
I respectfully disagree zero. Your question is a loaded assumption that you think will paint an atheist into a corner but it's Ill fated logic.
Science has already proven that something can be created from nothing. It's also true that on a sub atomic level particles exist and don't exist at the same time. There are other fundamental particles that don't exist until you look for them, weirder yet that they exist in two places at the same time. You asked if there was another alternative to something existing forever or coming into existence. I present to you quantum entanglement where a particle can exist and not exist at the same time, where it can be said to have existed for eternity but is yet to exist and can be here and yet not here. These are clear, scientifically tested states of existence that challenge the assumption that it either had a point of origin or was always here.
You get that Nobel prize yet?
Zero, I don’t see any other possible categories. Either something has always existed or it has come into existence. It is logically impossible for a thing to create itself or make itself come into existence because it would have to exist prior to coming into existence. It seems logical to me that there must be something that has always existed in order for anything to exist at all.
PROVE IT AJ777!
You may not see "any other way" but that doesn't mean that there isn't another way! And of course, you answer that way. You are a non-atheist so you want to play this push-poll bullshit game.
You want very much for something to have always existed because you want to claim it is your god.
2 FUCKING BIG PROBLEMS with that.
1) You have to prove your god, which you will not and cannot do.
2) You have to prove something has always existed. I want to see how you prove that little tidbit!
You christian/believers have no problem dismissing science, then in the same godamned fucking sentence you make some motherfucking stupidass illogical statement and offer ZERO FUCKING PROOF to support your idiot statement!
So AJ777 FUCKING PROVE IT!
Mykob4, sure I can give you a logically valid argument based on current scientific views. First i think the correc standard to know anything is that which is used in the law, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God or a cause of the the universe.
1. Anything that begins to exist needs to have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist, space, time, matter and energy all came into existence at the same instant according to current Big Bang cosmological understanding.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
If premise 1,2,and 3 are valid. The argument is correct. The cause of the universe must necessarily have existed prior to and outside of the universe. This cause must be eternal because as Aristotle said there must be an unmoved mover. An uncaused first cause. Prior to the discovery of the Big Bang atheists believed the universe was eternal. Now that science has shown us that it is not why is it that atheists cannot believe in something eternal outside of the universe?
That just isn't true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidenote: #3 isn't a premise.
What is your evidence that counters the current scientific consensus?
The Big Bang was not so much a creation of all these things as it was a phase transition. Space, and by extension time, wasn't "created" at that point, it expanded.
@AJ777
It isn't a scientific consensus. It is YOUR consensus. A consensus of 1 isn't a consensus. Since it is proven by any means, it is an assumption.
That is NOT the scientific consensus. The Big Bang theory is a mathematical model that describes the expansion of a isotropic homogeneous plasma. It does not describe "space, time, matter and energy [coming] into existence".
@AJ777
And what makes you so sure that Aristotle was right? After all, he believed that everything was made of earth, air, fire and water.
Good point.
As far as I'm concerned, if an ancient philosopher and a modern physicist butt heads, I'm siding with the physicist. We've learned quite a bit about the universe since Aristotle's days.
Artistotle also thought that men had more teeth than women, but it never occurred to him to test his hypothesis through observation.
Pages