Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[randerizer]

Well, at least you are not saying that the the appearance of life in the Universe does not have any meaning, just that you don't see any meaning to it.

I don't think anyone could DEDUCE that it has meaning. Ultimately, it's an emotional response that it does.

[FishingBack]

I can prove that a supreme being did not create existence out of nonexistence. I can further prove that a supreme being cannot be all that is existence, because all consciousness would be introspective, which cannot exist. If you want to suggest that an existing being caused a big bang, and that that being is different than us (not human, or not animal, or etc.) within a definite existence, I cannot disprove that. But you can get no closer to proving it than I can to disproving it, so it is entirely arbitrary.

Nobody said anything about proving the existence of anything, I said you couldn't prove or disprove it. edit: ironic I was being the devil's advocate talking about God.

You can't prove or disprove that existence was created out of non-existence.

You can't argue with the idea that a supreme being can do anything, anytime, anywhere. You can just not believe it.

[randerizer]

Nobody said anything about proving the existence of anything, I said you couldn't prove or disprove it.

You can't prove or disprove that existence was created out of non-existence.

You can't argue with the idea that a supreme being can do anything, anytime, anywhere. You can just not believe it.

Nonexistence cannot exist.

But anything, anytime, anywhere presumes an existence. A supreme being cannot escape that.

[randerizer]

Nobody said anything about proving the existence of anything, I said you couldn't prove or disprove it. edit: ironic I was being the devil's advocate talking about God.

You can't prove or disprove that existence was created out of non-existence.

You can't argue with the idea that a supreme being can do anything, anytime, anywhere. You can just not believe it.

Try to disprove the fundamental axioms:
1) existence exists
2) A is A (identity)
3) consciousness exists, and we know it exists because we can perceive existence.

[saltydawg]

I can prove that a supreme being did not create existence out of nonexistence. I can further prove that a supreme being cannot be all that is existence, because all consciousness would be introspective, which cannot exist. If you want to suggest that an existing being caused a big bang, and that that being is different than us (not human, or not animal, or etc.) within a definite existence, I cannot disprove that. But you can get no closer to proving it than I can to disproving it, so it is entirely arbitrary.

You are the one who claim that you could disprove that a Supreme Being caused the Big Bang. That statement was arbitrary. I never stated that a Supreme Being caused the Big Bang.

[randerizer]

You are the one who claim that you could disprove that a Supreme Being caused the Big Bang. That statement was arbitrary. I never stated that a Supreme Being caused the Big Bang.

I have proven that a supreme being did not create existence.

[saltydawg]

I don't think anyone could DEDUCE that it has meaning. Ultimately, it's an emotional response that it does.

Oh, really? I guess it would depend by what you mean by "meaning"?

[randerizer]

Oh, really? I guess it would depend by what you mean by "meaning"?

Everything depends on definitions (or what I mean by the words I use), yes. But I think you know what I meant.

[saltydawg]

I have proven that a supreme being did not create existence.

No you haven't. All you have done is reason from a group of assumptions. Since we don't know how or why the Big Bang occurred, a supernatural force that is unknown to us could be responsible.

[randerizer]

No you haven't. All you have done is reason from a group of assumptions. Since we don't know how or why the Big Bang occurred, a supernatural force that is unknown to us could be responsible.

But I'm not arguing about the Big Bang. I'm arguing about existence.

I do not see which assumptions I am using. All of the fundamental axioms have been proven to be axioms.

[saltydawg]

Everything depends on definitions (or what I mean by the words I use), yes. But I think you know what I meant.

What do you mean by the word "meaning"?

What you are claiming is that because existence IS it has no meaning. isn't that arbitrary?

[randerizer]

What do you mean by the word "meaning"?

What you are claiming is that because existence IS it has no meaning. isn't that arbitrary?

I'm saying that to deduce meaning is arbitrary. But "meaning" implies that someone did something with a definite purpose. If you are saying that someone created existence with a purpose (giving existence a meaning), that is invalid.

[saltydawg]

But I'm not arguing about the Big Bang. I'm arguing about existence.

I do not see which assumptions I am using. All of the fundamental axioms have been proven to be axioms.

Goodness sakes, randerizer, existence starts with the Big Bang.

All of your "axioms" don't amount to a hill of beans.

[randerizer]

Goodness sakes, randerizer, existence starts with the Big Bang.

All of your "axioms" don't amount to a hill of beans.

No, existence does not start with the Big Bang. By definition, existence existed before the big bang, at least if the big bang is a definite event with a single point.

The axioms are valid.

[saltydawg]

I'm saying that to deduce meaning is arbitrary. But "meaning" implies that someone did something with a definite purpose. If you are saying that someone created existence with a purpose (giving existence a meaning), that is invalid.

By "meaning" I mean that our space, time, energy, matter matrix is not a random accident, and that that statement is not arbitrary but can be deduced by the appearance of life forms in our space, time, energy, matter matrix.