Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[randerizer]

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.

that deduction is not appropriate - we (life forms) are a very small part of the space/time/energy/matter matrix (existence).

Existence could not be any other way.

[saltydawg]

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.

You see, that statement is just plain wrong. our existence is defined by our space, time, energy, matter matrix which was created by the Big Bang and we have no knowledge of anything before the Big Bang.

By definition, existence did not exist before the Big Bang.

The axioms might be valid but they don't really go beyond their self-evident nature.

[FishingBack]

Of course non-existence doesn't exist.

I'm saying that a supreme being doesn't exist to your understanding of existence. Therefore trying to say that existence as we know it has to be a certain way and that has to apply to supreme beings as well is silly.

Can something with no matter or energy exist? I guess God doesn't exist. If an entity exists outside of our "definition" of existence then you can't say that they don't have any control over existence/non-existence.

If God exists then existence had to be here before God? We wouldn't know enough about God to say one way or the other. Who could say if there was anything before God or where God came from? Is God everything?

Again the idea of logically painting God into a box is silly because the existence of God defies logic.

[saltydawg]

that deduction is not appropriate - we (life forms) are a very small part of the space/time/energy/matter matrix (existence).

Existence could not be any other way.

Wow, you make one arbitrary statement after another. Who says that our space, time, energy, matter matrix could not be any other way?

You might think that life forms are a small part of our space, time, energy, matter matrix, but it is safe to say that they are the most intriguing aspect of it.

[randerizer]

You see, that statement is just plain wrong. our existence is defined by our space, time, energy, matter matrix which was created by the Big Bang and we have no knowledge of anything before the Big Bang.

By definition, existence did not exist before the Big Bang.

The axioms might be valid but they don't really go beyond their self-evident nature.

Nope, existence is everything and is independent of our perception.

[randerizer]

Of course non-existence doesn't exist.

I'm saying that a supreme being doesn't exist to your understanding of existence. Therefore trying to say that existence as we know it has to be a certain way and that has to apply to supreme beings as well is silly.

Can something with no matter or energy exist? I guess God doesn't exist. If an entity exists outside of our "definition" of existence then you can't say that they don't have any control over existence/non-existence.

If God exists then existence had to be here before God? We wouldn't know enough about God to say one way or the other. Who could say if there was anything before God or where God came from? Is God everything?

Again the idea of logically painting God into a box is silly because the existence of God defies logic.

The only definition of existence is "all that is".

The idea of relying on a God that is outside of the box of existence is what is silly.

But you haven't answered my questions with regard to consciousness. Are you suggesting that God is conscious? If God is independent of existence, what is God conscious of?

[saltydawg]

Nope, existence is everything and is independent of our perception.

That statement just doesn't make any sense. I agree that our senses gives us information about our space, time, energy matter matrix, but OUR existence started with the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang OUR space, time, energy, matter matrix did not exist.

Any other existence prior to the Big Bang is just idle, arbitrary speculation.

[saltydawg]

The only definition of existence is "all that is".

The idea of relying on a God that is outside of the box of existence is what is silly.

But you haven't answered my questions with regard to consciousness. Are you suggesting that God is conscious? If God is independent of existence, what is God conscious of?

The problem is that we cannot imagine any other existence other than our space, time, energy, matter matrix.

The only definition of existence that we have is our space, time, energy, matter matrix. Perhaps you would care to explain how there could be anything more than that?

[FishingBack]

The only definition of existence is "all that is".

The idea of relying on a God that is outside of the box of existence is what is silly.

But you haven't answered my questions with regard to consciousness. Are you suggesting that God is conscious? If God is independent of existence, what is God conscious of?

I couldn't possibly explain anything about God, which is my point. I am not suggesting that God is anything. I'm just saying that saying God is anything is assumption so regarding God you can't say he can't "be" anything or "do" anything or exist in a certain way.

You can't prove or disprove that God "is" or "isn't" anything so there isn't much point in debating anything about it.

I'm not saying that anybody should or shouldn't be relying on anything. If God is outside the box of existence but is not non-existant then that would be another realm altogether. Perhaps a supreme being would have different rules as to existence altogether.

But you couldn't say one way or the other.

[johnnylightnin]

It is a tough issue to swallow if you've been exposed to a considerabe body going the other way. But the statement is true. And it is even easier to see if you dip into the "knowledge" thread and come back to it.

You see, the fact that existence exists, and then that consciousness exists are axioms that you can't get around. Our concept of consciousness is not innate, however. It takes some sensory perception and concept formation to develop a good idea of what we are talking about.

Seems like Rand and Decartes would bump heads on this one. I don't see how she comes to her conclusion about consciousness apart from anything else (why the prime mover couldn't be conscious of himself). I follow her axiom of consciousness until she gets there.

[Guisslapp]

Seems like Rand and Decartes would bump heads on this one. I don't see how she comes to her conclusion about consciousness apart from anything else (why the prime mover couldn't be conscious of himself). I follow her axiom of consciousness until she gets there.

It is the only logical conclusion. How do YOU become aware of your own consciousness? First, you discover a first object. Second, you discover a second, different object. Third, you appreciate that the second object is different than the first object. Fourth, you recognize (a) that all things are not the same, and (b) you can distinguish one thing from another. Fifth, you recognize that you have the ABILITY to perceive and distinguish.

To get to the ability to "create" things, you have to learn even more. Knowledge of EVERYTHING comes from perception. Without having "inputs" a consciousness would be absolutely worthless and a contradiction in terms.

[FishingBack]

The logical steps for consciousness probably wouldn't apply to something that was eternal and omnipotent. If a being always was omnipotent always existed then it wouldn't follow those rules, but be the exception to them.

And nobody can answer the question of where God came from, just that he has always been. I don't think "always been" can properly be comprehended by humans, if this was the case.

But yes, those logical steps for consciousness apply to humans certainly.

[johnnylightnin]

It is the only logical conclusion. How do YOU become aware of your own consciousness? First, you discover a first object. Second, you discover a second, different object. Third, you appreciate that the second object is different than the first object. Fourth, you recognize (a) that all things are not the same, and (b) you can distinguish one thing from another. Fifth, you recognize that you have the ABILITY to perceive and distinguish.

To get to the ability to "create" things, you have to learn even more. Knowledge of EVERYTHING comes from perception. Without having "inputs" a consciousness would be absolutely worthless and a contradiction in terms.

Having never existed in absolute isolation, your speculation on consciousness in that state is arbitrary.

[Guisslapp]

And nobody can answer the question of where God came from, just that he has always been. I don't think "always been" can properly be comprehended by humans, if this was the case.

Why do you find it more acceptable to not question where a god would come from than to not question where existence itself came from?

[Guisslapp]

Having never existed in absolute isolation, your speculation on consciousness in that state is arbitrary.

Something about this post made me laugh out loud.