scientists NEVEr get IT wrong, they create models. there is no "it" 
Scientists...Got it wrong again!
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Good point., but no, not in regard to this thread so far. Not like - does beauty exist....[]. That's the point you see, existence must exist before beauty can.
Another good point, but you have to remember the existence axiom through all this, which isn't always the first thing one might do.
The only thing existence need do and in fact does do, is..... exist ! To deliniate existence , it is clear that consciousness is required. That is a different point.
I don't accept there is pertinence in the tree/noise/forest thing.
A very good point. It's a purely philosophical one.
So that would be fine but wait one. An ability for the Creator and existence to spontaneously occur at the same instant, would first have to be possible. Therefore existence of that possibility must exist, which means existence of the possibility existed. Then Existence existed.
Well, it is both a question of factual and philosophical relevance , whereas questions of Creator/God is a matter of philosophical concepts only.
For that reason alone I would say Existence is far more profound than God.
See jem, why couldn't you do that? eh ?... all the time you really don't have the first clue at all do you. All you can do is struggle with childlish fantasies in tales about virgin births brainwashed into your thick skull . Pathetic
Cheers though WaveStrider. Cool points
Actually, my learned opponent, I am formulating a reply that I hope will be worth the wait.
Your "existence first" position is one that requires me to link a few thoughts together....so to quote Arnold...." I'll be back"
reasonable evasion stu.
but one you still have not shown that I used tautology incorrectly. I could care less if you think what you wrote is an axiom. My use of tautology was correct.
Next - strawman. it was a strawman and still is.
Barth said pre -date.
You know damn fucking well that I have explained to you over and fucking over that time started after the big bang and that science does not know what happened "before" the big bang.
We also know that I have frequently made the argument that any reasonable concept of an omnipotent God would be a God outside of time.
Hence pre-date is a reasonable way to refer to a God outside or before time.
Hence your tautology was either ignorant or a strawman.
Pre -date does not have to mean pre - existence.
but one you still have not shown that I used tautology incorrectly. I could care less if you think what you wrote is an axiom. My use of tautology was correct.
Next - strawman. it was a strawman and still is.
Barth said pre -date.
You know damn fucking well that I have explained to you over and fucking over that time started after the big bang and that science does not know what happened "before" the big bang.
We also know that I have frequently made the argument that any reasonable concept of an omnipotent God would be a God outside of time.
Hence pre-date is a reasonable way to refer to a God outside or before time.
Hence your tautology was either ignorant or a strawman.
Pre -date does not have to mean pre - existence.
You'll never make a convincing argument using only absurd statements of denial.
If you really think this concept of existence is not an axiom but is tautology, you're going to have to explain how the dictionary definition you gave fits. You're also going to need to explain why you aren't looking at the definition of axiom which does fit.
It has on the other hand already been explained why this is an axiom and why it isn't a tautology.
Not being able to understand how words are used within the context of simple definitions, dealing with two at once with you is not a good idea. Suffice it to say there is no strawman argument other than your own, which is apparently trying to deny the definition of axiom to hide your inability in understanding what is actually being said.
This is not to do with science and before the big bang. This is to do with the philosophical concept of Creator/God being preceded above all, including time, big bangs, your stupidity, and whatever else, by the fact of existence.
It logically means your illogical God outside time, must anyway be premissed by existence.
It shoves your imaginary friend out of any chance of being first or overall superior in any real or fanciful way.
God cannot pre-exist existence unless existence first exists for Her to be able to do it. Existence trumps God, Creators the Universe and everything.
If you really think this concept of existence is not an axiom but is tautology, you're going to have to explain how the dictionary definition you gave fits. You're also going to need to explain why you aren't looking at the definition of axiom which does fit.
It has on the other hand already been explained why this is an axiom and why it isn't a tautology.
Not being able to understand how words are used within the context of simple definitions, dealing with two at once with you is not a good idea. Suffice it to say there is no strawman argument other than your own, which is apparently trying to deny the definition of axiom to hide your inability in understanding what is actually being said.
This is not to do with science and before the big bang. This is to do with the philosophical concept of Creator/God being preceded above all, including time, big bangs, your stupidity, and whatever else, by the fact of existence.
It logically means your illogical God outside time, must anyway be premissed by existence.
It shoves your imaginary friend out of any chance of being first or overall superior in any real or fanciful way.
God cannot pre-exist existence unless existence first exists for Her to be able to do it. Existence trumps God, Creators the Universe and everything.
I follow your reasoning except for that one.
What you are describing is "potentiality", but potential of existence is not the same as existence. It is like proving a negative.
Fair enough, but my position is there cannot be any potentiality without existence. It is why I am supporting existence exists as an axiom of irreducible principal.
So if there is a potential of existence, existence must exist for the potentiality. Existence exists is the irreducible principal.
Therefore I disagree. This is not like proving a negative, if anything I would say it is logical positivism.
The potential for a Creator/God to exist for example, can only be, if existence exists for the potential to exist.
Before anything can exist or potentially exist, there must be a state of existence where either of those can take effect. And that state cannot be a potential one.
That to my mind is so much more elegant, obvious , straightforward and compelling than having to invent nonsensical giant all powerful imaginary sky fairies.
Hmmm - wouldn't that be putting existence BEFORE potential?
If a potential for existence is there, but existence never occurs, that is unfulfilled potential.
So wouldn't it need to be the reverse - that the potential is required (and therefore first) but alone is not sufficient for existence to occur?