Scientists...Got it wrong again!

[WaveStrider]

Quote from stu:

Yes it is putting existence for the potential of existence before the potential. They are not the same thing.

It does not follow that existence for the potential of existence would not exist.

Indeed if there really was a potential , existence for that -potential existence- must exist.

No offense, but that sounds circular.

If we use the Big Bang as a scientific "start" of existence, then pre-Big Bang is "potential existence".

If no Big Bang, it's all still potential, no existence.

So the potential is necessary, but not sufficient to call it existence.

By your definition, the pre-Big Bang "non-existence" is actually "existence", since it has potential to exist. I do not think that would be a traditional definition.

 

[jem]

stu you were the idiot who said what you wrote was not a tautology. Prove it. Show us that what you wrote was not a tautology using an agreed upon dictionary definition like the one I gave you. Or, actually be academic about it and use some other authorities showing which ones agree with you and which ones don't.

Otherwise your little fairy rants about your little fairy beliefs and definitions are just fantasy.

I gave you the definition of tautology and it obviously fits.

If you were not such a jerkoff I might explain it to you, but I know it would not matter because you do not accept dictionaries as having authority.

SEE YOUR SILLY ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF ATHIEST


You whole line of reasoning on this issue is bullshit and your argumentation is ignorant.

Existence and "pre -date" are not the same concepts. You therefore set up a strawman. But even your strawman is illogical. Your arguments have no fidelity to science as we know it.

you have become a bigger troll than zzz ever was.

By the way of course stu - reasoning is circular. He has not concern about truth he makes shit up and changes definitions instead of admitting he made a stupid argument.


According to Stu there is no potential for a fusion powered car because no such car exists.

That the type of argumentation STU uses.

he has no integrity or backbone

 

[WaveStrider]

There appears to be quite a bit of bile back and forth, which I don't see as particularly productive in thrashing through the topic.

I am not an advocate for any particular view. Beliefs are personal. Stated beliefs are called Opinions.

My own Opinion is that "existence" is probably way more expansive and complicated, with far more unknowns in it that we can even dream of at the moment. And if that is the case - all things written before - ALL THINGS - have been dumbed-down to fit our ability to comprehend at the moment. And our interpretation of that knowledge is just that - our interpretation of the moment.

So "there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

As for Ultimate Truth - who can claim to have it?

 

[cgroupman]

I would think the existence part would simply boil down to high school of I think, therefore I am.

For 3 or 4 millenia 99% of the literacy was held by one religion or another. This explains why there is so much dogma, at least in my mind. And, verbal legends being passed down through generations might explain superstitions and other non-scientific theories.


c

 

[stu]

Well yes, goodness knows why jem is being so angry , insulting and absurd. Perhaps he's not well.

But I find myself agreeing with your sentiments, however I think it's unesessary for you to assume there is necessarily more to something than what is particularly obvious to it. Nor correct to assume undefined complications in something that sounds self evident..

'Everyone is entitled to their own opinion's, but not their own facts.'


With that in mind I would respond to the points you raised, going through them as follows:

Quote from WaveStrider:

No offense, but that sounds circular.

If we use the Big Bang as a scientific "start" of existence, then pre-Big Bang is "potential existence".

Ok. So pre- Big Bang, 'potential existence' exists. Right?

Quote from WaveStrider:

If no Big Bang, it's all still potential, no existence.

No, you are showing 'potential existence' exists. It is an existing "potential existence" pre-Big Bang.

Quote from WaveStrider:


So the potential is necessary, but not sufficient to call it existence.

I am not calling the "potential existence" existence. That is where I think you are making a mistake.

Put it this way, if the 'potential existence' doesn't exist, how is it capable of potentially producing existence ?

Quote from WaveStrider:


By your definition, the pre-Big Bang "non-existence" is actually "existence", since it has potential to exist. I do not think that would be a traditional definition.

No that's not what I am suggesting. You describe pre-Big Bang "potential existence". I am saying it is that which is existing. If there is "no existence" but there is a potentiality for it, then actually, there is existence.
"potential existence" exists. Existence exists.

You seem to be saying 'potential existence' doesn't exist until it is no longer potential , but becomes existence itself.
With respect, that doesn't make sense.

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from stu:


You seem to be saying 'potential existence' doesn't exist until it is no longer potential , but becomes existence itself.
With respect, that doesn't make sense.

Yes, that does sound contradictory.

However, you seem to be defining unfulfilled potential existence as existence.

So, if I understand your approach, then there is no such thing as non-existence. If you define the potential for something that is never realized as existence, then all things, real and unreal (never realized), exist.

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from stu:


I am not calling the "potential existence" existence. That is where I think you are making a mistake.

...................

If there is "no existence" but there is a potentiality for it, then actually, there is existence.
"potential existence" exists. Existence exists.

Reading through it again, these 2 statements appear contradictory to me. The first states that "potential existence" is not equated to "existence", but the second statement equates the two.

In my view, "potential existence" and "existence" are not equivalent. "Potential existence" is a state of uncertainty, which moves to a state of certainty only when it is realized as "existence".

"Potential" alone cannot be said to exist because it cannot be distinguished from a complete lack of potential until the uncertainty is removed, i.e., moving to a state of "existence".

Therefore, you cannot know if "potential" exists if it remains unrealized. It may be completely non-existent. Unless you would define lack of potential as existence also.

 

[stu]

Quote from WaveStrider:
Yes, that does sound contradictory.
However, you seem to be defining unfulfilled potential existence as existence.

So, if I understand your approach, then there is no such thing as non-existence. If you define the potential for something that is never realized as existence, then all things, real and unreal (never realized), exist.

My argument does seem to lead to there being no such thing as non-existence.

However that does not mean it follows as you suggest , 'all things, real and unreal (never realized), exist.' How do you arrive at that.?

I don't see the "potential" as existence. I understand the "potential" is existing, and therefore confirm existence exists.
Existence and existing are not the same thing. For instance, the former does not have to be extant. It can be “potential”.

That “unfulfilled potential existence” exists. It is not defining all existence. All existence does not have the same existence. But all of existence does nevertheless exist.

Quote from WaveStrider:
Reading through it again, these 2 statements appear contradictory to me. The first states that "potential existence" is not equated to "existence", but the second statement equates the two.

In my view, "potential existence" and "existence" are not equivalent. "Potential existence" is a state of uncertainty, which moves to a state of certainty only when it is realized as "existence".

"Potential" alone cannot be said to exist because it cannot be distinguished from a complete lack of potential until the uncertainty is removed, i.e., moving to a state of "existence".

Therefore, you cannot know if "potential" exists if it remains unrealized. It may be completely non-existent. Unless you would define lack of potential as existence also.

As said, I agree too, "potential existence" and "existence" are not equivalent.

My position is , an unrealized "potential" (for existence) will either exist or not exist, whether or not it is unrealized. Knowing about whether it is unrealized or realized, is a separate matter altogether. However you have distinguished it as a “state of uncertainty” ..so then a state of “uncertain potential existence” exists.

Again, I 'm not calling the "potential existence" , existence itself. But I do say a "potential" for existence must exist before it can be a “potential" at all, uncertain or not.
I do not think there is necessarily reason to assume equivalent states of existence, but existence there must be for a "potential existence" to be the case.


I also don't think you can support a situation where it is stated existence has not started , then say there is a "potential" for existence , then say the "potential" for existence does not exist. …..for the reason that there is no knowing if it can be distinguished from not existing…

There is [a "potential"] denotes existence .

I do think it reasonable to suggest, whatever state there is , exists.
A potential state must first exist for there to be any potential state. One cannot then reasonably say it doesn’t.

 

[WaveStrider]

Quote from stu:


A potential state must first exist for there to be any potential state.

This is a circular statement.

Potential can only be claimed in hindsight. Otherwise it is potential...for what?

Unrealized potential is indistinguishable from non-existence. Therefore you cannot say potential "exists" at the outset when all you can claim is you don't know if it exists.

Uncertainty is not sufficient to make the claim of an absolute "it exists".

 

[stu]

Quote from WaveStrider:

This is a circular statement.

Potential can only be claimed in hindsight. Otherwise it is potential...for what?

Unrealized potential is indistinguishable from non-existence. Therefore you cannot say potential "exists" at the outset when all you can claim is you don't know if it exists.

Uncertainty is not sufficient to make the claim of an absolute "it exists".

Quote from WaveStrider:
"Though I suppose, since time is being used as the measuring stick, one could argue that a "Creator" and "Existence" both occur at the same instant - no time lapse. Existence and awareness of existence simultaneously."



......


Was it possible or not?
In hindsight, was there a potential (existing in possibility) for a "Creator" and "Existence" to both occur at the same instant ?



If ..don't know, then does one not ask if there were no possibility, then how come existence is possible?

If there was, then didn't that potential (in hindsight) exist?

If not and there was no "Creator and no "Existence" and the possibility did not exist, how come existence exists although it was not possible?