Scientists...Got it wrong again!

Barth,

When you said "I'll be back" I must admit to having some doubts. However, as an eternal optimist, somewhere I was perhaps hoping you would be, and that you'd have something interesting to add. I am not disappointed on either count. Thanks for your remarks and observations.

My understanding is that I find WaveStrider and yourself articulating two distinct counter arguments to the Existence Axiom. WaveStrider to my mind is mainly taking more of an epistemological approach, whereas you adopt a conceptual one .

The reason I support Existence exists is , in my opinion both these lines of reasoning are fully met in the Existence maxim.


The "knowledge" you explain is actually found to be no such a thing at all , but rather an inborn pattern of behavior which has evolved in response to the environment. Birds fly because air enables animals to evolve and exploit its properties. The innate ability to breath is not "knowledge", it is a development established over millions of years. You don't have a knowledge of breathing, as you describe it. You do have knowledge you can breathe.


But for this argument I don't mind allowing any kind of understanding or "knowledge" at all, because there is one defining point where everything, including notional definitions and meaning, come to an over riding obviousness intuitive determination.

So when you open the door to let in God to the argument as you have done, you also can't help but allow all sorts of every other imagination into the room at the same time.
In discussing abstract philosophical conceptual constructs like God , I don't think you can assume 2nd and third level concepts are derived true, simply because you've introduced the first.

Now there are these fantastic supernatural notions all over the place , needing perhaps an explanation or recognition that stands out from it all. That's one reason why God is produced.
But a more consistent singular awareness which is self evident to stand apart from all the exceptional and fantastic concepts including God would do nicely thankyou. Something with a precise relevance, than even all powerful Super Beings, than my own super-super powerful "imaginary sky faeries" , do not achieve.

It's Existence. They must all exist. If they don't exist they have no point. If God does not exist, why the fuss anyway.

Furthermore they all need existence to exist. You can see where this conceptual side of the argument inherently and inevitably leads to.
To exist itself or to even be shaped into any form of abstraction, the concept will need existence.
Even proposing a concept which is so powerful it doesn't need to exist, requires the obvious self evident philosophical conceptual paradox that even non-existence must exist for it to do so .

Your G-d and my sky fairies both need existence to exist or to not exist. They are not as all powerful as they claim it seems.

 

Thing is, I am saying the definitions you give for potential do not stand in entirety.
Potential is defined as . Existing in possibility.


If your definition #2 of non-existence is the state or is the case, I have already asked you to explain in what way non-existence can pertain if itself does not exist ie: is not the state or is not the case.

I am talking of an archetypal cognition here, like mathematics. Numbers are actually conceptual but always have the potential to exist. A Platonic approach maybe.
You don't think mathematics does not have the potential to exist , yet it's a concept only , that proves itself through testing. Existence does too, every time and so I put it forward as an irreducible primary.

You test math and test with math and you test potential. You don't have to physically have some existence of math before you can derive its potential, any more than you have to have two apples before you can do the math. Because you do so in hindsight is not any reason why the potential would be affected. Unless you are suggesting that thinking of a concept changes whether or not it was a potential? I think that would be a stretch and no reason to assume so. Nevertheless, that state itself would still have to exist or have potential to !
I asked you some questions which suggest a rational intuitive conceptual test for potential.

With respect, time is not being used as a benchmark here. Time exists like mathematics exists. Time as the fourth coordinate.
Again if there ever were any such a thing as before time, then that state or that case of before time would exist in whatever form or way it took. Quantum perhaps? It's nonsensical, so in a way in which cannot be known perhaps. Nevertheless then , that state would exist !


In any dimensionality beyond our senses, that dimensionality would exist. Otherwise there would be another state (even if that were beyond our senses) so that it did not exist.

It’s not a question of “how do you know” or “prove it” .

It’s the primary irreducibility. That’s my argument

 

It’s the primary irreducibility. That’s my argument

 

Therefore, there is existing in possibility a God, who could have existed from the same moment as existence, who did all the Bible stuff...

 

is this the extent of your rebut?

is this all you got?

you got a whole lot of nothing.

that's PROBABILITY!

ever hear it? would you trade 'possibility'?

ROFL!

 

No. It does not follow I don’t think you can say there IS – is existing in possibility . It could be the case that there IS NOT – is existing in possibility….


It is the case there must have existed a potential for concepts of God because concepts do exist.
If there was (is) however the potential for an actual God, then the potential for one always existed. If it didn't , there could not (cannot ) have been (be) such a God. If the existence of possibility for God does not exist, then the possibility of God does not exist.

God existing in possibility, conceptually or actually, needs existence in possibility to exist. God is therefore not the irreducible primary it's supposed to be.

Also there are any number of other things existing in conceptual or actual possibility, which could have existed from the same moment as existence . Time is but one.

In the same way, non can be the irreducible primary that Existence is, whether it is Existence of a potential or Existence of any other kind. God is obliged to share the same territory as Time, fairies and all other mythical beasties in that regard.

Potential existence or existence , both exist for something to exist.

Existence exists. Foremost.

 

Existence exists. Foremost.


that just makes total sense, stu

 

Hansel dude,
most of what you post has already been covered. I don't intend to keep repeating it.

Can I suggest you just choose your main shot?

 

So what is this "existing in possibility"? Is this a kind of existing or merely a potential to exist?