The existance of Existance

[Guest Aluigi]

If it please the mods and AthiestAlex, I ask this debate be between only me and AthiestAlex. Sorry about the long first post, I hope Athiest Alex will take the time to read it and respond.

I will begin with assuming that we both agree that we ourselves exist, and then that all the material world exists. Admitting that is the first step.

What is the basis upon which this existance lies? It can be analyzed down to the very molecule and atom and subatomic partical that make up all that we see. But why does that subatomic partical exist? What lies behind it? Existane lies behind it, the one verb that can be applied to every single object in the world "TO BE", I am and you are and he is and that thing is and the other thing is... everything is. This is the ONE and ONLY thing everything in the entire universe has in common.

Existance=God.

God=Existance

That is what we believe anyway. When we say God exists, we are really saying that Existance is God. This is based on the Ancient Name of God, "I AM", for we submit He IS Existance itself.

Without applying any personhood to this thing we call existence, we ought to begin this debate with the assertion that that what we name as God, you label as existance. We apply a personhood to existance, you apply non-personhood to existance. But this is the one thing we both believe in and from whence we should start the discussion.

So instead of using the language of "God', I submit that in this debate we use the language of "Existance". That is what we are debating, what is the nature of Existance? Not whether or not God exists, for if I say that God is existance and we both say existance exists, then we are not arguing for whether something exists but rather what is the nature of something that we both already admit exists.

We shall begin there if you will accept with me that existance exists and what we are really debating about is the nature of existance.

Edited February 9, 2005 by Aluigi

[Guest Aluigi]

bump

[AtheistAlex]

Just as a semi-bump and semi-reply, let me say I will soon give my rebuttal.

Edited February 10, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 9 2005, 01:46 PM'] If it please the mods and AthiestAlex, I ask this debate be between only me and AthiestAlex.  Sorry about the long first post, I hope Athiest Alex will take the time to read it and respond.

I will begin with assuming that we both agree that we ourselves exist, and then that all the material world exists.  Admitting that is the first step.

What is the basis upon which this existance lies?  It can be analyzed down to the very molecule and atom and subatomic partical that make up all that we see.  But why does that subatomic partical exist?  What lies behind it?  Existane lies behind it, the one verb that can be applied to every single object in the world "TO BE", I am and you are and he is and that thing is and the other thing is... everything is.  This is the ONE and ONLY thing everything in the entire universe has in common.

Existance=God.

God=Existance

That is what we believe anyway.  When we say God exists, we are really saying that Existance is God.  This is based on the Ancient Name of God, "I AM", for we submit He IS Existance itself.

Without applying any personhood to this thing we call existence, we ought to begin this debate with the assertion that that what we name as God, you label as existance.  We apply a personhood to existance, you apply non-personhood to existance.  But this is the one thing we both believe in and from whence we should start the discussion.

So instead of using the language of "God', I submit that in this debate we use the language of "Existance".  That is what we are debating, what is the nature of Existance?  Not whether or not God exists, for if I say that God is existance and we both say existance exists, then we are not arguing for whether something exists but rather what is the nature of something that we both already admit exists.

We shall begin there if you will accept with me that existance exists and what we are really debating about is the nature of existance. [/quote]
First off, let me thank you for this...opportunity of sorts.

I have taken, am taking, and will continue to take ample time to read over your gracious and diligent comments.

And with that I say:

I will begin with your paragraph starting with, "I will begin with assuming..."

If we are to assume something we must know [u]exactly[/u] what we are assuming. You are saying generally that we exist and that the "material world" exists. The material world, of course, being all that we can observe in a scientific and empirical fashion, correct? If so, then yes, I agree.

Now onto your second paragraph. What lies beyond the subatomic, why that is what physicists are trying to understand. We do not know for sure yet, but everyday, there are new hypotheses and theories [i]tested[/i], [i]proven[/i], and [i]disproven[/i] in some small way to advance humanity toward an ultimate goal of understanding the phenomena of the sub-subatomic. One of the more popular theories is called String Theory.

But alas, I stray from the point. The point is what does it mean to exist? To be?

Well, existence is the state in which one is empirically observable. Existence itself is relative, at least if we follow that set of laws called the General Theory of Relativity.

Let me explain.

Depending on one's viewpoint, the speed an object is going, and the rate of aging it goes through, as well, is relative. If you are someone in a rocket ship going light speed, you are aging as a regualr person would. But if you are an observer from Earth, when they come back, you might not even be alive, it would have been that long.

Also, your physical makeup is different depending on how fast you are going. So if you are going half light speed, you are twice as wide and half as tall as normal. Go light speed, and no outside observer sees you at all.

Same with existence, quite frankly. If the time you travel is relative and the shape you take is relative, the dimensions of your existence are relative. Thusly, existence itself is relative to the observer of the object.

So, to ask what is existence is quite peculiar, because it is, to me, that which is understandable to its observer as an objectively observable thing. Thusly, like I said before, it is relative to its observer.

Edited February 10, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[Guest Aluigi]

Your definition of the material world is acceptable. All that is in the material world EXISTS.

I was talking extence in the more philosopic sense. Anyway, no matter what speed or perspective, one does not cease to exist, or even exist less or exist more. the very atomic structure of a thing might change, but that thing exists, those atoms exist. Existance is whether something is there or not. I am here, you are there, there is a rock over there. Existance is common to everything in the entire universe. Existance is not relative, there is no factor that makes something exist less or exist more. Everything simply exists.

I was not discussing anything about sub-subatomic. For a sub-sub-atomic partical would have the same question. BEHIND that partical, why is it there? What causes it to be there instead of nothingness to be there? EXISTANCE, that common factor to everything, is what lies behind the atomic partical. It exists. EXISTANCE is what causes the subsubsubsubsubsubsub atomic partical to be there.

If we establish existance exists, we can move forward into the nature of that existance. I do not mean the chemical makeup of objects, which is why I wish to go to the sub atomic, or the subsubsubsubatomic, if you will. Where it is down to this atom is here instead of nothing being here. This atom is here no matter what I think about it, no matter if I even know it is here or not. Something causes this atom to exist. We shall label that thing "existance" though I personally label it "God". If we can accept this basic philisophical starting point we can proceed from there.

Consider the law that no matter can be destroyed or created (within time), existance is a factor which cannot be altared by anything temporal. Therefore, I would assert that existance cannot have a begining or end, this factor must have always existed. Can this be accepted, that exsitance has always, well, existed?

[AtheistAlex]

I think you are attempting to quantify existence as some form of matter, when it is not matter, really. It is neither gas, solid nor liquid.

You want to know the nature of existence. Then when I told you it was relative, you seemed to interpret that the existence is decreasing or increasing. That's not necessarily true. Existence may change in more ways than in its own "existence", per se. What if the existence of an object is just not there to one observer as it is to another, like I said?

The lightspeed rocket ship simply does not exist to the observer on Earth. It exists to the astronaut inside the ship, clear as day. But outside, nope, nothing. So does it exist? Yes AND no.

Oh and the whole Law of Conservation of Mass thingy right? Remember that it ties into the Law of Conservation of Energy, too. E = M*(c squared) Thus, the mass of an object times the speed of light squared is the number of joules of energy that such an object can release. Same sort of thing that produced the atom bomb.

How does that affect existence? Simple. Like I said, the existence of an object changes depending on the observer. Therefore, perspective is the most important factor in determining existence.

Am I making sense?

Edited February 10, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[Guest Aluigi]

existance is not matter. existance is a concept, it is the one thing that is common to everything in the universe. regardless of whether someone observes the rocket ship, the guy in the rocketship exists. it is not known to the person who didn't observe it, but that does not take away from the fact that the person in the rocketship exists.

this is what I was getting at with the first paragraph of my first post, you have to first admit that all matter in the universe exists whether or not you see it. the distant planet out there orbiting some unknown star exists as much as you exist or I exist.

I am not quantifying existance as matter, I am establishing that it is the one common thing to every single thing in the universe.

* All matter existed at the begining of the universe at the big bang
* All matter currently exists

The point is that everything IS. Simply that it is. Existance is common to everything. Are you claiming that there is anything that does not exist? I am not refering to our perspective of what exists, what we observe, I am refering to the objective fact of everything existing on its own because existance makes it be there instead of nothing being there.

We're attempting to look at the universe as a whole, step outside the box if you will. That is why I invoked the begining of the universe, the big bang. because there at that one point you would see everything that exists now and ever will exist. the entirety of that matter exists regardless of anyone's perspective on it. the same is true of all matter in the universe today, it all exists regardless of anyone's perspective on it. does that make sense? am I somehow missing your point in regards to relativity? I am proposing that the common thread of existance is not relative.

if I do not see a rock because it is going light speed, that rock still exists. asking whether it exists to me or not is not about the nature of its existance, but rather the nature of my observation. there we are no longer talking about a rock, we are talking about ME. But I wanted to talk about the rock, for it is matter that exists in the universe.

Edited February 10, 2005 by Aluigi

[AtheistAlex]

Okay, okay, I will try to see it your way...
But, to the point, I guess in a way, existence is always in anything that exists. And then we get to the idea of what exists? Basically, matter and energy exist. Time is merely a function of light.

Please let me finish this when after I have slept.

[Guest Aluigi]

alright. no pressure, whenever you feel like responding.

[Guest Aluigi]

bump

[Guest Aluigi]

bump

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 10 2005, 01:54 AM'] existance is not matter. existance is a concept, it is the one thing that is common to everything in the universe. regardless of whether someone observes the rocket ship, the guy in the rocketship exists. it is not known to the person who didn't observe it, but that does not take away from the fact that the person in the rocketship exists.

this is what I was getting at with the first paragraph of my first post, you have to first admit that all matter in the universe exists whether or not you see it. the distant planet out there orbiting some unknown star exists as much as you exist or I exist.

I am not quantifying existance as matter, I am establishing that it is the one common thing to every single thing in the universe.

* All matter existed at the begining of the universe at the big bang
* All matter currently exists

The point is that everything IS. Simply that it is. Existance is common to everything. Are you claiming that there is anything that does not exist? I am not refering to our perspective of what exists, what we observe, I am refering to the objective fact of everything existing on its own because existance makes it be there instead of nothing being there.

We're attempting to look at the universe as a whole, step outside the box if you will. That is why I invoked the begining of the universe, the big bang. because there at that one point you would see everything that exists now and ever will exist. the entirety of that matter exists regardless of anyone's perspective on it. the same is true of all matter in the universe today, it all exists regardless of anyone's perspective on it. does that make sense? am I somehow missing your point in regards to relativity? I am proposing that the common thread of existance is not relative.

if I do not see a rock because it is going light speed, that rock still exists. asking whether it exists to me or not is not about the nature of its existance, but rather the nature of my observation. there we are no longer talking about a rock, we are talking about ME. But I wanted to talk about the rock, for it is matter that exists in the universe. [/quote]
You are saying all matter exists. How do *you* define exists?

The one common thing to all matter? That's circular.

Of course that's true, because that's saying:

"All matter share this one characteristic that they are share."

So I agree that the statement "all matter exists" is true, but it says nothing about either concept, really.

Am I saying no matter shares the characteristic that all matter shares? Can't, but more importantly, it makes NO difference. We're running in circles with that statement, you see?

Now that I [i]agree[/i] with that, what's the question?

[Guest]

alex,
dont you want to live forever ?
ive read your post
your really smart
but the wisdom you have stored up is foolishness in Gods eyes
accept Christ as your savior with a sincere heart
see how quicky the holy spirt will take hold of you and start witnessing to you
the reason you dont hear the holy spirt now, is becuz without beliveing in God and his son, the holy spirt cant communicate with you......
You do a good job of arguieng why God does not exist...
but its irrevelnt
becuz God does exist
thats why his name is "GOD"
His son is Jesus Christ
Hes real bro
I was at one time a non beliver in Jesus Christ
did not believe he ever existed, i thought he was a myth
I then
Invited him into my heart
i even had physical signs that proved to me Gods existance
its real bro
its all real

[Guest Zewe Comma Chris]

God is equal to a misspelled word?

[Guest Aluigi]

I disagree, I was not being circular. There was a simple purpose to the statement all matter exists, and if you notice I originally assumed that you agreed. But yeah, that was a very simple point, that everything in the universe has the common aspect of existance. existance is universal. that's the first attribute of existance we now agree on.

And that is where the debate begins, it is not whether or not there is a God, but what is the nature of existance. we have established that it is universal.

Existance cannot be affected ir changed within time. all matter will always exist. that says something about the nature of existance, that existance is not affected by time. is that another attribute of existance we can agree on? that it is unchangable and non-temporal?

DB and Chris, I asked that this debate be between me and Alex only.

Edited February 13, 2005 by Aluigi