Do you believe in God?
What evidence do you have?
There’s no evidence that a god does exist, and if one did it would contravene pretty much everything we’ve so far observed about the Universe.
Such as? you do realize that God is irrefutably the author of all we know right?
And I do not say that simply to argue but rather to raise conversation : )
XD Irrefutably? Well, I’d like to see your justification for saying that.
Do you believe that there are such things as absolutes?
Depends what you mean by that.
Well, that there are undeniable, unbending limits to things to be more precise : )
Only practically; there’s always a theoretical possibility– however negligible– that a previously-established limitation will be contravened somehow.
That however doesn’t address if they exist or not, simply that we misunderstood, or mis-guaged what said absolute would be no? : )
Anyone who believes in the absolute incontrovertability– as opposed to the virtual absolute incontrovertability– of anything is being irrational to start with.
But then how an anything exist if there is not absolution? If there is no absolution, there is no certainty, no reality, and no existance
Why would justified absolute certainty on the part of someone of something be necessary for anything to exist?
As then nothing can actually exist if there is no absolution, because then nothing can absolutely exist, there is no definition then for anything anymore,as the is no way of determining anything due to lack of any way to determine anything
There’s no way to determine anything with justified absolute certainty, but there are ways of determining things with justified practically absolute certainty. I don’t see why one needs to be absolutely certain of anything in order for anything to exist or happen, as you seem to be claiming. One’s certainty should reflect the strength of the evidence.
Again, how can there be certainty if there is no such thing? Certainty requires basis, and I am refering though to actuality
There are different degrees of certainty. Just because infinite certainty can’t be rationally obtained doesn’t mean anything.
I am disregarding opinion entirely and reffering to a more puristic level. Asking if it must exist or not. If there is no absolution though, nothing can exist though, how do you have something partially exist and partially not?
Having finite certainty that something exists doesn’t mean that it “partially exists”; it just means that one is partially certain that it exists.
Aye, again, I am aiming at the question of whether absolution must exist even for any certainty to be present. Can we obtain any level of certainty without something to consider?
Quick question: what do you think “absolution” means?
Undeniable, complete, viewed as evidential or defining as the state of actuality
atleast in this context
or otherwise unconditional
Mhm. So, what overall point are you attempting to make?
That there must be absolutes for anything to exist, or to be capable of any form of knowledge firstly : )
As without absolution, there are no such things as limits and therefor no meter with which to measure or determine anything
Ultimately to be frank, I wish to know if you are concerned with sharing opinion, or seeking truth or actuality : )
You should have just asked.
Fair enough, I apologiz
I’m concerned with both sharing opinions and seeking truth.
i see, and I appreciate it. I wouldn’t waste any more time were you interested only in opinions alone
Now, why is it that you seem to think that we have no way of judging anything if we have no way to rationally attain absolute certainty of something?
i am not saying we have no way of judging things if we are incapable of attaining absolute certainty
Then what are you saying?
I’m saying we are incapable of judging things if no absolutes actually exist
Whether we can ascertain certainty or not is irrelevant of certainty does not exist : )
That said, certainty must actually exist for us to even be capable of ascertaining it, correct?
What are you using “certainty” to mean?
by certainty, i mean surety because of definitive proof
So you’re talking about something that would exist only as a concept.
No, I am reffering to the fact that there must be absolution for anything to exist because of practicality
As in there must be set, pre-determined limits and boundaries to everything, whether we have discovered them or not
Actually regarding everything to a certain degree
So you’re saying that incontrovertible limitations must apply to everything or else nothing would exist?
Correct, as existance requires that something actually be, or not be. And that for there to be such a concept as that, there must be absolution to define whether something is, or is not. Otherwise there is only a grey of nothingness
So basically what you’re saying is that in order for something to exist, it has to exist.
That is correct
ok : ), and assuming both of those two things are, then truth must also exist, otherwise you still cannot define anything as truth would be what defines what the absolutes state, would you agree? Or perhaps more accurately stated, truth is what gives meaning and identity to existance and absolution
“Truth,” as I’ve most commonly heard it used, is a quality that a statement has if that statement accurately reflects reality.
Correct, and yes, I am reffering to Truth being the actual state of whatever is being reffered to : )
So you’re saying that if things exist, that it must be possible for accurate statements to be made about those things.
What overall point are you attempting to make?
That for our universe to exist, God must exist is the ultimate point I’m looking to attempt to prove : )
Okey-dokey. Please feel free to skip forward to the bit where you establish god’s existence.
well, for it to be proven, I have to establish the reasoning why, if you’ll allow?
and I’m sorry, I should also step back somewhat and add that said God must be singular and unique
Please continue, then.
Kk : ) and thanks!
Now for existance to be, it must be eternal because existance cannot fail to exist and be the definition of existance can it?
as something that doesn’t exist cannot possibly do anything if it doesn’t exist right?
So you’re asserting that something must always exist, if something ever exists?
and it is somewhat circular, but nothing can exist out of non-existance, as existance cannot exist unless it already exists
So you’re asserting that it’s possible for something to exist without cause.
I am attempting rather to assert that existance is self-causation, as it is both an idea and an actual, intangible thing
And that for existance to be, something must exist eternally for existance to ever be a reality
So you are asserting that it’s possible for something to exist without cause.
No, I am asserting that a singular something *must* exist for anything to ever exist (that being the cause) Because lack of existance disallows for anything to exist, as we agreed upon previously correct?
I just didn’t feel like getting further bogged down by challenging it. For the sake of discussion, I agree with you on that.
Ok, although, if existance doesn’t exist, how can time ever come to be either? that is why existance must always exist. For it to exist, it must be outside of time, as time cannot be reality without existance being present already
So, you’re asserting that, for anything to exist, a singular, causeless “something” must have eternally existed in order to cause everything else.
That is correct, and that something must exist absolutely, eternally, and in actuality, otherwise none of those can be real
What leads you to that conclusion? If it’s possible for things to exist eternally without cause, why not say that the Universe itself has existed eternally and without cause?
Because only 1 thing can embody all those things, else they are that thing, which still leaves only 1 thing : )
However, for something to be absolute, and be true, it must be the embodiment of all that has existance
Why postulate an eternal, Universe-causing “thing,” if the Universe itself does not require a cause?
Because the universe cannot provide the embodiment of perfection in all things that exist, as that single entity must be the identity
And what do you base that statement on?
Existance and absolution require that their ultimate being must be a single entity that provides the standard of all things
What do you say that on the basis of?
For anything to be absolute, there must be a singular thing that is both a person, an entity, and thought. Among other things, as those things cannot exist without something defining them as existant, all other things may be similar, but all those things must exist if they are to exist. Therefor, if there is absolution, existance, and truth for anything to be, all subsistent things must be exemplified in their perfection. Otherwise, there is no absolution, and therefor nothing else
Is there any chance you could try to reiterate that in a less convoluted manner?
I apologize, let me try restating then
For there to be absolution, there must be perfection. As absolution in cooperation with truth and existance, define all things ultimately. Perfection would be the definition of the absolute positive of every existant thing, where all else is the absolute negative (not that 1 positive thing that by it’s existance provides the absolute (or perfect) example of each and all things)
make a little bit more sense?
What are you using the phrase “the absolute positive” to mean?
In this case, I am just using mathematical terminology to try and express more simply, absolute positive meaning the absolute reality
So when you say “the absolute positive” you mean reality.
For all things to be real, they must exist, and for each thing to exist, it must either be the embodiment of reality and existance, or they either derive existance from reality, or do not actually exist
Would you say that “That which exists” is a fair definition of “reality”?
I would say that ultimately one can trace everything to that point yes, but that it is a very general statement :O)
Because of being a general statement, it is not necessarily accurate however, as it cannot be said true in all circumstances
Now, what special attributes were you saying something must possess in order to exist causelessly and eternally?
That existance must be eternal, but for existance to be eternal, absolution must also be eternal along with truth
As the three are co-dependant upon one another
To pointedly answer the question, only those 3 things are/can be causeless and eternal
And what about the causeless, eternal, Universe-causing “something” you mentioned earlier?
That something must be those 3 things, but each of them must also be a single entity because of what absolution actually is
As absolution is the definition of all things that exist (or the limit thereof) and therefor must be either the definition or limit of
What all things are, or can be, but there can be only 1 limit, and therefor only 1 absolute, 1 existance, 1 truth
a near unlimited not-truths, or non-absolutes, and non-existances then
(Four minutes pass.)
Was that the end of that thought, or are you still going?
Sorry, that was the end of that thought, yes
If you’re still defining “truth” as a quality some statements possess, what do you mean by saying that there’s “only one truth”?
For reality to be existant, it must be absolute, for it to be absolute, it can possess only 1 actuality, elsewise it is no longer the limitation or definition thereof
So what you’re asserting is that if something exists in a certain way, it cannot simultaneously exist in another, contradictory way.
Correct, elsewise it is then another thing
Okay. Well, you may as well move on to the next segment of your argument.
Do you disagree?
I would rather discuss than simply present an arguement, otherwise it’s a monologue : )
besides, a 1-sided arguement is generally rather tasteless or frankly lame : P
You use so many words idiosyncratically and express yourself in such a convoluted, unstructured way that it is, frankly, pretty hard to tell whether or not I agree with most of what you’re saying.
How do you mean, or for example if you don’t mind?
If I’m doing a poor job expressing myself, I’de rather rectify it than simply continue and waste both our time
Well, take the way you use words like “absolution,” “perfection,” etc. You’re not using them in standard ways; I can’t be sure, when you say something, what you’re actually trying to express, because for all I know you may be using half the words in a similarly non-standard way.
Well, if it helps, I try to use them as grammatically and as close to their actual meanings as possible unless I otherwise state
I’ll assume that you’re using them in a strictly standard sense from here on out, then.
Kk, and if you’re uncertain, just stop me and ask, or reffer to a dictionary and offer me correction if need be? : )
To make absolutely certain we are both on the same page
Well– I think you’re mixing up “absolution” with “absoluteness,” or something similar. “Absolution” is the forgivness of guilt.
Yeah, you’re correct, I am reffering to absolute and probably using an improper form
Can you briefly reiterate the point you made in the last segment of the conversation?
certainly, let me go re-read what I said and try again
Ok, I believe I was talking about what attributes the aforementioned causeless, eternal being must have?
Or for the sake of this stage of the conversation, the entity
And what was your reasoning as to why causelessness was possible, and yet the Universe itself could not be causeless?
Because only 1 thing can be causeless, which is existance, but because absoluteness and truth are co-dependant with existance, they must
On what grounds do you assert that only one thing can be causeless?
also be causeless and eternal, which means to meet both those requirements, they must be one and the same
Because for absoluteness to be absolute, there can be only a single thing that is absolute and nearly unlimited things that are not
But that single absolute encompasses every individual aspect of absoluteness in all aspects of all things for it to be truly absolute
What do you mean by “for absoluteness to be absolute”?
Well, absolute by definition is without limit, and complete (which means it is either beyond, or the definition of everything to which it pertians, which to be ultimately complete or beyond limit, it must be regarding all things)
Did we establish earlier that, according to you, anything that actually exists possesses “absoluteness”?
It was actually that it is defined by absoluteness
Absoluteness is a quality that could be ascribed to things that exist, then.
Well, Absoluteness would be a quality that they possess if they exist yes, but that is a derivative quality because of the co-existant and co-operative natures of truth, absoluteness, and existance. Those 3 things must all be evident qualities for all real things, but that does not mean they are the embodiment of them, only that they are defined by them
And how exactly would the existence of an objectively existent reality mean that there could be one and only one causeless thing?
Because there can be only a single definition of what each and every thing is to be different things. Because that must be the case, all things may derive from those definitions, but everything that is existant, must derive their existance From a singular reality, because there can only be 1 of any given thing, including reality.
So the essence of what you’ve just said is that something cannot simultaneously possess contradictory qualities.
That is correct, as that would make them different things yes : )
And how does that there must be one and only one causeless thing?
Because there can be only one of all things, that includes causelessness
What do you mean by “there can be only one of all things”?
Every thing that is ultimately must derive from existance, truth, and absoluteness. However, there can be only 1 truth, 1 absoluteness, and 1 existance (either it exists, or does not exist) however, only existance can be causeless as well for the same reasons
Saying “Something can’t be other than what it is” isn’t the same as saying “There can only be one of something.”
At the basal level we are talking about it can, as existance can only be existant, and therefor cannot have a beginning nor end. however, existance cannot exist without absoluteness and truth, and there is only a single truth and single absoluteness ultimately. That being the case, truth and absoluteness derive their being from existance, while existance derives it’s being also from truth etc
What, so you’re saying that truth is caused by existence and existence is caused by truth?
Correct, truth, existance, and absoluteness are all dependent upon one another, but because existence must be causeless for it to exist. Both truth and absoluteness must also be causeless, and because there can be only a single reality (what is) there is only 1 truth, and
We’re still using “truth” to describe statements that correspond accurately to reality, correct?
In what sense are you claiming that it’s causeless, then?
Because existance is the reason for truth, but truth defines existance and absoluteness defines both
How are you using “defines” here?
To determine or fix the boundaries there of, to explain or identify the nature or essence of
“Truth” doesn’t determine the nature of existence; it merely reflects it.
Indeed, but it does determine or fix the boundaries thereof by being the determinant of actuality or not
Can you rephrase that?
Again, the three must be coexistant and cooperative, something cannot exist if it cannot be determined whether it exists or not
So now you’re asserting that something can’t exist if its existence cannot be determined?
absoluteness adresses that issue, however, absoluteness is irrelevant without existance as well
Are you asserting that something can’t exist if its existence cannot be determined?
yes, as without there being such a thing as completeness, nothing can exist, as existance cannot actually completely exist without it, and neither still can be present without the existance of truth defining and determining both
How are you defining “completeness”?
Total, whole, entire, perfect etc
And what does that have to do with whether or not the existence of something is determinable?
Something cannot exist if it doesn’t wholly, or entirely exist. But nothing can entirely exist unless there is a such thing as totality
Or the actuality that yes, something can definitely exist, there are 3 parts to being able to make that statement : )
So what you’re saying is that something does not totally exist if it does not totally exist, and without total existence being possible, nothing can totally exist.
There must be actuality, definity, and truth for existance, absoluteness, or truth to be possible
Doesn’t that statement seem tautological to you?
somewhat, yeah. Perhaps it would be better explained this way:
For any of those to be possible, you must have actuality, boundaries, and certainty
Could you reiterate that statement, using explanatory phrases in place of words like “actuality,” “definity,” etc.?
And I apologize, beings the ideas are well outside normal conversation, I will admit that I am having some trouble thinking of good terms to effectively explain the thoughts. And yeah , let me think a moment : )
No, it’s fine. Even though half of what you say is virtually incomprehensible, you are a good sport about it.
Well existance requires that something can actually exist of course, but for everything there must be opposites as well
What do you mean by “for everything there must be opposites”?
For there to be non-existance, there must be a division between that which exists, and that which does not
Well, there *isn’t* non-existence, except as a concept.
Correct, but there must be something to define between what does or does not exist, or there can be no existance necessarily
There’s a conceptual distinction between the existent and the nonexistent, sure.
Or I guess more simply put, there must be a way of defining existence for it to actually exist, specifically absoluteness
and I realize that the two would in that thought, be almost identical
What you’re saying is that existence must exist in a certain way in order for it to exist.
Well, existance must exist, so yes, it must exist in completeness
By “in completeness,” do you meant that it must exist in exactly the way it exists and in no other way?
Simply because existance cannot only partially exist, either it does, or it does not (although the later is a non-sensical suggestion)
Correct, for existence to exist, it must exist only in 1 way, as it is effectively a yes/no, or positive/negative situation
Okay. I agree with that. Though I would like to point out that in whatever way existence exists, that way would effectively become its “complete” or “whole” way of existing.
yeah, that’s effectively what I meant
So, what does this all imply, according to you?
Existance is defined by truth and absoluteness based upon existance being only a singular thing that all other things derive from
Truth and absoluteness are descriptive, determinants for attributes of existance I guess might be a better way of saying it?
I am going to go now. I feel a bit fatigued.
Sure thing, and don’t blame you. Do have a good night : )