• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

existence and being

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
There is an important difference between the words existence and being.
That with being actually exists; its existence has been actualized.

For example: the idea of a unicorn exists in that when you read the word unicorn you infer what I imply, but unicorns don't actually exist. They have no being.
 

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
There is an important difference between the words existence and being.
That with being actually exists; its existence has been actualized.

For example: the idea of a unicorn exists in that when you read the word unicorn you infer what I imply, but unicorns don't actually exist. They have no being.
I disagree. The idea of unicorns exists, inasmuch as ideas 'exist' when someone thinks of them, but the unicorn itself doesn't. You seem to be making an unnecessarily convoluted distinction when none is needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I disagree. The idea of unicorns exists, inasmuch as ideas 'exist' when someone thinks of them, but the unicorn itself doesn't. You seem to be making an unnecessarily convoluted distinction when none is needed.

Not so convoluted to a mathematician or a musician; both build with that which exists yet has no being.

All with being exists, but not everything that exists has being.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Not so convoluted to a mathematician or a musician; both build with that which exists yet has no being.
I'm aware of mathematicians do, and I'm afraid you're over-extending an abstraction. Mathematics is the study and logic of shape and quantity, it's the rules that tell us "1 + 1 = 2", and all the abstractions thereof. But mathematics doesn't involve anything which exists. If I have five apples, then it's the apples which exist, not the 'five'.

All with being exists, but not everything that exists has being.
Proof?

Also, I should hasten to add, the idea that being exists is the very foundation of the First-Principles of Logic,:
Being exists
Being is being
Being is not non-being
Either being or non-being
etc.
Incorrect. What you state are specific instances of various laws of logic (the laws of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, etc). "Being is being" is not the "very foundation" of logic, it's a specific way of saying a more general law. "Unicorns are unicorns" and "Either unicorn or not-unicorn" are also specific ways of saying them, but that doesn't mean unicorns are the "very foundation" of logic.

Moreover, there is no law which states "being exists" - that may well be a de re necessary conclusion, but it is not a law of logic.
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm aware of mathematicians do, and I'm afraid you're over-extending an abstraction. Mathematics is the study and logic of shape and quantity, it's the rules that tell us "1 + 1 = 2", and all the abstractions thereof. But mathematics doesn't involve anything which exists. If I have five apples, then it's the apples which exist, not the 'five'.


Proof?


Incorrect. What you state are specific instances of various laws of logic (the laws of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, etc). "Being is being" is not the "very foundation" of logic, it's a specific way of saying a more general law. "Unicorns are unicorns" and "Either unicorn or not-unicorn" are also specific ways of saying them, but that doesn't mean unicorns are the "very foundation" of logic.

Moreover, there is no law which states "being exists" - that may well be a de re necessary conclusion, but it is not a law of logic.

I'm running out of time so I'll give only one example.

The math says quite a bit more than 1+1=2; it says 1+1= exclusively 2.
We use "short cuts" to effect the first-principle of exclusion; we do not affectively exclude all other answers, but we do effectively exclude them.
We do this apart from anything material associated with the numbers.

Being exists is the "first" of the First Principles of logic.

Christian Scientists don't believe that being exists. Some eastern religions don't either.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I'm running out of time so I'll give only one example.

The math says quite a bit more than 1+1=2; it says 1+1= exclusively 2.
Indeed, because the arithmetic sum of unity with itself is, de dicto necessarily, two. It's can't be anything else because we define our terms so that this statement is true. From consistency we keep these definitions intact, and, thus, we get mathematics.

We use "short cuts" to effect the first-principle of exclusion; we do not affectively exclude all other answers, but we do effectively exclude them.
It is not a question to be answered, it is a statement: one side is numerically equal to the other. We haven't skipped over other possible answers to "1 + 1 = ?" - we already know.

We do this apart from anything material associated with the numbers.
Naturally, because there isn't anything material associated with numbers.

Being exists is the "first" of the First Principles of logic.
Proof?

Christian Scientists don't believe that being exists. Some eastern religions don't either.
Good for them. How do they define 'being' and 'existence', then?
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
42,515
20,368
Finger Lakes
✟323,708.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We use "short cuts" to effect the first-principle of exclusion; we do not affectively exclude all other answers, but we do effectively exclude them.
I'm not sure what you mean by this as you tend to use non-standard definitions for your words. "Affectively" as most people use it, means "with emotion", as "affect" means "emotion". If you're saying we don't exclude other answers with emotion, I have to ask, why would we get emotional over a simple mathematical definition?

Christian Scientists don't believe that being exists.
Do you mean scientists that are Christian or people of the Christian Scientist faith?
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm not sure what you mean by this as you tend to use non-standard definitions for your words. "Affectively" as most people use it, means "with emotion", as "affect" means "emotion". If you're saying we don't exclude other answers with emotion, I have to ask, why would we get emotional over a simple mathematical definition?


Do you mean scientists that are Christian or people of the Christian Scientist faith?

Affect, as in the triune nature of an act: intent-affect-effect.

People approach ontological certainty by the process of exclusion, AKA the scientific process. It's not so much that an idea is proven as it is that all of the other ideas have been des-proven; what remains is what we are left to believe. We do not necessarily affectively exclude each and every other idea, but we do, to some extent, effectively exclude other ideas. For example; 1+1=2 equates to 1+1= exclusively 2. We do not affectively go through the process of excluding each and every other answer, but we do effectively exclude every other answer. We use "short cuts" to do this such as patterning and contextualizing. (These short cuts are easily exploited and are often used in sales.)

I meant Scientology; I think that's it. They do not believe that existence has been actualized, that there is no being, nothing actually exists, it's all in the Mind, so to speak.
 
Upvote 0

Waden

Newbie
Apr 17, 2012
1
0
✟22,611.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Relativity of God to individuals and Culture
John Wilkes Booth wrote in his diary May 10,1838, that God had made him pull the trigger the night he shot Abraham Lincoln. Later that night officers, found John Wilkes Booth in an abandon home in which the sheriff shot and killed John Wilkes Booth. His very words as well were “God made me do it.” So in this circumstance who was right? Neither, it was a matter of perspective, which is exactly my point. Since every culture is different, we can not correctly verify that Christianity is the one true religion. This is because religion is relativity to culture. What is considered socially acceptable may be considered taboo other cultures. Therefore we can never correctly define what good and bad is because it is a matter of perspective as well.
Story of Jesus
To analyze the story in a logical perspective, we must first look at the story in a literal sense, meaning we must first throw the impossibilities of nature out of the equation. We must throw out the virgin birth, the miracles in which Jesus is breaking the conservation of mass, and the resurrection of a no longer animate object. What we have left is just a story of man who committed blasphemy against the current religion by saying he was the Son of God. This led him to paying the consequences by suffering a common form of humiliation and punishment,- death on the cross. Well, most are going to disagree and say the virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection are all true, but to an intelligent Atheist or Pantheist, they would say, “so what.” If you look at mythology that predates Jesus, we can see that the story of Jesus is not an original concept. Mythological figures of this would be; Budda, Krishna, Odysseus, Romulus, Dionysus, Heracles, Glycon, Zoroaster, Attis of Phrygia, and Horus. The first writer of Jesus was Paul, and Paul wrote the story of Jesus nearly five decades after the death of Jesus. The only knowledge Paul possessed about the story was the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Meaning the stories of the miracles and moral teachings, the meat and potatoes if you will, must have been fabricated.

What Religion has caused
I can boldly say that religion has caused the most deaths on this Earth up to today. A horrific example would be the Crusades, which maybe is one of the most immoral things human kind has ever done, beside the holocaust. The morality of this did not matter though, since these immoral acts technically abide by the bible and was given a divine purpose. Religion has also caused a stand still in the progression of human knowledge. An example of this would be Galileo. Galileo was accused of blasphemy because he believed in a Heliocentric Solar System instead of the Catholic belief of a Geocentric. Galileo later spent the rest of his days under house arrest. Another victim to this stand still would include evolution. The reason the bible is not scientifically sound is because the bible was written from about 1400 b.c. to about 200 a .d. Modern science and understanding of the natural world however has only started in the last two hundred years. Since we can see that there is about a sixteen hundred year gap we can then make a pretty accurate assumption and say there is no science in the bible.

Misconceptions
Einstein wrote very clearly that he was a pantheist or a deist. Meaning he did not believe in a God that could interfere with the physical world and/or answer prayers.

My Philosophy
I believe God is the very thing that keeps our universe from going out of balance.
It is not a living breathing intellectual being who knows our every move, every step, and every question able action. Otherwise, what would be the point of living if there was already a destiny made out for you that it knew? Life in that aspect would be viewed as a sick game of life and death.
 
Upvote 0
There is an important difference between the words existence and being.
That with being actually exists; its existence has been actualized.

For example: the idea of a unicorn exists in that when you read the word unicorn you infer what I imply, but unicorns don't actually exist. They have no being.

I personally think that whatever you think has existence, else you could not even think it. That includes unicorns, no joke.
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I personally think that whatever you think has existence, else you could not even think it. That includes unicorns, no joke.

I agree, thus the distinction between being and existence.

There can exist a rock too heavy for God to lift; however, such a rock could never be. It's existence can not be actualized; such a rock cannot actually exist.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
There can exist a rock too heavy for God to lift; however, such a rock could never be. It's existence can not be actualized; such a rock cannot actually exist.

How can impossible things be said to exist? What does that mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Classically, essence was meant to describe things like a unicorn. Essence preceded existence. Essence can be actualized and becomes a being (or exists).

Ideas, intellectual conceptions and intellectual perception, exist apart from material, spatial or temporal being. Ideas exist. An intellectual is a person whose final product, the product they take to market, remains an idea. However, many idea's existences are never actualized.
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
:amen:
How can impossible things be said to exist? What does that mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ideas exist. Any attempt to explicitly deny that the idea of a rock so large that God cannot lift it implicitly affirms the existence of said idea. However, the existence of such a rock cannot be actualized because no effect can transcend its cause. (Such states the first-principle of causality.)
 
Upvote 0