Being

[bricklayer]

Being exists.
Any explicit attempts to deny that being exists implicitly affirms it.

Being subject to change is subject; it is not sovereign. It is not necessary; it is contingent.

Contingent being cannot, by definition, exist necessarily.
Contingent being's existence is contingent upon necessary being.
Contingent being begs the existence of necessary being.

 

[The Paul]

Ah, games with the way we define and understand things...

...we can understand the universe such that it requires a creator.

...we can understand the universe such that alien contact within the next few minutes is unavoidable

...we can understand the universe such that the perfect platonic ideal of "donut" is about to materialize in front of me.

People generally realize these imaginings have no real bearing on the universe sometime between age four and never.

 

[Cabal]

Being exists.
Any explicit attempts to deny that being exists implicitly affirms it.

Uh....how? It could only show that it exists conceptually - but that does not make it real.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Being exists.

No, it does not. Beings exist, but 'beingness' itself does not. I have two sisters, and they exist, but 'two' itself does not. They are, but 'are' is not.

Any explicit attempts to deny that being exists implicitly affirms it.

No, it does not. "I deny that "being exists" is true".

Being subject to change is subject; it is not sovereign. It is not necessary; it is contingent.

Contingent being cannot, by definition, exist necessarily.
Contingent being's existence is contingent upon necessary being.
Contingent being begs the existence of necessary being.

Then the onus is on you to show that there exist a contingent being. And, since your argument is a thinly veiled attempt to prove the existence of the Christian God, the onus is also on your to prove that this necessary being is, in fact, the God of the Bible - the intelligent, universe-making, prayer-answer, gay-hating entity of lore.

 

[Cabal]

No, it does not. Beings exist, but 'beingness' itself does not.

Wasn't that Kant's objection to....similar claims? Maybe even the cosmological argument?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wasn't that Kant's objection to....similar claims? Maybe even the cosmological argument?

Possibly, I haven't read much (any) Kant. What I've heard, I find annoying, so I think I've steered clear. By the sounds of it, I haven't missed much

 

[bricklayer]

Uh....how? It could only show that it exists conceptually - but that does not make it real.

The evidence of your existence is written above.
Your explicit attempt to deny your existence implicitly affirms it,

 

[Cabal]

The evidence of your existence is written above.
Your explicit attempt to deny your existence implicitly affirms it,

Except I did not attempt that.

Reread my post, and try again.

If you're talking about a being trying to deny its OWN existence confirms its existence, then sure - but that's not what you claimed.

 

[bricklayer]

Uh....how? It could only show that it exists conceptually - but that does not make it real.

Your choice of the word "real" is poor. Actual and potential being can both be considered "real".

The actuality of existence is evidenced by the words that you have actually written.
The potentiality of existence is evidenced by the meaning of the words that you have written.
Contingent being is a complex of actuality and potentiality.
Contingent being cannot, by definition, exist necessarily.
The existence of contingent being is contingent upon necessary being.
The existence of contingent (changing) being begs the existence of necessary being.

 

[Cabal]

Your choice of the word "real" is poor. Actual and potential being can both be considered "real".

Which was kinda my point. Substitute real for existent, if you like. You're essentially claiming that denying something proves it exists. The mere existence of a concept however does not mean that it has existence in any other way.

Claiming that denying something proves it exists only makes sense if you're denying the existence of the thing uttering the denial - which can only ever be yourself. But again, that wasn't what I was referring to.

The actuality of existence is evidenced by the words that you have actually written.
The potentiality of existence is evidenced by the meaning of the words that you have written.
Contingent being is a complex of actuality and potentiality.
Contingent being cannot, by definition, exist necessarily.
The existence of contingent being is contingent upon necessary being.
The existence of contingent (changing) being begs the existence of necessary being.

As long as "being" isn't code for "personal being", I have no problem with this.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Does denying flurgs prove they exist?

 

[bricklayer]

Which was kinda my point. Substitute real for existent, if you like. You're essentially claiming that denying something proves it exists. The mere existence of a concept however does not mean that it has existence in any other way.

Claiming that denying something proves it exists only makes sense if you're denying the existence of the thing uttering the denial - which can only ever be yourself. But again, that wasn't what I was referring to.



As long as "being" isn't code for "personal being", I have no problem with this.

Young man, slow down. You're running ahead and missing the point.
It is not your claim that being does not exist that validates the existence of being
it is your existing to make your claim that validates the existence of being.

Someone must exist if anyone is to claim that there is no existence..
Your explicit attempt to deny existence implicitly affirms it.


But hey, look on the bright side; I was older than you are now before I understood this.

 

[bricklayer]

Does denying flurgs prove they exist?

Only if a flurg makes the claim

 

[bricklayer]

Which was kinda my point. Substitute real for existent, if you like. You're essentially claiming that denying something proves it exists. The mere existence of a concept however does not mean that it has existence in any other way.

Claiming that denying something proves it exists only makes sense if you're denying the existence of the thing uttering the denial - which can only ever be yourself. But again, that wasn't what I was referring to.



As long as "being" isn't code for "personal being", I have no problem with this.

No effect can transcend its cause.
If there is personal-contingent-being then there must be personal-necessary-being.
The impersonal cannot produce the personal.

 

[Cabal]

No effect can transcend its cause.
If there is personal-contingent-being then there must be personal-necessary-being.
The impersonal cannot produce the personal.

Assertion.

"Personal" could very easily be a nonlinear/emergent effect of mass/energy interacting in space/time through naturalistic laws.

 

[Cabal]

Young man, slow down.

Ignore my age, deal with the objections. I promise not to start needlessly referring to the irrelevance of your greater age.

You're running ahead and missing the point.

Assuming there is one.

It is not your claim that being does not exist that validates the existence of being
it is your existing to make your claim that validates existence.

Ok, if we're talking about being, rather than beings, then my bad.

Someone must exist if anyone is to claim that there is no existence..

No. SomeONE is a presumption. SomeTHING may exist, which may or may not be a someONE.

Your explicit attempt to deny existence implicitly affirms it.

Except I attempted to deny no such thing. I discussed the denial of beings rather than being.

Buy hey, look on the bright side; I was older than you are now before I understood this.

If these kinds of threads are what it results in, I think I'll avoid that pitfall for as long as possible, if you don't mind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The evidence of your existence is written above.
Your explicit attempt to deny your existence implicitly affirms it,

Beingness doesn't exist, but beings do. No one denies the logic of cogito ergo sum, but that's not what you're arguing. Or, rather, that's not what you're poorly-worded OP implies you're arguing.

If your premise is, "There are things which exist", then fine, let's roll with that. That seems to be what your objections imply, but your terminology is sloppy - "being exists" and "beings exist" are two different things, with two very different ontological implications. If your premise is, "Beingness itself exists", then no, we need to discuss that. So, clarify what you mean: do you mean "there exist entities, and to deny this is illogical, as you yourself have to exist to deny it, thus disproving your own denial", then that's Philosophy 101 and doesn't really deserve its own thread. If you mean, "'Beingness' exists just as much as I do", then that's something different altogether and has undertones of Plato's Forms and suchlike.

So, clarify what you mean. That seems to be the crux of your and Cabal's disagreement.

 

[bricklayer]

Beingness doesn't exist, but beings do. No one denies the logic of cogito ergo sum, but that's not what you're arguing. Or, rather, that's not what you're poorly-worded OP implies you're arguing.

If your premise is, "There are things which exist", then fine, let's roll with that. That seems to be what your objections imply, but your terminology is sloppy - "being exists" and "beings exist" are two different things, with two very different ontological implications. If your premise is, "Beingness itself exists", then no, we need to discuss that. So, clarify what you mean: do you mean "there exist entities, and to deny this is illogical, as you yourself have to exist to deny it, thus disproving your own denial", then that's Philosophy 101 and doesn't really deserve its own thread. If you mean, "'Beingness' exists just as much as I do", then that's something different altogether and has undertones of Plato's Forms and suchlike.

So, clarify what you mean. That seems to be the crux of your and Cabal's disagreement.

The distinction between existence and being is same as between potentiality and actuality. There exists ideas that remain unactualized, math is replete with them. These ideas have actual existence but their being remains a potentiality.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The distinction between existence and being is same as between potentiality and actuality. There exists ideas that remain unactualized, math is replete with them. These ideas have actual existence but their being remains a potentiality.

I disagree. Something either exists, or it doesn't. Beingness is a property, not a thing. Things exist, properties don't. The potential statue in a block of marble exists, but only insofar as the constituent matter is already there - the thing that is (or will be) the statue exists, but the property of statue-ness does not. The property can only ever be affixed to a thing, not floating about on its own.

To say 'beingness exists' in the same breath as saying 'beings exist', is nothing more than equivocation of two separate meanings of the word 'exist'.

 

[now faith]

Being exists.
Any explicit attempts to deny that being exists implicitly affirms it.only for the person that denied

Being subject to change is subject; it is not sovereign. It is not necessary; it is contingent.

Contingent being cannot, by definition, exist necessarily. Faith does
Contingent being's existence is contingent upon necessary being.manifesting
Contingent being begs the existence of necessary being.

why would he need to?