The inevitability of everlasting experience

[Chriliman]

I recently thought of this argument for eternal or everlasting experience and wanted to get feedback. It’s not necessarily arguing that you will have everlasting experience, though that’s possible, it’s more so arguing that a being must exist that will have everlasting experience.

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

P2: Therefore, reality has always existed and will never cease to exist

P3: Reality is capable of making experiencing beings

C: Therefore, since reality is eternal, it must have already made an experiencing being that’s capable of lasting forever, and is probably an experiencing being itself.

-

I think there’s a way to refine the conclusion even further to conclude that reality must be an eternal experiencing being.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing ...

Maybe not logically.

But theologically it most certainly can.

And did.

It's called creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Neutral Observer]

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

P2: Therefore, reality has always existed and will never cease to exist

P3: Reality is capable of making experiencing beings

C: Therefore, since reality is eternal, it must have already made an experiencing being that’s capable of lasting forever, and is probably an experiencing being itself.

WOW!!!! How does that conclusion in any way follow from the premises?

 

[Chriliman]

Maybe not logically.

But theologically it most certainly can.

And did.

It's called creatio ex nihilo.

I get what you mean, but doesn’t the act of creating require a reality for that creation to take place in?

 

[Chriliman]

WOW!!!! How does that conclusion in any way follow from the premises?

Do you see any conclusion from the premises?

 

[AV1611VET]

I get what you mean, but doesn’t the act of creating require a reality for that creation to take place in?

Indeed it does.

 

[dlamberth]

I get what you mean, but doesn’t the act of creating require a reality for that creation to take place in?

Perhaps that reality is pure consciousness?

 

[Astrid]

I recently thought of this argument for eternal or everlasting experience and wanted to get feedback. It’s not necessarily arguing that you will have everlasting experience, though that’s possible, it’s more so arguing that a being must exist that will have everlasting experience.

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

P2: Therefore, reality has always existed and will never cease to exist

P3: Reality is capable of making experiencing beings

C: Therefore, since reality is eternal, it must have already made an experiencing being that’s capable of lasting forever, and is probably an experiencing being itself.

-

I think there’s a way to refine the conclusion even further to conclude that reality must be an eternal experiencing being.

Just say "kalam cosmo"

 

[Neutral Observer]

Perhaps that reality is pure consciousness?

In which case, perhaps that consciousness is me!

The OP makes an assumption in P3, that reality is capable of giving rise to experiencing beings, but perhaps it's the other way around, experiencing beings are capable of giving rise to reality.

 

[Neutral Observer]

The OP makes an assumption in P3, that reality is capable of giving rise to experiencing beings, but perhaps it's the other way around, experiencing beings are capable of giving rise to reality.

Then again there's option three, that reality and the being experiencing it are indistinguishable, such that it can't be said that one gave rise to the other, because neither one can exist without the other. They're but two parts of one indivisible whole... experience and experiencer.

 

[Yaaten]

I recently thought of this argument for eternal or everlasting experience and wanted to get feedback. It’s not necessarily arguing that you will have everlasting experience, though that’s possible, it’s more so arguing that a being must exist that will have everlasting experience.

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

P2: Therefore, reality has always existed and will never cease to exist

P3: Reality is capable of making experiencing beings

C: Therefore, since reality is eternal, it must have already made an experiencing being that’s capable of lasting forever, and is probably an experiencing being itself.

-

I think there’s a way to refine the conclusion even further to conclude that reality must be an eternal experiencing being.

I agree with the premises but not the conclusion, because it doesn't logically follow from those premises, and the reason for this is simply because nothing that we know of can be what I like to call half-eternal; that is, there is a beginning to a process or phenomenon (ex. a person, a mind, an experience) but no ending. Everything that has a first moment in time also has a last one. For something to be truly eternal, it would have to transcend time altogether, but if it did then it would also transcend nature itself, the reality we are all so familiar with.

 

[Yaaten]

The OP makes an assumption in P3, that reality is capable of giving rise to experiencing beings, but perhaps it's the other way around, experiencing beings are capable of giving rise to reality.

How could this ever be possible? Perhaps you should go into a little more detail, because as it is it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Yaaten]

Perhaps that reality is pure consciousness?

How?

 

[Yaaten]

Do you see any conclusion from the premises?

The line that begins with the word "Therefore", at the bottom.

 

[dlamberth]

How?

It was just a thought.
"IF" one were to take the trajectory of God creating everything and starting out with the idea that God is not a physical entity, it seems to me that what's left is pure consciosness.

 

[Chriliman]

I agree with the premises but not the conclusion, because it doesn't logically follow from those premises, and the reason for this is simply because nothing that we know of can be what I like to call half-eternal; that is, there is a beginning to a process or phenomenon (ex. a person, a mind, an experience) but no ending. Everything that has a first moment in time also has a last one. For something to be truly eternal, it would have to transcend time altogether, but if it did then it would also transcend nature itself, the reality we are all so familiar with.

Are you saying the eternal can’t give rise to something that begins, but never ends?

IOW, If something begins, it must end, within eternity?

 

[Yttrium]

I recently thought of this argument for eternal or everlasting experience and wanted to get feedback. It’s not necessarily arguing that you will have everlasting experience, though that’s possible, it’s more so arguing that a being must exist that will have everlasting experience.

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

P2: Therefore, reality has always existed and will never cease to exist

P3: Reality is capable of making experiencing beings

C: Therefore, since reality is eternal, it must have already made an experiencing being that’s capable of lasting forever, and is probably an experiencing being itself.

-

I think there’s a way to refine the conclusion even further to conclude that reality must be an eternal experiencing being.

P1: Okay.
P2: Uh huh.
P3: We're here, so yeah.
C: Here you lost me at the "capable of lasting forever" part. This doesn't seem to follow from the logic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I recently thought of this argument for eternal or everlasting experience and wanted to get feedback. It’s not necessarily arguing that you will have everlasting experience, though that’s possible, it’s more so arguing that a being must exist that will have everlasting experience.

P1: Reality can’t logically come from literally nothing or become literally nothing.

P2: Therefore, reality has always existed and will never cease to exist

P3: Reality is capable of making experiencing beings

C: Therefore, since reality is eternal, it must have already made an experiencing being that’s capable of lasting forever, and is probably an experiencing being itself.

The syllogism is a truncated concatenation (P2 is a conclusion).

But that apart, I'd say:

C: Reality will make experiencing beings.

I don't see the justification for going further than that without the additional premise that experiencing beings can live forever.

It may also need the premise that reality is always capable of making experiencing beings.

 

[Chriliman]

P1: Okay.
P2: Uh huh.
P3: We're here, so yeah.
C: Here you lost me at the "capable of lasting forever" part. This doesn't seem to follow from the logic.

Basically, IOW, if we say reality is eternal and is capable of making experiencing beings, then it stand to reason it would make every kind of experience being possible, including those that last forever.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Basically, IOW, if we say reality is eternal and is capable of making experiencing beings, then it stand to reason it would make every kind of experience being possible, including those that last forever.

Are eternal experiencing beings possible?