The Philosophy Discussion Forum

All future updates and revisions can be found at: https://www.danieljlavender.com

4.15.2026 Essay Revisions Abstract Revision Former Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond exist...

How can we debate this question based on logical inference when logic encounters the problem of infinite regress? Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited to any particular, existence is all. Existence does not depend on any previous or prior state. There is no previo...

We know a thing by "what is" and "what is not". And, as conscious beings, both “what is” and “what is not” are conceptual mechanisms employed to help process information, as stated above. Things are known by their qualities, by what is. Even the alleged “what is not”, itself con...

Sure. If the claim you're making is for a creature that is finite and limited by something, then it's possible to do. I’m contending nonexistence has no ontological reality. That has to be the most tautological and unsurprising claim in history. Tell us all something we don't know. Then you agree. ...

I think the thread fails to realize the conceptual dynamic of the existence/non-existence dichotomy, needed for existence to gain contrastual meaning, by negating the concept of nothingness as an absence of things. That is complexity concerning conscious beings. Existence simply is. Conscious being...

Non-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard. Feel free to demonstrate. I can, empirically. Here are two examples: 1. The device you are using to write this is not your living quarters. It is absent of being your living quarter...

Sure. If the claim you're making is for a creature that is finite and limited by something, then it's possible to do. I’m contending nonexistence has no ontological reality. Reviewing your statement here it appears we agree: "Nothing" is not something that you can expect to "exist,&q...

The philosophy presented is a standalone foundational ontology. It isn’t a formal academic paper, however, it is a coherent and functional framework capable of accommodating various worldviews while maintaining ontological integrity. The ontology is practical and accessible, it provides parameters t...

I think the thread fails to realize the conceptual dynamic of the existence/non-existence dichotomy, needed for existence to gain contrastual meaning, by negating the concept of nothingness as an absence of things. That is complexity concerning conscious beings. Existence simply is. Conscious being...

Non-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard. We may discuss this topic in the other thread: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=793213#p793213 From the thread: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=654347...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:31 pmNon-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard.

Feel free to demonstrate.

No. Genesis. But Roman 4:17 and Col. 1:16 would need explanation. There's certainly plenty of indication that whatever exists -- and that seems to mean absolutely everything, including any secondary substance from which other things were created, was made by God. So if nothing is excluded from that...

The Catholic Bible, in Latin, says "ex nihilo." Hebrews says, "things not seen." Are you referring to Maccabees? Maccabees is not universally accepted, it is not part of the Protestant canon. Maccabees has the only passage containing “ex nihilo”. Additionally it is arguably outw...

“Things not visible” is not nothing, and to suggest otherwise is quite a reach. Maybe. But it's a "reach" that only the Catholic Vulgate bothers to make. The Hebrews wording is open to it, but not conclusive. The text suggests creation from things or creation from existence, not creation ...