Existence Is Infinite

[Age]

"Oh, there has been an earthquake, now I am 'suffering', and 'living in hell here on earth', so there must be a God."

you MISSED the POINT.

Or it could be the equivalent of:

"Oh, there has been an earthquake, now people are 'suffering', and 'living in hell here on earth', so there must be a God."

you MISSED the POINT.

Or perhaps:

"Oh, there has been an earthquake, now others are 'suffering', and 'living in hell here on earth', so there must be a God."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

you MISSED the POINT.

I saw your other post claiming that you "know" God exists, Age.

Okay.

I wish you'd make up your mind or else clarify your position.

I wish you would STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and ASSUMING 'things'. BUT, we do NOT always get what we wish for, right?

What do you ASSUME I have SUPPOSEDLY NOT made, lol, 'my mind' up about here, EXACTLY?

I don't know about you but I don't claim to know what I am incapable of knowing with any certainty, at least when it involves the most critical things that any human being could possibly know.

I ALSO do NOT claim to know what I am incapable of knowing with any certainty. So, that is WHY I ONLY CLAIM TO KNOW what I KNOW, which I have ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY ABOUT.

[Age]

"Oh, there has been an earthquake, now I am 'suffering', and 'living in hell here on earth', so there must be a God."

you MISSED the POINT.

Or it could be the equivalent of:

"Oh, there has been an earthquake, now people are 'suffering', and 'living in hell here on earth', so there must be a God."

you MISSED the POINT.

Or perhaps:

"Oh, there has been an earthquake, now others are 'suffering', and 'living in hell here on earth', so there must be a God."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

you MISSED the POINT.

I saw your other post claiming that you "know" God exists, Age. I wish you'd make up your mind or else clarify your position. I don't know about you but I don't claim to know what I am incapable of knowing with any certainty, at least when it involves the most critical things that any human being could possibly know.

INSTEAD of just STOPPING and ASKING me what the POINT WAS that you are MISSING here, you go on to MAKE FURTHER ASSUMPTIONS, which ACTUALLY TAKE you FURTHER AWAY from the ORIGINAL POINT.

[Gary Childress]

you MISSED the POINT.



you MISSED the POINT.



you MISSED the POINT.

I saw your other post claiming that you "know" God exists, Age. I wish you'd make up your mind or else clarify your position. I don't know about you but I don't claim to know what I am incapable of knowing with any certainty, at least when it involves the most critical things that any human being could possibly know.

INSTEAD of just STOPPING and ASKING me what the POINT WAS that you are MISSING here, you go on to MAKE FURTHER ASSUMPTIONS, which ACTUALLY TAKE you FURTHER AWAY from the ORIGINAL POINT.

I apologize for being human age. At least I was 'back in the days when "you" adults were having this disagreement.'

Such is life.

[Age]

I saw your other post claiming that you "know" God exists, Age. I wish you'd make up your mind or else clarify your position. I don't know about you but I don't claim to know what I am incapable of knowing with any certainty, at least when it involves the most critical things that any human being could possibly know.

INSTEAD of just STOPPING and ASKING me what the POINT WAS that you are MISSING here, you go on to MAKE FURTHER ASSUMPTIONS, which ACTUALLY TAKE you FURTHER AWAY from the ORIGINAL POINT.

I apologize for being human age.

WHY are you here APOLOGIZING for what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY?

At least I was 'back in the days when "you" adults were having this disagreement.'

WHAT 'disagreement'?

Such is life.

But 'life', itself, does NOT have to be IN 'disagreement'.

[daniel j lavender]

Given my frame of mind, whenever I encounter another "philosophy of life", I'm always curious how it accounts for the sheer horrors that are built right into the "human condition.

The philosophy presented isn’t necessarily a “philosophy of life”. While it certainly concerns life it also transcends life, it transcends biology.

Additionally there are no prescriptions here. There are no instructions or guidelines for life or suggestions of how to live. The philosophy does not suggest immoral approaches, it does not suggest moral approaches nor does it suggest amoral approaches to life. In that respect it is rather neutral.

As stated, the philosophy supersedes life and biology. To offer suggestions, to offer instructions for living would be to confine the philosophy to biology, to life alone. Existence transcends life. Existence transcends biology.

Such “sheer horrors” are simply aspects of existence. That is what they are. We, as conscious individuals, create personal perspectives, we create personal opinions and experience certain emotions in reaction to those things.

I'm curious as to how your philosophy is construed by you in a religious sense.

The philosophy is intended to steer clear of religion. Hence philosophy, not religion. However it certainly concerns many concepts discussed in religious texts and in religious circles. In fact many concepts covered in religious texts were arguably borrowed from earlier philosophical insights and investigations.

With many religions human life is eternal because God made it that way. It's just a question of going up or down. But then God Himself created the conditions that sustain all of the horrors above. So most believers subsume that in His mysterious ways.

The basic point is that existence is eternal. Life is not necessarily eternal but could be eternal. This is reflected in religion and in various personal beliefs as some would argue life is eternal while others would not.

Considering existence is eternal it would always be. There would be no beginning point. That considered there would be no beginning point for life to need to develop from. Life could come about at any point, it could spring up then and there or elsewhere, or later at some other point, off and on forever. In that sense life could be eternal. Or life could be sustained, it could be constant; life could be a sort of necessary component always existent in some place at some capacity. It isn’t an exclusively religious or Biblical idea.

One could look at it this way: Yes, there are things, there are events which some may perceive as horrific, as malicious, as ungodly. But if not for those things would we have much, if any, appreciation for the delightful things? For the lovely things?

There is a certain respect demanded from us by existence, for a lack of better terms. Certain things illustrate for us just how bad things can be, it shows us that existence is real, that things are serious. But it also rewards us. It provides amazing experiences and joy which words cannot describe. It is there for us to experience, to embrace, to contemplate as we reach a better understanding of that which we are part. Existence. The Infinite.

How does your own philosophy above encompass all of this?

This is not my philosophy. This is philosophy. The philosophy. I did not invent it. Supposing all detailed in the original essay is accurate no one would have contrived or invented this philosophy or this description of what is. It would be eternal knowledge, existent and present forever. Individuals discover it, they stumble upon it from time to time throughout eternity and express it for others to contemplate.

[Age]

Given my frame of mind, whenever I encounter another "philosophy of life", I'm always curious how it accounts for the sheer horrors that are built right into the "human condition.

The philosophy presented isn’t necessarily a “philosophy of life”. While it certainly concerns life it also transcends life, it transcends biology.

Additionally there are no prescriptions here. There are no instructions or guidelines for life or suggestions of how to live. The philosophy does not suggest immoral approaches, it does not suggest moral approaches nor does it suggest amoral approaches to life. In that respect it is rather neutral.

As stated, the philosophy supersedes life and biology. To offer suggestions, to offer instructions for living would be to confine the philosophy to biology, to life alone. Existence transcends life. Existence transcends biology.

Such “sheer horrors” are simply aspects of existence. That is what they are. We, as conscious individuals, create personal perspectives, we create personal opinions and experience certain emotions in reaction to those things.

I'm curious as to how your philosophy is construed by you in a religious sense.

The philosophy is intended to steer clear of religion. Hence philosophy, not religion. However it certainly concerns many concepts discussed in religious texts and in religious circles. In fact many concepts covered in religious texts were arguably borrowed from earlier philosophical insights and investigations.

With many religions human life is eternal because God made it that way. It's just a question of going up or down. But then God Himself created the conditions that sustain all of the horrors above. So most believers subsume that in His mysterious ways.

The basic point is that existence is eternal. Life is not necessarily eternal but could be eternal. This is reflected in religion and in various personal beliefs as some would argue life is eternal while others would not.

Considering existence is eternal it would always be. There would be no beginning point. That considered there would be no beginning point for life to need to develop from. Life could come about at any point, it could spring up then and there or elsewhere, or later at some other point, off and on forever.

This would be like 'trying to' say or argue that 'existence' could spring up ANY time or ANY where.

'Life' and 'Existence' are more or less interchangeable here as BOTH ARE ALWAYS.

There is ONLY One Life just like there is ONLY One Existence, both eternally HERE-NOW.

In that sense life could be eternal. Or life could be sustained, it could be constant; life could be a sort of necessary component always existent in some place at some capacity. It isn’t an exclusively religious or Biblical idea.

One could look at it this way: Yes, there are things, there are events which some may perceive as horrific, as malicious, as ungodly. But if not for those things would we have much, if any, appreciation for the delightful things? For the lovely things?

There is a certain respect demanded from us by existence, for a lack of better terms. Certain things illustrate for us just how bad things can be, it shows us that existence is real, that things are serious. But it also rewards us. It provides amazing experiences and joy which words cannot describe.

Will you name those experiences, which you claim words cannot describe?

If no, then why not?

It is there for us to experience, to embrace, to contemplate as we reach a better understanding of that which we are part. Existence. The Infinite.

How does your own philosophy above encompass all of this?

This is not my philosophy. This is philosophy. The philosophy. I did not invent it. Supposing all detailed in the original essay is accurate no one would have contrived or invented this philosophy or this description of what is. It would be eternal knowledge, existent and present forever. Individuals discover it, they stumble upon it from time to time throughout eternity and express it for others to contemplate.

VERY WELL SAID, and PUT.

[iambiguous]

Given my frame of mind, whenever I encounter another "philosophy of life", I'm always curious how it accounts for the sheer horrors that are built right into the "human condition.

The philosophy presented isn’t necessarily a “philosophy of life”. While it certainly concerns life it also transcends life, it transcends biology.

How "for all practical purposes" is this applicable to the behaviors you choose from day to day in interacting with others? And, in particular, when your value judgments come into conflict with others?

That is my own main interest in philosophy:

"How ought one to live morally in a world that is awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?"

Though, sure, if this is not something that you aim to explore in your own philosophy here, no problem. We can just move on to others.

Additionally there are no prescriptions here. There are no instructions or guidelines for life or suggestions of how to live. The philosophy does not suggest immoral approaches, it does not suggest moral approaches nor does it suggest amoral approaches to life. In that respect it is rather neutral.

As stated, the philosophy supersedes life and biology. To offer suggestions, to offer instructions for living would be to confine the philosophy to biology, to life alone. Existence transcends life. Existence transcends biology.

If you can live you own life from day to day interacting with others and avoid conflicts with them over value judgments, then, well, more power to you. I've never been able to do that myself.

Such “sheer horrors” are simply aspects of existence. That is what they are. We, as conscious individuals, create personal perspectives, we create personal opinions and experience certain emotions in reaction to those things.

Yes, and my own understanding of that is rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in the OPs of these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

I'm curious as to how your philosophy is construed by you in a religious sense.

The philosophy is intended to steer clear of religion. Hence philosophy, not religion. However it certainly concerns many concepts discussed in religious texts and in religious circles. In fact many concepts covered in religious texts were arguably borrowed from earlier philosophical insights and investigations.

From my frame of mind, religion revolves first and foremost around connecting the dots between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it. How does your philosophy -- the philosophy -- imagine/encompass the part after you die?

With many religions human life is eternal because God made it that way. It's just a question of going up or down. But then God Himself created the conditions that sustain all of the horrors above. So most believers subsume that in His mysterious ways.

The basic point is that existence is eternal. Life is not necessarily eternal but could be eternal. This is reflected in religion and in various personal beliefs as some would argue life is eternal while others would not.

Considering existence is eternal it would always be. There would be no beginning point. That considered there would be no beginning point for life to need to develop from. Life could come about at any point, it could spring up then and there or elsewhere, or later at some other point, off and on forever. In that sense life could be eternal. Or life could be sustained, it could be constant; life could be a sort of necessary component always existent in some place at some capacity. It isn’t an exclusively religious or Biblical idea.

This is what you believe in your head. This is what you think and feel is true. Others, however...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...think and feel different things.

So, what is of most importance to me here is not what others believe about human existence, but what they are actually able to demonstrate empirically, experientially is in fact true about it.

One could look at it this way: Yes, there are things, there are events which some may perceive as horrific, as malicious, as ungodly. But if not for those things would we have much, if any, appreciation for the delightful things? For the lovely things?

Well, I suspect that will depend in large part on the extent to which someone has personally had to deal with the actual consequences of these natural disasters. Each of us as individuals has our own accumulation good and bad experiences. Rewards and punishments.

How does your own philosophy above encompass all of this?

This is not my philosophy. This is philosophy. The philosophy. I did not invent it. Supposing all detailed in the original essay is accurate no one would have contrived or invented this philosophy or this description of what is. It would be eternal knowledge, existent and present forever. Individuals discover it, they stumble upon it from time to time throughout eternity and express it for others to contemplate.

I think about things like this differently. There are aspects of the "human condition" that seem to be applicable objectively to all of us. The laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical either/or world all around us, the rules of language...logic, epistemology. But in regard to our value judgments we all come to acquire subjective/subjunctive prejudices rooted existentially in the lives that we live.

[daniel j lavender]

This would be like 'trying to' say or argue that 'existence' could spring up ANY time or ANY where.

Existence can’t just come about from nothing. Nor can particular things come about from nothing. As expressed here and defined in the original essay, existence is eternal. Existence, things cannot arise from nothing. Things come from other things; existence in the general sense being eternal. Nothing, nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence would not just “spring up” in this sense.

'Life' and 'Existence' are more or less interchangeable here as BOTH ARE ALWAYS.

Existence is life and life is existence. However existence does not exclusively concern life. Existence exceeds life.

The point concerns whether life itself is eternal, which is arguable as discussed earlier.

While existence certainly concerns life the differences between life and existence in general should be fairly straightforward.

There is ONLY One Life just like there is ONLY One Existence, both eternally HERE-NOW.

Existence doesn’t need a number; there is no other to need to be numbered. Existence does not need to be numbered as existence is all there is. As expressed in the original essay, existence just is. There is no other, there is no series to need to number existence in the general sense.

However “eternally here-now” is, I believe, a fairly accurate way to put it. Existence just is. Eternally.

[daniel j lavender]

How "for all practical purposes" is this applicable to the behaviors you choose from day to day in interacting with others? And, in particular, when your value judgments come into conflict with others? That is my own main interest in philosophy: "How ought one to live morally in a world that is awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?"

As previously stated this is not an ethical or moral treatise. That can be gleaned from other texts. This is a comprehensive, comprehensible expression of the nature, of the structure, of the parameters of existence.

That said, such an understanding of existence could allow individuals to reach a better understanding of our commonality, of what we all share which could perhaps help lead to a better community as expressed in Conclusions.

From my frame of mind, religion revolves first and foremost around connecting the dots between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

Religion, at least organized religion, often merely revolves around routine ostentation. In extreme cases idol admiration along with other various condemnable activities.

What many consider holy texts, including the Bible, contain more than just supposed historical accounts, moral manuals and outlandish occurrences. They contain certain basic philosophical principles such as eternity, being eternal or eternal being (1 Timothy 1:17). The impossibility of nothing, of no thing, of nonexistence (Luke 1:37).

Again, the philosophy is intended to steer clear of religion. However those two basic principles, those two basic concepts are fundamentally philosophical, not religious. They are retained, they are contained in what many consider religious texts.

So, what is of most importance to me here is not what others believe… but what they are actually able to demonstrate empirically, experientially is in fact true about it.

Would you agree we experience? I suppose so. That certainly concerns existence. It involves interacting with other things.

The philosophy is posted for discourse and debate, in part to demonstrate its validity through rational discussion. Anyone can argue any aspect of the philosophy. Ultimately individuals shall contemplate and decide for themselves.


Allow me to elaborate on my earlier statement:

This is not my philosophy. This is philosophy. The philosophy. I did not invent it. Supposing all detailed in the original essay is accurate no one would have contrived or invented this philosophy or this description of what is. It would be eternal knowledge, existent and present forever. Individuals discover it, they stumble upon it from time to time throughout eternity and express it for others to contemplate.

It is similar to the mathematical concept pi. The parameters of pi are always valid, always existent. They do not change, regardless if a conscious entity is around to discover them, acknowledge them or record them in a notebook. In other words parameters of existence, the parameters of the knowledge would always be; what may fluctuate would concern life, or would concern conscious awareness and acknowledgment of the parameters.

Perhaps the idea of being eternal, of eternity is emphasized too much. The idea itself isn’t quite as significant as it may seem. The idea is concerned with time, with duration. As expressed in the original text existence just is. Existence, being, generally speaking, transcends what we perceive as time. Existence just is. All that is, is. Time is a construct. A quality associated with particulars or particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

All that is simply is. Simply being. Being. The fact that life is, that knowledge is an expression of existence is also a reflection and acknowledgement of its timelessness. Existence transcends measure, existence transcends time. Existence transcends number, existence transcends word. Existence just is.

[Age]

This would be like 'trying to' say or argue that 'existence' could spring up ANY time or ANY where.

Existence can’t just come about from nothing.

I KNOW. This is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

'Existence' can NOT just come about from nothing, just like 'Life' can NOT just come about from nothing, which IS EXACTLY what I was SAYING and POINTING OUT here.

Nor can particular things come about from nothing.

AGAIN, AGREED. And, what I was SAYING and POINTING OUT in what I wrote above, which you quoted here.

As expressed here and defined in the original essay, existence is eternal. Existence, things cannot arise from nothing. Things come from other things; existence in the general sense being eternal. Nothing, nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence would not just “spring up” in this sense.

WHY are you speaking like you are TELLING me what I just SAID and POINTED OUT anyway above here?

Also, absolutely EVERY 'thing' comes FROM the coming-together of at least TWO 'things' prior.

Even Existence, Life, AND the Universe, Itself, which are ALL eternal EXIST BECAUSE of two 'things' coming-together, or co-existing TOGETHER.

'Life' and 'Existence' are more or less interchangeable here as BOTH ARE ALWAYS.

Existence is life and life is existence. However existence does not exclusively concern life. Existence exceeds life.

Can you SPOT the CONTRADICTION here?

'Existence' IS 'life', AND, 'life' IS 'existence'. BUT, 'existence' EXCEEDS 'life'.

If you can NOT SPOT the CONTRADICTION here, then let me know and I might be able to help you out.

The point concerns whether life itself is eternal, which is arguable as discussed earlier.

But it is ONLY 'arguable' in the sense that 'Life' IS ETERNAL can be and WILL BE 'argued' soundly AND validly.

While existence certainly concerns life the differences between life and existence in general should be fairly straightforward.

So, to you, 'Existence' IS 'life', AND, 'life' IS 'existence', BUT, the DIFFERENCES between 'life' and 'existence', in general, SHOULD be fairly straightforward.

To me, this sounds like you are ALREADY HOLDING A BELIEF, but have YET to REALLY think 'it' through, FULLY.

There is ONLY One Life just like there is ONLY One Existence, both eternally HERE-NOW.

Existence doesn’t need a number;

Just like absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE in the Universe, including the Universe, Itself, does NOT NEED 'a number'. But, so what?

there is no other to need to be numbered.

Mind does NOT need a number; there is NO other to need to be numbered. But, AGAIN, so what?

If you do NOT want to SAY and CLAIM there is ONLY One, then so be it.

Existence does not need to be numbered as existence is all there is.

The Universe, ALSO, does NOT need to be numbered as the Universe IS ALL-THERE-IS. BUT, there are SOME human beings who SAY and CLAIM there are MORE than one Universe.

As expressed in the original essay, existence just is.

Life, ALSO, JUST IS. The Universe, JUST IS. you, JUST ARE. And, the human being, JUST IS. But, SO WHAT?

There is no other, there is no series to need to number existence in the general sense.

How MANY TIMES are you going to go on ABOUT 'this'?

However “eternally here-now” is, I believe, a fairly accurate way to put it. Existence just is. Eternally.

[Age]

How "for all practical purposes" is this applicable to the behaviors you choose from day to day in interacting with others? And, in particular, when your value judgments come into conflict with others? That is my own main interest in philosophy: "How ought one to live morally in a world that is awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?"

As previously stated this is not an ethical or moral treatise. That can be gleaned from other texts. This is a comprehensive, comprehensible expression of the nature, of the structure, of the parameters of existence.

I will suggest that you have a LOT MORE to explain, AND PROVE, BEFORE what you have said here is 'comprehensive'.

It is one 'thing' to just SAY, 'Existence is infinite', but it is a whole OTHER 'thing' to PROVE 'this', IRREFUTABLY, and PROVE 'this' to a DISBELIEVING audience.

But in saying this it is STILL a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY 'thing' to do to PROVE that 'Existence', 'Life', and the 'Universe', Itself, ARE eternal AND infinite.

That said, such an understanding of existence could allow individuals to reach a better understanding of our commonality, of what we all share which could perhaps help lead to a better community as expressed in Conclusions.

And what is 'that', which is 'our commonality' and what 'we' ALL 'share'?

From my frame of mind, religion revolves first and foremost around connecting the dots between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

Religion, at least organized religion, often merely revolves around routine ostentation. In extreme cases idol admiration along with other various condemnable activities.

What many consider holy texts, including the Bible, contain more than just supposed historical accounts, moral manuals and outlandish occurrences. They contain certain basic philosophical principles such as eternity, being eternal or eternal being (1 Timothy 1:17). The impossibility of nothing, of no thing, of nonexistence (Luke 1:37).

Instead of just resorting to 'these words' alone I suggest just providing the empirical PROOF that Existence/the Universe IS eternal and infinite. That way NO one could even 'try to' REFUTE this Fact.

Again, the philosophy is intended to steer clear of religion. However those two basic principles, those two basic concepts are fundamentally philosophical, not religious. They are retained, they are contained in what many consider religious texts.

So, what is of most importance to me here is not what others believe… but what they are actually able to demonstrate empirically, experientially is in fact true about it.

Would you agree we experience? I suppose so. That certainly concerns existence. It involves interacting with other things.

The philosophy is posted for discourse and debate, in part to demonstrate its validity through rational discussion. Anyone can argue any aspect of the philosophy. Ultimately individuals shall contemplate and decide for themselves.


Allow me to elaborate on my earlier statement:

This is not my philosophy. This is philosophy. The philosophy. I did not invent it. Supposing all detailed in the original essay is accurate no one would have contrived or invented this philosophy or this description of what is. It would be eternal knowledge, existent and present forever. Individuals discover it, they stumble upon it from time to time throughout eternity and express it for others to contemplate.

It is similar to the mathematical concept pi. The parameters of pi are always valid, always existent. They do not change, regardless if a conscious entity is around to discover them, acknowledge them or record them in a notebook. In other words parameters of existence, the parameters of the knowledge would always be; what may fluctuate would concern life, or would concern conscious awareness and acknowledgment of the parameters.

Perhaps the idea of being eternal, of eternity is emphasized too much. The idea itself isn’t quite as significant as it may seem. The idea is concerned with time, with duration. As expressed in the original text existence just is. Existence, being, generally speaking, transcends what we perceive as time. Existence just is. All that is, is. Time is a construct. A quality associated with particulars or particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

All that is simply is. Simply being. Being. The fact that life is, that knowledge is an expression of existence is also a reflection and acknowledgement of its timelessness. Existence transcends measure, existence transcends time. Existence transcends number, existence transcends word. Existence just is.

[daniel j lavender]

Can you SPOT the CONTRADICTION here? 'Existence' IS 'life', AND, 'life' IS 'existence'. BUT, 'existence' EXCEEDS 'life'. If you can NOT SPOT the CONTRADICTION here, then let me know and I might be able to help you out.

Life is existence however existence is not just life exclusively. Existence concerns death, existence concerns nonbiological and nonliving elements as well. In that way existence does indeed exceed life.

To regard life as exclusively eternal is to limit existence, is to exclude other aspects and conditions of existence. To imply that existence exclusively concerns life is to limit existence, is to exclude other aspects of existence.

The central idea is that existence is infinite or unlimited. Existence is unrestricted, existence is not limited or confined by or to any particular.

So, to you, 'Existence' IS 'life', AND, 'life' IS 'existence', BUT, the DIFFERENCES between 'life' and 'existence', in general, SHOULD be fairly straightforward. To me, this sounds like you are ALREADY HOLDING A BELIEF, but have YET to REALLY think 'it' through, FULLY.

Existence is infinite. Existence encompasses and exceeds life as existence concerns life, death, the nonliving, etcetera. Existence is life, death, the nonliving, etcetera.

Life is finite. Life does not exceed life, life is life. Life is not death or the nonliving.

Existence is unlimited. Life is limited. That is the basic difference.

From that life and aspects of its intrinsically limited nature, that life isn’t necessarily eternal, for example, can be better related.

Instead of just resorting to 'these words' alone I suggest just providing the empirical PROOF that Existence/the Universe IS eternal and infinite. That way NO one could even 'try to' REFUTE this Fact.

As stated above, existence transcends life, existence transcends any realm we may possibly reach even with advanced technologies. Considering the conditions, considering the nature of the matter empirical verification shouldn’t be expected. Hence attempt to convey and establish the ideas through rational discourse here.

And what is 'that', which is 'our commonality' and what 'we' ALL 'share'?

Existence. We are. We are all parts of existence.

[Age]

Can you SPOT the CONTRADICTION here? 'Existence' IS 'life', AND, 'life' IS 'existence'. BUT, 'existence' EXCEEDS 'life'. If you can NOT SPOT the CONTRADICTION here, then let me know and I might be able to help you out.

Life is existence however existence is not just life exclusively.

SO, WHY THEN did you WRITE: 'Existence' IS 'life', AND, 'life IS 'existence'?

Existence concerns death, existence concerns nonbiological and nonliving elements as well. In that way existence does indeed exceed life.

Are you even AWARE that what you SEE as 'life' IS DIFFERENT for "OTHER" people?

To regard life as exclusively eternal is to limit existence, is to exclude other aspects and conditions of existence.

NOT necessarily SO.

So, WHY did you ASSUME otherwise?

To imply that existence exclusively concerns life is to limit existence, is to exclude other aspects of existence.

you are GOING OFF on some ASSUMING here.

Have you EVER considered that there ARE OTHER views and perspectives IN Life?

The central idea is that existence is infinite or unlimited. Existence is unrestricted, existence is not limited or confined by or to any particular.

Has ANY one DISAGREED here WITH YOUR 'central idea'?

So, to you, 'Existence' IS 'life', AND, 'life' IS 'existence', BUT, the DIFFERENCES between 'life' and 'existence', in general, SHOULD be fairly straightforward. To me, this sounds like you are ALREADY HOLDING A BELIEF, but have YET to REALLY think 'it' through, FULLY.

Existence is infinite.

AND SO TO IS 'Life'.

BUT, AS ALWAYS, it ALWAYS DEPENDS on HOW one IS defining words here.

Does THE WAY you are defining words here FIT TOGETHER PERFECTLY FORMING One UNIFIED and IRREFUTABLE True Picture of 'things'?

Existence encompasses and exceeds life as existence concerns life, death, the nonliving, etcetera. Existence is life, death, the nonliving, etcetera.

you appear here to have NOT YET GRASPED a HANDLE on what the 'death' word MEANS and REFERS TO, EXACTLY?

Life is finite.

REALLY?

If yes, then 'that is it', and 'end of story', RIGHT?

Life does not exceed life, life is life. Life is not death or the nonliving.

AND, what IS 'life', to you, EXACTLY?

Existence is unlimited. Life is limited. That is the basic difference.

SO, WHY AGAIN did you SAY and STATE that 'existence IS life', AND, 'life IS existence' FOR?

From that life and aspects of its intrinsically limited nature, that life isn’t necessarily eternal, for example, can be better related.

The ONLY 'limited' 'thing' here appears to be YOUR view and perspective of 'things' here.

Instead of just resorting to 'these words' alone I suggest just providing the empirical PROOF that Existence/the Universe IS eternal and infinite. That way NO one could even 'try to' REFUTE this Fact.

As stated above, existence transcends life, existence transcends any realm we may possibly reach even with advanced technologies.

A LOT of people have stated 'things' above, but this in and of itself does NOT mean that what is stated is true, or even remotely true.

I FOUND that by PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOF for what you SAY or STATE leaves "others" in A POSITION of an IRREFUTABLE STATE.

Also, and by the way, just REINSTATING some 'things' does NOT necessarily make that 'thing' MORE true.

Considering the conditions, considering the nature of the matter empirical verification shouldn’t be expected.

Okay. 'Life', Itself, IS eternal. And, because of the nature of this matter empirical verification should NOT be expected, by you, right?

If this is NOT right, then WHY the DIFFERENCE here?

Hence attempt to convey and establish the ideas through rational discourse here.

BUT you have NOT YET even BEGAN to have ANY DISCOURSE AT ALL, let alone ANY RATIONAL DISCOURSE.

you have, more or less, just STATED that 'existence is infinite', (which by the way is the WRONG terminology anyway), and then just 'STOOD YOUR GROUND', as some might call what you are doing here now.

Are you AWARE that WITH 'rational discourse' COMES ACTUAL 'proof', or at THE WORST, AT LEAST 'evidence'?

And what is 'that', which is 'our commonality' and what 'we' ALL 'share'?

Existence. We are. We are all parts of existence.

'We' ARE ALL, ALSO, parts of 'Life', Itself, AS WELL AS parts of the Universe, Itself.

But SO WHAT?

This is FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, and OBVIOUSLY anyway, right?

[daniel j lavender]

SO, WHY THEN did you WRITE: 'Existence' IS 'life', AND, 'life IS 'existence'?

Because life is existence. However there is more to existence than just life.

The term “existence” can be used in the particular, in the specific sense or it can be used in the general sense. This is further explained in the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the original essay.

As defined life is a thing, a part of existence. Life would only be part of existence but existence nonetheless.

Again the point isn’t to deny eternal life or such a concept of it. The point is that isn’t necessarily exclusively the case. As you essentially concede:

Are you even AWARE that what you SEE as 'life' IS DIFFERENT for "OTHER" people…

Have you EVER considered that there ARE OTHER views and perspectives IN Life?

Those perspectives, regardless of verity, are all aspects of existence which must be taken into account on some level when considering existence in its entirety. They are parameters of existence.

Does THE WAY you are defining words here FIT TOGETHER PERFECTLY FORMING One UNIFIED and IRREFUTABLE True Picture of 'things'?

Yes.

A LOT of people have stated 'things' above, but this in and of itself does NOT mean that what is stated is true, or even remotely true. I FOUND that by PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOF for what you SAY or STATE leaves "others" in A POSITION of an IRREFUTABLE STATE.

As discussed earlier “proof” for such subject matter would be rather impractical.

You rely heavily on standard of proof yet fail to offer first any direct, solid argument against basic principles presented in the original text and here in discussion. Apparently you’ve not even thoroughly reviewed the text else you wouldn’t ask such questions.

[Age]

SO, WHY THEN did you WRITE: 'Existence' IS 'life', AND, 'life IS 'existence'?

Because life is existence. However there is more to existence than just life.

The term “existence” can be used in the particular, in the specific sense or it can be used in the general sense. This is further explained in the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the original essay.

As defined life is a thing, a part of existence. Life would only be part of existence but existence nonetheless.

Again the point isn’t to deny eternal life or such a concept of it. The point is that isn’t necessarily exclusively the case. As you essentially concede:

Are you even AWARE that what you SEE as 'life' IS DIFFERENT for "OTHER" people…

Have you EVER considered that there ARE OTHER views and perspectives IN Life?

Those perspectives, regardless of verity, are all aspects of existence which must be taken into account on some level when considering existence in its entirety. They are parameters of existence.

They are ALL, ALSO, aspects of Life.

Does THE WAY you are defining words here FIT TOGETHER PERFECTLY FORMING One UNIFIED and IRREFUTABLE True Picture of 'things'?

Yes.

REALLY?

If yes, then will provide an example of this?

If no, then why not?

A LOT of people have stated 'things' above, but this in and of itself does NOT mean that what is stated is true, or even remotely true. I FOUND that by PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOF for what you SAY or STATE leaves "others" in A POSITION of an IRREFUTABLE STATE.

As discussed earlier “proof” for such subject matter would be rather impractical.

Well this just sounds like AN EXCUSE for NOT being ABLE to PROVE what you STATE and CLAIM here.

I can PROVE what I SAY, STATE, and CLAIM, so WHY can you NOT do the SAME?

You rely heavily on standard of proof yet fail to offer first any direct, solid argument against basic principles presented in the original text and here in discussion.

Are you DEAF AND BLIND?

If I recall correctly I was the one who was AGREEING WITH the 'basic principles'.

So WHY would I even WANT TO BEGIN to offer ANY arguments AGAINST?

Apparently you’ve not even thoroughly reviewed the text else you wouldn’t ask such questions.

I ASK SUCH QUESTIONS BECAUSE I KNOW WHERE you ARE FALTERING and FAILING here.

But considering you WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE that absolutely EVERY 'thing' you SAY and WRITE here is true, right, and/or correct, and, literally, without NEEDING QUESTIONING, then you are on your OWN here now.