Philosophy Now Forum

John J. Bannan wrote:@Wyman.

We both agree that change does not necessarily result in something ceasing to be.

Look at it this way. If at the end of the universe there is this lonely photon out in the utter emptiness of space with no friends and no chance of meeting new friends, what happens to the lonely photon? Does the photon continue to existence for eternity? Does the photon eventually become so lonely it simply ceases to exist? The former is a state of eternality. The latter is a state of finality. Get it?

No, not at all. I'll leave it to other forum participants, as I couldn't get through your 1 and 2.

@Wyman.

You are apparently having problems with comprehending true nothingness. Try insisting in your mind that nothing exists - no God, no man, no Earth, no matter, no energy, no space, no time, no quantum or Higgs field, no particles, no void, no empty space, and then insist in your mind that this nothingness has been, is and always will be this way with no possibility of it ever being any other way.

John J. Bannan wrote:@Wyman.

You are apparently having problems with comprehending true nothingness. Try insisting in your mind that nothing exists - no God, no man, no Earth, no matter, no energy, no space, no time, no quantum or Higgs field, no particles, no void, no empty space, and then insist in your mind that this nothingness has been, is and always will be this way with no possibility of it ever being any other way.

What excatly is the point of discussing something that only exist in your mind?

@HexHammer

Thinking of things that only exist in your mind is the basis of the thought experiment. The thought experiment or hypothetical is a valid way of attempting to discern truths. Philosophers, scientists and lawyers use thought experiments all the time.

John J. Bannan wrote:@HexHammer

Thinking of things that only exist in your mind is the basis of the thought experiment. The thought experiment or hypothetical is a valid way of attempting to discern truths. Philosophers, scientists and lawyers use thought experiments all the time.

That contradicts the headline "a new proof of god" when it's only a thoght of yours.

@HexHammer

Nope. Other people also understand the logic of my proof - you not being one of them.

Welcome John! Ignore Hexhammer‘s crass scientism. Most of us do.

@mickthinks

I would like to hear HexHammer explain how science explains why stuff even exists to begin with? LOL!

Ohhhh.........the great flaw of scientism! How dare I point it out!

John J. Bannan wrote:@HexHammer

Nope. Other people also understand the logic of my proof - you not being one of them.

Is that so? ..strange that I see Wyman disagree.

Melchior wrote:

John J. Bannan wrote:Hegel never said this.

I can't make any sense of this or of Hegel. It's all unintelligible.

..oh! ..seems u'r just full of shit, talking out of your ass.

HexHammer wrote:..oh! ..seems u'r just full of shit, talking out of your ass.

Mr Hammer, could you show us an example of something you have said, that the rest of us should aspire to?

@HexHammer.

Sorry, several people now have understood my proof. You assumed I was referring to this site. I'm not. Try a bit harder, you may get it. Google Plato's Plenitude. That might help with your understanding.

John J. Bannan wrote:...several people now have understood my proof.

That may be true, but what is your evidence?

John J. Bannan wrote:@HexHammer.

Sorry, several people now have understood my proof. You assumed I was referring to this site. I'm not. Try a bit harder, you may get it. Google Plato's Plenitude. That might help with your understanding.

I'm not up for your games, and certainly not up for googling outdated philosophers.

@HexHammer

Consider my proof an update of Plato's Plenitude. Now, go read about Plenitude.

Horribly riddled with axioms you have not established. Nothingness? There's no such thing, actualisation of x, also nothing like reality, non actualisation, a non sequitur based on an actualisation that does not make an a priori assumption right.

It just doesn't pass logical muster. At every turn you are making non sequiturs based on non logical axioms.

End of the day though an eternal could fulfill all your conditions, equally as well as saying nothing can be x or y without z. if it just is and always was it just is, it needs no conjecture on anything actualised.

1.5 in your argument: a true eternity would break the next 20 something points, flow and conclusions and hence your argument. Of course everyone has already said this, and it is a hard argument to refute. I would stop arguing with hex though, that guy has no idea.