Criteria of existence (2 Viewers)

[Dinsdale]

Here's my proposition.

A - The universe is defined as everything that exists.

So you're saying: only spacetime and matter (~energy) exist.
This is a postulate, just like "causality outside of time" is a postulate.

Hence both atheism and theism are belief systems.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

So you're saying: only spacetime and matter (~energy) exist.
This is a postulate, just like "causality outside of time" is a postulate.

Hence both atheism and theism are belief systems.

What do you mean "only"? I said "everything that exists", and you said "only spacetime and matter". You're the one postulating that everything = spacetime and matter.

 

[Dinsdale]

What do you mean "only"? I said "everything that exists", and you said "only spacetime and matter". You're the one postulating that everything = spacetime and matter.

Then how do you define the universe (that's what we're talking about when we use 'everything', right?)? You don't know whether god (mechanism outside timespace) exists, but if it does it's within the universe too?

 

[Martin]

Then how do you define the universe (that's what we're talking about when we use 'everything', right?)? You don't know whether god (mechanism outside timespace) exists, but if it does it's within the universe too?

That's right.

 

[Dinsdale]

That's right.

Isn't atheism all about claiming to know god doesn't exist?

 

[Martin]

Isn't atheism all about claiming to know god doesn't exist?

If you go over all the points you'll find most definitions of god are incompatible.

 

[Dinsdale]

If you go over all the points you'll find most definitions of god are incompatible.

Didn't I cover that in the thread I recently made?

 

[Martin]

You didn't say what existence was, hence this thread.

 

[Dinsdale]

Hmm, haven't given that much thought yet. How about:

X exists if:

1) X is observable by human senses

or

2) X causes something

By this definition, physical concepts such as forces exist too.

 

[Martin]

Hmm, haven't given that much thought yet. How about:

X exists if:

1) X is observable by human senses

or

2) X is defined to cause something

By this definition, physical concepts such as forces exist too.

I think 2) is contained in 1). If you extend observable to say "detectable".

However, the requirement to exist in a finite space is a bit wonky since say an electrical field is said to diminish in magnitude over an infinite distance. In practice though you get to a finite distance in space where you can no longer detect the force, so I'd say that's okay.

 

[Dinsdale]

I edited something before you replied. Because otherwise it would imply god exists.

 

[Martin]

Hmm, haven't given that much thought yet. How about:

X exists if:

1) X is observable by human senses

or

2) X causes something

By this definition, physical concepts such as forces exist too.

There is a potential problem here, because if you say something has to be observable or detectable it may not be observable today but it may be tomorrow...

 

[Martin]

I edited something before you replied. Because otherwise it would imply god exists.

"X causes something" is a bit vague. "We can observe/determine that X causes something" would be better.

 

[Dinsdale]

There is a potential problem here, because if you say something has to be observable or detectable it may not be observable today but it may be tomorrow...

Yeah I know what you mean. But if you haven't observed it yet, and it doesn't cause anything, you have no reason to assume it exists. That's why we don't believe in spaghetti monsters.

"X causes something" is a bit vague. "We can observe/determine that X causes something" would be better.

Agreed.

 

[Martin]

Yeah I know what you mean. But if you haven't observed it yet, and it doesn't cause anything, you have no reason to assume it exists. That's why we don't believe in spaghetti monsters.

The problem with this definition does not come up today. It comes up tomorrow. Today we cannot observe it, it doesn't exist, everything is fine. Tomorrow we observe it and suddenly it exists. So tomorrow we'll ask "does that mean it did not exist yesterday?"

Therefore my definition was broader than that.

 

[Dinsdale]

The problem with this definition does not come up today. It comes up tomorrow. Today we cannot observe it, it doesn't exist, everything is fine. Tomorrow we observe it and suddenly it exists. So tomorrow we'll ask "does that mean it did not exist yesterday?"

Therefore my definition was broader than that.

But you could see 'observable' in a broader context. You are able to observe it.

If we see it today for the first time, we technically we able to observe it yesterday too, we just didn't know how yet or just didn't bother to do it.

 

[Martin]

But you could see 'observable' in a broader context. You are able to observe it.

If we see it today for the first time, we technically we able to observe it yesterday too, we just didn't know how yet or just didn't bother to do it.

That's rewriting history though. Today we say it doesn't exist. Tomorrow we say it always existed.

 

[Dinsdale]

That's rewriting history though. Today we say it doesn't exist. Tomorrow we say it always existed.

Yep, we're wrong sometimes. But we had all reasons to assume it didn't exist.

 

[Martin]

True enough.

 

[Stephan]

So now what?