Inevitable.

[Gem]

Something has to happen, IT has to be. There is inevitability which can't begin or end.

It rests on nothing. Nothing is the foundation of it. Nothing is the reason it is inevitable... and nothing can not disappear.

Try to excape this and imagine it is the absence of things, call it 'no-thing', but 'no-thing', but things come from 'no-thing' and 'no-thing' is something. E

Existence itself rests on absolutely of nothing, and so it is inevitable.

I don't see at all that existence rests on nothing. That proposition is wholly abstract, vague, and incapable of verification. I suppose it is poetic and interesting in that sense. That something must happen is no more verifiable, because the entire universe could end at any time without warning--it is contingent. But this statement has more going for it. However, even if it is inevitable that something must happen, there is very little evidence to suggest that what does happen is inevitable. Physicists have come to observe that there is a certain and substantial randomness even in physical properties.

And behaviorists can show that with respect to all animal behavior, there is a lot of randomness although certain behaviors in between random events are statistically probable--and certain in the case of death.

I don't mean to sound so harsh, but your premises are unduly pessimistic. There are a lot of things to be pessimistic about, but you are painting with way too broad a brush. The "nothing is something" statement does not follow from the other two statements and is a logical puzzle leading nowhere--it is a puzzle because of the limitations of language. Physicists do not consider space to be empty. We do not really comprehend what nothing in its absolute sense really means in physical terms. In physical terms, whether consciously or not, we are not using any absolute. We say that nothing is here when we do not detect anything with our unaided senses, but there will always be actual physical things, no matter how minute. The most we make of is in in the empty set in mathematics.

I hope I have not offended you, but have given you and any other potential posters another point of view to consider. Perhaps you are pointing to another different meaning. I will check back soon to see if you can expand on your original post.

Peace.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by davec

I don't see at all that existence rests on nothing. That proposition is wholly abstract, vague, and incapable of verification. I suppose it is poetic and interesting in that sense. That something must happen is no more verifiable, because the entire universe could end at any time without warning--it is contingent. But this statement has more going for it. However, even if it is inevitable that something must happen, there is very little evidence to suggest that what does happen is inevitable. Physicists have come to observe that there is a certain and substantial randomness even in physical properties.

And behaviorists can show that with respect to all animal behavior, there is a lot of randomness although certain behaviors in between random events are statistically probable--and certain in the case of death.

I don't mean to sound so harsh, but your premises are unduly pessimistic. There are a lot of things to be pessimistic about, but you are painting with way too broad a brush. The "nothing is something" statement does not follow from the other two statements and is a logical puzzle leading nowhere--it is a puzzle because of the limitations of language. Physicists do not consider space to be empty. We do not really comprehend what nothing in its absolute sense really means in physical terms. In physical terms, whether consciously or not, we are not using any absolute. We say that nothing is here when we do not detect anything with our unaided senses, but there will always be actual physical things, no matter how minute. The most we make of is in in the empty set in mathematics.

I hope I have not offended you, but have given you and any other potential posters another point of view to consider. Perhaps you are pointing to another different meaning. I will check back soon to see if you can expand on your original post.

Peace.

If there is a seperation, nothing is apart from existence...

It makes sense to say if existence is omnipresent so too is it inevitable. Inevitable...

Inevitable must mean it is reliant on nothing, there is nothing that stands as reason why there is existence.

We might say 'nothing can't be'... which is conditionally true. 'Existence just is'... also conditionally true. It's amazing how inter-reliant these are.

The mind wants to seperate them into 'states', but also realizes they are inseperable, as 'nothing isn't' and 'existence is' are equal in merit... but what the truth is can not be seperated into 'states'... you can't have 'your truth' and I can't have 'my truth'... thats a silly spirititual ideal based on our comparitive memories.

The truth is based in nothingness, and once all the baloney is stripped away there is just 'the truth'... and truth isn't a thing one points at and goes 'there it is', so without nothing there is no truth at all.

subtle Gem. But surprisingly i get it, must be the vitamin i took last night.

will try to reword it to show i understand. Nothing cannot be messed with, because there are no component, no components= no re-arrangement, carrying it further, no rearrangement= no intent, no intent =no purpose. ( or maybe the last two could be switched around)...hmmm intersting, soon as i typed that last in i realised it may be intent and purpose which are the factors that 'create'...thoughts?

The raw assertion that truth, whatever you mean by that, is based on nothingness, whatever you mean by that, is not based on anything at all other than a few mystical properties that are extremely vague. I wonder what the significance of this statement is--what are its implications even if true? As I said in my prior post, that something is inevitable is not demonstrated in your post by logic or any empirical means. I am not even sure what it is that is inevitable or how you are meaning to use the word.

So, if your ideas are neither logical or empirical, where do they come from? Are they revelations from God? If so, then you should say so. If not, then they are poetic, and not bad at that. They kind of remind me of Hermann Hesse.

Peace

[Gem]

Originally Posted by davec

The raw assertion that truth, whatever you mean by that, is based on nothingness, whatever you mean by that, is not based on anything at all other than a few mystical properties that are extremely vague. I wonder what the significance of this statement is--what are its implications even if true? As I said in my prior post, that something is inevitable is not demonstrated in your post by logic or any empirical means. I am not even sure what it is that is inevitable or how you are meaning to use the word.

So, if your ideas are neither logical or empirical, where do they come from? Are they revelations from God? If so, then you should say so. If not, then they are poetic, and not bad at that. They kind of remind me of Hermann Hesse.

Peace

Although I have a deep knowledge of truth I can't form a vision of it which I can then convey, but I can demonstrate it by wholesome integrity... and nothingness means non existence.

Of course there is existence, but only by means of awareness of it. Not the awareness of things, but the awareness of the truth, and the truth is not a thing, it only pertains to things.

God is a dream invented by the powerful mind... This apparition is a moralistic device used to distort conscience by placing the measure of integrity somewhere other than the centre of balance... or seperate from the core of being.

The truth is applicable equally to all beings, so there are universal truths, this could be called 'the law of nature' I suppose.

Run out of time... bbl

I would love to see your evidence for the statement you make about what God is and what God is used for. That is your opinion, no doubt, but I suspect that it is a mere speculation with some heavy emotional content. Marx said the same thing and he had no evidence for it either. God, as a belief, has been with us from the earliest recorded history and has been a factor in highly disorganized societies (tribal societies) where there was little external control or manipulation. God's existence is a different issue altogether, but God, as a concept has been as much a benign influence as it has been detrimental--it has been misused unfortunately.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by davec

I would love to see your evidence for the statement you make about what God is and what God is used for. That is your opinion, no doubt, but I suspect that it is a mere speculation with some heavy emotional content. Marx said the same thing and he had no evidence for it either. God, as a belief, has been with us from the earliest recorded history and has been a factor in highly disorganized societies (tribal societies) where there was little external control or manipulation. God's existence is a different issue altogether, but God, as a concept has been as much a benign influence as it has been detrimental--it has been misused unfortunately.

It's quite a simple thing really... people believe in God, but what is it that is believed in?

The truth is a different thing though. You can't believe in the truth. There is no substance to truth. There is no form to the truth. There is no possible mindful conjuring of the truth... it is what persists constantly while beliefs change, developed, are adopted and discarded... so eventually we observe this belief structure is ever changing because it is only trying to accurately mimic the truth. We realize that the belief we hold crumbles as it can not withstand honest scrutiny, so we adapt it, form a new theory then it too is tested, and again, life presents contradictions to it, so it is adapted ... and so on.

Anyone can honestly scrutinize the belief structure in the mind. Is it held fast only by the fear of hell? What exactly supports these beliefs? The truth? This is where we begin to say each one has 'their personal truth'... which means there is no 'the truth'... but of course there can be no 'my personal God' ... only 'One God'

Originally Posted by Gem

It's quite a simple thing really... people believe in God, but what is it that is believed in?

The truth is a different thing though. You can't believe in the truth. There is no substance to truth. There is no form to the truth. There is no possible mindful conjuring of the truth... it is what persists constantly while beliefs change, developed, are adopted and discarded... so eventually we observe this belief structure is ever changing because it is only trying to accurately mimic the truth. We realize that the belief we hold crumbles as it can not withstand honest scrutiny, so we adapt it, form a new theory then it too is tested, and again, life presents contradictions to it, so it is adapted ... and so on.

Anyone can honestly scrutinize the belief structure in the mind. Is it held fast only by the fear of hell? What exactly supports these beliefs? The truth? This is where we begin to say each one has 'their personal truth'... which means there is no 'the truth'... but of course there can be no 'my personal God' ... only 'One God'

I think that your ethical position exceeds even moral relativism. Experientially, given the opportunity,we, by witnessing pain, hunger, thirst, and other deprivations can quite justifiably create at least finite truths.You eqivocate in your seeming "truth" as an infinite thing ,and "truth" as part of some infinite domain!


As for "nothing" being the source of "all", in terms of our limited understanding ,you do seem to have a point.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Saspian

I think that your ethical position exceeds even moral relativism. Experientially, given the opportunity,we, by witnessing pain, hunger, thirst, and other deprivations can quite justifiably create at least finite truths.You eqivocate in your seeming "truth" as an infinite thing ,and "truth" as part of some infinite domain!


As for "nothing" being the source of "all", in terms of our limited understanding ,you do seem to have a point.

What strikes me as bizzare is each person knows what it is to be truthful, yet no person knows what the truth is, how then can one know what truthfulness is?

Often we like to appeasing so we consider each individuals beliefs and say each has their own truth, however, beliefs are morfhing apparitions of the mind, existant only in thought structure... yet observation itself creates the distinction which gives form to life, so two individuals waiting for the same bus have entirely different outlooks unto the world.

There is no 'real' world, it appears dependant on the state of one perception, and each moment presents it entirely renewed, though our memories give continuity to it, so even within one individual only change remains constant, and a new moment presents new a person just as different as the individual standing beside.

Considering this perception is continual renewance, what differentiates one individual from another besides the bygone memory which orders the particular sensory perceptions that occured to the human organizm of mind and body?

The gap appears where such stimulus as light sound taste sensation thought, which occurs to and within the life form becomes a subjective conscious cognition pertinant only to the moment of perception.