Because science knows EVERYTHING..

Yes nonexistence as a state of being is a controversial premise and incoherent by the definitions of nonexistence and being. My comment was regarding pantheism in general.

 

U see I think pantheism is the logical starting point, the default belief system which allows u to explore add and then maybe adopt new ideas in to one self.

 

There is no default belief system.

We're all on our own.

 

Of course it is a state of being.


If something doesn't exist it is in the state of nonexistence.

But I think everything has existed, at one point or another.

 

The failure to differentiate between concepts and real things! It burns!

*cry*

 

Concepts are "real" things..

 

Yes concepts are extant things. They are broad abstract ideas that affect the way we perceive nature, reality and events. That does not speak to nonexistence.

 

The reason we cant grasp the concept of nonexistence is because we have no idea how to not exist ourselves.

 

By real I mean in external reality, outside of ones mind. Not pretend.

We must differentiate between things in our minds and things existing outside of our minds. Something in my mind would not exist if my mind ceased to exist. The mind is an emergent property of matter. Once matter no longer forms the mind, it and all of its contents do not exist. Just as when you separate the hydrogen and the oxygen atoms, they are no longer wet.

If I assume the existence of a gnome king but one does not exist in the real world, when my mind is no more and no other minds posit this gnome king, "the gnome king" would not exist, both as a concept or a real thing. It would not be "in a state of non existence", as the action of considering something to be in a state of non existence is contingent upon a mind to form the concept and to believe it to be not existing.

Also to be in a "state" requires existence. Something that does not exist can not be in a state. This is incoherent use of language. As is pantheism defining something as everything and everything as a particular. But thats neither here nor there I suppose.

 

All is Mind.

 

drew, man...... you cant tell between fake and real. say it with me now, it will feel good.

 

I can tell the difference between what my senses perceive and what they do not.


But does that make what is not percieved any less "Real?"

 

If it does not exist, it's not real.

 

yes, but the word real in this sense (or the sense to wich i am refering) could also be called material. eg you can smell, touch, taste, see, or/ and hear what is real. what is not real... does not have these properties.

 

But that doesnt make that which is immaterial any less "real."


But we ar etalking in circles.



Could someone come up with a better definition for "real" or "reality?"

 

So let me get this straight.


Realness is implied by existence..


And existence is implied by realness?

 

:toetap05: no

 

fuzzy dice ..

 

If it does not exist, it can not be real. Existence is always primary. If it is real, it certainly exists but they are not dichotomous. Existence is a prerequisite leading to realness and being existing is a property of something that is real. An abstraction can exist but it isn't real. That which is real is not contingent upon a mind. This is why we say that, say, the Christian god or the gnome king are not real. They are concepts existing within minds and not real things in the real world. When I imagine the gnome king there isn't an actual a gnome king in my mind. It is an abstraction borne if the interplay between the matter comprising my brain via energy, without this interplay there is no gnome king anywhere. Not in my mind, not in reality. Nowhere.

Now imagine nothing existing (as silly and ridiculous as that is). The are no minds to conceptualize "nothing" and there are no things. Nothing is in a state, as existing is a prerequisite of being in a state and thus nothing is in a state of nonexistence. Nonexistence is the LACK of something existing. The lack of something is not a thing, by definition.

 

Man.. nothingness is only nothingness to humans because of our perception which is governed by our senses. A being that has more senses or just different perception that us may see or understand empty space in a way that to u or me it would make it sound like its the life force of the universe.


So saying that nonexistence is not a state of being is like a blind man claiming to know the color of the sky.


Further more if everyone around the blind man would say that the color of the sky is red. The color of the sky would be red even if the blind man would start to see one day he would perceive the sky as red he simply cannot see beyond of hes own model of reality. Sure hes eyes would see blue but hes mind would not understand it for what it is.


What if everyone would believe in a particular perception like sky is red or that god is real?
The collective acceptance of the concept makes it real for better or for worse the god idea has chapped the physical world for many many years, far longer that any man that has exited in the accepted sense.


So physical matter is irrelevant if its there or not the important thing is the perceptualization of the concept and how it translates and then effects life for the masses.

Look its a bit like this, god empty space and black holes they exist in some weird form within thees concept the known reality that we can perceive dose not exist it brake down that's why we cannot see them in every day life, we cannot see something that does not apply to our reality in which our eyes are based on. Never the less they exhibit noticeable effect upon our reality there for they are part of it which makes them real.