What If Matter Never Existed

I find it hard to believe that you could have anything like thought or mind without the existence of matter.
that would be like having water without a molecular structure.

You would have to show that thinking is independent of a brain that does the thinking....
...heh..... ummmm on second thoughts over half of hip forums shows me you could be right.


Its a case of mind over matter
If you ask what mind is, it doesnt matter, and as for matter, never mind !

 

You're defending me? It is true that matter made the trust of man inadequate to one another. But once inadequate there was nothing better than that to be assured that God could be trusted for the thinking that counted to anything like this momentary thing.


Otherwise, De Trop; God does not exist.

 

wut?

 

Are you logical? Or is the government preferring for you, as ME I guess, the ideal of "the rebel which is a coward". Rebel's, you saw with me, explained the recent recession with the understanding of regional inflation and false banking promises.

 

In a monty python sketch John Cleese once asked "why should I be tarred with the epithet 'loonie' merely because I have a pet fish called eric, sir gerald nabarro had an elk called simon and you wouldnt call him a loonie"
to which Michael Palin replied "you are a loonie"

LOL

 

Does it matter?

 

Isn't most of space devoid of matter? If that is true,then if we weren't matter, we wouldn't exist and never would have. We are matter ,but probably don't matter.

 

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"

 

God permits error to turn into delusion because matter turned into imagination. But matter only exists for God.

But man made a lot, often, delusion turn into error, because matter was always the existence as the alternative proof for the Soul. Thereby there must be some means for matter to be the proof of the winner without Error.

Matter exists for Man. Simone De Beauvoir.

 

Imagination turned into matter.

 

They are designed to catch the nightmares if placed in a window, to allow the morning light to burn the nightmare away.

Would they keep prophetic dreams away if the dream is bad?

Thoughts, ideas?


If matter never existed, fire would be in the control of the time of....?

Sartre was rather right then De Beauvoir.

 

what's the matter with you??????????? :santa1:

 

The quantity of matter turning into energy and back always baffled me. The number zero is the proof of nothing quantified, and that really accepts matter without energy; how was energy put into the system?

If matter didn't exist; everything is solved. Zero is it's quantity; conscious energy is it's quality; and soullessness is the Reality. The reality is everyone's, but how does It measure for oneself? The life is different for all people, relative to each and every one of US.

 

But how can we prove zero exists? Numbers are concepts, and zero implies nothing. How can we quantify nothing? Quantity is an amount, not a lack of.

 

If matter never existed I wouldn't have to read ur lame ass posts

 

You want the truth. Truth is that was a wicked assumption to show logically how we can move into the realm of qualitative space for just counting because that's what makes the world go round. Subjectively the truth is irrefutable that we have it; refutable that we can change and dispute it over and over.

But zero is proof of something rather than nothing for the means to get there.

 

it would be just as easy for a universe to exist without matter. in fact, any universe which forms perfectly symmetrically will never have matter in it. However, have you ever heard of the anthropic principle? it states that, in any consideration of the fundamental conditions of the universe you live in, the values of the conditions must be such to allow you, the observer, to exist.

simply put, every possible universe exists, and there is a colossal number of them with absolutely noTHING in them. we just happen to live in this one because it is part of a relatively small set of universes capable of creating and sustaining us.

 

But the Time for the open future is objective and we are detachable for It. The time that is subjective is the time which just whizzed by and convinces us that the future is just the past for these New Universes.

 

But it is an existentialist question, though crudely asked, in the sense that it touches on the basis of being. Is being based on essence as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates defined it for much of the subsequent history of philosophy (and that as essence, being can be reasoned, for what can be reasoned or thought must therefore exist), or is being based on existence as some of the early existentialists explored. It was Kant that determined that the concept of being/existence is irrelevant, because to think of a thing, and then to think of it's existence or being is an unneeded redundancy, therefore it is irrelevant. He concluded that being cannot be conceived of by reason, so again, it is irrelevant. All philosophers since Kant are split between their response to Kant in this question.

By essence we are referring to a nonphysical noncorporeal essence such as Plato's perfect forms or the spiritual essence of religion. And again, essence must be something that perfect reason can conceive of. Essentialists hold that existence derives from essence. Therefore when existentialists state that being is an irrelevant concept, it is because being cannot be conceived of, even by perfect reason, therefore for most existentialists, existence is the basis of being and essence is derived from existence. The question then is existence as the basis of being, material, therefore requiring matter, or could it be along the thought of Husserl, a product of consciousness? (or does that take us back to the problem of essence as the basis of being?)