Do we exist?

Are we as humans and this world really here? are we part of a complex computer world made by another species, each person is a complex peice of code learning through generations. Are we being watched as our A.I gets more intellegent? are our creators playing with us by laying certain scenarios upon us to see how we react, maybe our creators have a completely differn't world which if we ever found out about we would never be able to understand or comprohend.
No im not saying we are in the matrix, because in the matrix there was a real person at the end of the it....but maybe in this world we are merely just a program...or something like that.

The bible talks about our creator...being god......but maybe it means a different creator.....such that of another race.....maybe religion has been made up for us to make us think we were created from something.

im not mad, deppressed or suicidal but one could go mad thinking about what we are or why we are here......

anyone else got a theroy? no dumb ones please.............

It is a meaningless question for one can not find evidence that our world is an illusion.

this and what is the point in it all constantly have my attention, ill get back to you when i have the answer...

I had a fase in my life when I thought like you did, but then I was enlightened and now I have a more sophisticated answer. It's not for sure but then again what is?

Here's my theory. Man and the rest of life are complicated biological machines. Now we all born from someone and it all goes back mllions or maybe billions of generation back the first cell(or whatever it was). Ok, now, how was this cell created? It must have been the most powerful structure in the universe to hold in such potential as we (humans) have today. Hmphhh... What could it have been. Perhaps it was the so called "God particle" we are so researching today in Britain. Or it might be some other entity.

But consider this: If after death there is nothing and you simply stop existing, then what about before you were born? What were you then? Well there are two choices. You were either nothing, or you were someone. Ok, so if you were nothing then and you'll become nothing then there is no doubt you are nothing and you're existence is utterly meaningless. Or you were someone so you cannot die. Even after death. The real you cannot die if you really exist. So you see wither way you shouldn't worry.

I know it sounds a little confusing. Ask to clarify if you want. I really enjoy talking about things like this with intelligent people. Probably all theories i have come from conversations i have had. It's really kewl.

I believe what the Bible says, so I'll stick to it. Either way, I don't loose sleep on it. There is little, if any, practical knowledge in this, and I'm just as happy not really knowing.

Well my friend all knowledge comes from a blend of natural and social phenomena and logic. So basically you those are the onyl tools available to us. You shouldn't just "go" with the Bible. The Bible is fictitious but also very metaphorical. You should look for the hidden meanings and not take it literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

I had a fase in my life when I thought like you did, but then I was enlightened and now I have a more sophisticated answer. It's not for sure but then again what is?

Here's my theory. Man and the rest of life are complicated biological machines. Now we all born from someone and it all goes back mllions or maybe billions of generation back the first cell(or whatever it was). Ok, now, how was this cell created? It must have been the most powerful structure in the universe to hold in such potential as we (humans) have today. Hmphhh... What could it have been. Perhaps it was the so called "God particle" we are so researching today in Britain. Or it might be some other entity.

But consider this: If after death there is nothing and you simply stop existing, then what about before you were born? What were you then? Well there are two choices. You were either nothing, or you were someone. Ok, so if you were nothing then and you'll become nothing then there is no doubt you are nothing and you're existence is utterly meaningless. Or you were someone so you cannot die. Even after death. The real you cannot die if you really exist. So you see wither way you shouldn't worry.

I know it sounds a little confusing. Ask to clarify if you want. I really enjoy talking about things like this with intelligent people. Probably all theories i have come from conversations i have had. It's really kewl.

---

But even if you were nothing but are something now you can still not be what you think you are and therfore be nothing. If you are not who or what you think you are then what are you and why are you. We have no idea on what we are.

"The dimensions of things are created by the limitation of our vision as interpreted by our brain. All around us is nothing but molecules; molecules in the air, molecules in our body, molecules in the space; molecules nothing but molecules. Our limitations of vision make us see only the bundles of molecules together as a table or a chair, a southern belle or a school bell. What if we could see through molecules? Then none of these differences would have mattered. A table would have looked like a chair and the belle would be indistinguishable from a bell. Our tactile feel of warm flesh would be meaningless if we could not feel; a round corner would not appear round at all."

Read here for an intresting view on things.

I dont' mean to be rude but i don't want to read some lame ass paper wirtten by some simplistic hack.

If you want to talk about molecules then why stop there? Go even deeper into atoms, or even electrons. None of that stuff actually exists. They are all energy fields. We weren't even talking about that. There's a difference between physics and biology. And humans are biological creatures.

In answer to your question if you were nothign then you are nothing. You are just as dead as a robot if that is true. There is no other way.


Of course I understand your doubt in perception but use your logic and you'll see the truth as you want it to be. Everything is like that. But you can polish your theory till it's perfect just like all scientists and philosopher do.

Ok, so if you were nothing then and you'll become nothing then there is no doubt you are nothing and you're existence is utterly meaningless.

well i believe i was nothing before and ill be nothing after, but how does that make me nothing now ? (unless that wasn't what you were saying ?)

and ive been thinking existence is entirely meaningless (not in a suicidal way though)

I think therefore I exist.

:p Though I hate Descartes, he was right about something ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

I think therefore I exist.

:p Though I hate Descartes, he was right about something ~;)

---

This surprises me. What don't you like about Descartes?

You seem to be the kind of person who would appreciate his philosophy. What with his showing that knowledge is genuinely possible, and that, more particularly, a mathematically-based scientific knowledge of the material world is possible.

What must become of this century if even the rational ones like you won't subscribe to a Cartesian line of thought!?

:end:

Yes the person who started this is suggesting a "the matrix" kind of theory. Well there's nothing bad about "The Matrix". I your mind exists then that's all that matters.

"well i believe i was nothing before and ill be nothing after, but how does that make me nothing now ? (unless that wasn't what you were saying ?)"

What we have to comprehend that just "thinking" doesn't mean we exist. It has to be deeper then that. A computer can be programmed to think. But we are so much more then that. In order for us to trully exist we have to be immortal. It's like when they say your soul can never die, because by definition the soul is immortal. You know what I mean?

What we have to comprehend that just "thinking" doesn't mean we exist. It has to be deeper then that. A computer can be programmed to think. But we are so much more then that.

well its more than just thinking its the whole 7 signs of life my biology teacher taught me

the ability to:
reproduce
consume (basically eat and drink)
excrete
grow
move (unsure if this is one)
and theres 2 or 3 more depending if move is one of course this doesn't exclude a matrix style possibility

In order for us to trully exist we have to be immortal. It's like when they say your soul can never die, because by definition the soul is immortal. You know what I mean?

well to be honest i don't believe in the idea of a soul, so i don't follow that train of thought.

by those rules little griz then fire is a living organism.
thanks,
dessa

by those rules little griz then fire is a living organism.

well as i said there were 7, errm actually your wrong, fire can't reproduce (spread yes reproduce no)

It's pretty shallow to think that the mecahnics of living beings is enough to show true existence.

Ok so you don't beleave in souls. What do you beleave in? I'm asking because if you beleave that there nothing more then the mechanics then you automatically beleave that you will become nothing when you die. Also you would beleave that life is meaningless. Am I right or wrong?

well life is pretty shallow, and yes life does lack a meaning.
fire can reproduce, spreading causes new fires to start, i would classify that as reproducing.
also fires grow and shrink, and eventually die, but the one thing they do lack is, living things have a pretty set lifespan, a fire does not, a fire can live for infinity as long as there is fuel, but a human will die, even with plenty of food & water.

thanks,
dessa

i think therefore i am... nah, Descartes was the father of positivism (or positive philosophy) and that was the root of all evil... for details see guys like Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Foucault (and yes i have read them. not all they've written, but the important bits)
if the illusion of a Matrix like system would be so consistent and perfect as to not be distinguishable from "reallity" wouldnt that make it the equal of reality?
level of evidence that this world is an illusion equals level of evidence that says the wold is real. it's really to big of a question. maybe some hotshot philosopher/physician (thinking Hawking, anyone?) might crack this one.
I type therefore I am, I am therefore the forum exists... ~:) couldnt resist...

Its rather amusing how suddenly because of advances in artificial intelligence and technology suddenly our 'theories of existance' become more based around that... and less on spiritual and mystical explanations.

Do I think we are running in a box on someone's desk as an elaborate version of 'the Sims' probably not, and what I'd sugguest to whoever is spending all their time thinking about these things is to, get out more!!

We can never know the reason for existance, nor can we prove it one way or the other... So I say, enjoy life and try not to worry about things that are beyond explanation.

Who cares about all those hacks. Nietzsche is the only philosopher I've read and it's enough.

I agree with you Emperor, anyone who actually thinks it's even possible that we are in a "Matrix" type of thing then they are definetely idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

It's pretty shallow to think that the mecahnics of living beings is enough to show true existence.

Ok so you don't beleave in souls. What do you beleave in? I'm asking because if you beleave that there nothing more then the mechanics then you automatically beleave that you will become nothing when you die. Also you would beleave that life is meaningless. Am I right or wrong?

---

I do believe we are nothing more than chemical and biological interactions and we become nothing when you die......

as to why that would make life meaningless.....i don´t see it that way.....to me the fact that there is nothing more than this life makes this life more valuable and precious....not less.

Prescious in your head maybe. In my opinion the fact that I am nothing gives me and everything (every atom) meaningless. Selfish(?), yes.

The answer to the question of existence lies in the brain itself. The most complicated apparatus in the universe(is what someone i can't remeber said). What is it that powers the brain? Just like the starting of a car the brain had to be jumpstarted somehow. It cannot start on it's own and function dependetly. IT is the one that gives the orders. IT is not dependent on anything. The physiology of the brain is the most interesting part of biology.

Our very self-realization is due to the brain. This is why i beleave in GOD. Only GOD could have created the brain. IT's complexity is eternal.

BP you're arguments are fundamentally flawed for others to agree as they are just your thoughts with no proof whatsoever, which is the whole point ~:)

Existence doesn't have to be proved, it is. If you are nothing before birth and after death doesn't mean you don't exist, there is potential in everything and so in nothing there is the potential for something. In fact, in nothing there is the potential for everything and so everything is likely to exist somewhere.

Damn it, i just don't have enough time to enlighten you all with my phenomenal idea.

I will be back later, and i will post.

Prepare for a super-post! (Keen willed only).

Note: All my responses to your quotes are applied with my current understanding of existence. Of which you can try and understand its basis through my responses.

vyan said: "each person is a complex peice of code learning through generations."

Very good. This is by far one of the most believable theories of our existence as Humans. Can i extend it however? The very fact that we cannot concieve the entirety of existence, is due to us being simple programs. As our computers have no clue of the our world.

************************************

Byzantine Prince Said: "So if you were nothing then and you'll become nothing then there is no doubt you are nothing and you're existence is utterly meaningless."

I follow your theory and i find this point a little odd. Why does something mean nothing if it has existed only for a while? Answer: It has meant something, but only during its time.

*************************************

Makkyo said: "I'm just as happy not really knowing."

Ignorance is bliss. There is always this sentiment among people. Perhaps it is the only real solution?

*************************************

Byzantine Prince said: "What we have to comprehend that just "thinking" doesn't mean we exist..."

Try not to convince other. Instead find further understanding youreself. I think you are trying to classify "existence" with importance. I believe this is wrong because essentially (as vyan mentioned) we are made of energy, as are all other things, we can not measure our importance against them because we are equal, regardless of whether we can "think" or not.

**************************************

Note: I discard any notion of Soul or Spirit.

**************************************

Byzantine Prince said: "if you beleave that there nothing more then the mechanics then you automatically beleave that you will become nothing when you die. Also you would beleave that life is meaningless. Am I right or wrong?
."

This is the same as my view, until you mention that part about "life being meaningless". It has meaning to ourselves, however to the rest of the things in existence, it has probably no significance.

***************************************

Moromete said:"Descartes", "Wittgenstein", "Heidegger", "Foucault", "Hawking".

I have a much more raw viewpoint. Largely uneducated in comparision to your reading. But this is in order to stay philosophically flexible. Which seems like a nice virtue.

***************************************

The Emperor said: "get out more!!"

Some people pursue a greater understanding. Others, either due to apathy or interest choose the "Ignorance is bliss" door.

***************************************

Byzantine Prince said "Who cares about all those hacks. Nietzsche is the only philosopher I've read and it's enough. Anyone who actually thinks it's even possible that we are in a "Matrix" type of thing then they are definetely idiots."

You rubbish philosophers which are genius beyond your knowlegde while rubbishing people with a certain view. You sound like a very closed, narrow-minded fool.

***************************************

HERE ARE MY 2 MOST RECENT THOUGHTS ON EXISTENCE >>>>>>>>>

1) This one i though of when trying to concieve the begginning of time. I came to 2 opposite conclusion: a) There was no begginning, there will be no end. Time has and always will, be. We are the guests of time, who arrive in birth and leave in death. b) The is no begginning, there is no end. Thus existence is null. Nothing is present, there is no life. What we see and feel is nothing. We as a collective people are merely a representation of the only identifiable thing (called nothing). What nothing is, is whatever it want to be.

2) WYSIWYG - What you see is what you get. What we know, see and learn is not far at all from the truth. We are in existence, purely as we can prove it. The enthusiasts will seek more understanding, while the rest will suffice in content.

I have a few others, but ill spare them. I concieve these thoughts in my spare time, when i feel like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

Prescious in your head maybe.

---

....and what else counts but that? ~D

you gotta stop overthinking this crap man ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vyan

im not mad, deppressed or suicidal but one could go mad thinking about what we are or why we are here......

---

You are most certainly not mad for pondering the question. Everybody faces it sooner or later in their lives.

I think the answer is that there is no meaning of life in any general sense. That's not a disaster. And it doesn't imply that 'life is meaningless'. Basically, it means you're free to give meaning to your life as you see fit. That is not a duty, it's not a necessity - it is simply a given fact. There are no hidden meanings either inside yourself or in the outside world, such as in evolution, in the Bible, any other philosopy or religion, or any outside source of 'authority'. You might go mad if you keep thinking that there is some obscure meaning to your life and you're somehow missing it, that you're missing the point of your own existence on earth. You're not, because there is none. The only point to your life is the one you consciously acknowledge. You can of course accept an outside source of meaning if you want to, but you are doing so at your discretion. It's your choice.

The downside of this is that you can't walk away from the consequences of your choices. You can never hide behind Karl Marx, the Bible or any other source of 'authority' and ascribed meaning, because you chose to follow them, believe in them, accept them as sources of meaning.

However, if you welcome the sort of inner freedom that comes with it, and if you acknowledge that many of the things that happen to you are actually the consequences your own choices, you may surprise yourself with what you are able to accomplish.

Life is anything but meaningless. The fact that the fundamental value of man is freedom, makes any life meaningful, because each individual can chose his own fate. The meaning of life is thus relative, according to the project of each man and woman. (yes, I just read existentialism is a humanism ~;) )

Quote:

---

The Emperor said: "get out more!!"

Some people pursue a greater understanding. Others, either due to apathy or interest choose the "Ignorance is bliss" door.

---

Now in order to think that "Ignorance is bliss" you have to be deliberately hiding away from the truth...

Given that all of these many theories about the nature of our existance cannot ever be proven one way or the other then we will never know the truth.

This theory has only been embraced because of our new nature as technojunkies, Science seems to be the new religion, so our gods now in turn reflect that.

There is nothing to hide away from because we cannot ever know the answer to the question "why are we here?".

It's pretty shallow to think that the mecahnics of living beings is enough to show true existence.

Ok so you don't beleave in souls. What do you beleave in? I'm asking because if you beleave that there nothing more then the mechanics then you automatically beleave that you will become nothing when you die. Also you would beleave that life is meaningless. Am I right or wrong?

Right just means i got to make sure i enjoy life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

This surprises me. What don't you like about Descartes?

You seem to be the kind of person who would appreciate his philosophy. What with his showing that knowledge is genuinely possible, and that, more particularly, a mathematically-based scientific knowledge of the material world is possible.

What must become of this century if even the rational ones like you won't subscribe to a Cartesian line of thought!?

:end:

---

I agree with the Cartesian subjectivity, but I go further, with what Sartre said, to be aware of ourselves is to know that others exist. - don't have time to go into detail but he is right! :p -

I don't like Descartes for two main things, his God fearing philosophy, which touched most of his works - sickens me to be honest.

And I am an empiricist not a rationalist in philosophy terms, so that kinda makes me disagree with him a hell of a lot.

What Im debating is weather human beings trully exist. Depending on your perspective this is different. IT doesn't mean that one of us is wrong. Even philosophers have contradicting views on things.

In my opinion if we did not already exist before birth then we are no more alive then a robot. A robot can emulate pretty much every human behaviour, but it's not alive by any means.

Someone said that the "soul" theory is useless. Well what about 21 grams. It's definetly not impossible that we have more to us then we think. There are a lot more (probably infinite) things about particles and energy that we do not anything about. Like Dark Matter which is all but invisible. You cannot say: There are no souls for sure.

This is my view. You don't have to agree with it.

robots can be programmed to copy things, humans can learn and advance, take the AI in total war as an example, it doesn't learn new tactics it just has programmed responses.

edit: dessa i disagree the spreading is similar to reproduction as it spreads but is still part of the original fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

What Im debating is weather human beings trully exist. Depending on your perspective this is different. IT doesn't mean that one of us is wrong. Even philosophers have contradicting views on things.

In my opinion if we did not already exist before birth then we are no more alive then a robot. A robot can emulate pretty much every human behaviour, but it's not alive by any means.

Someone said that the "soul" theory is useless. Well what about 21 grams. It's definetly not impossible that we have more to us then we think. There are a lot more (probably infinite) things about particles and energy that we do not anything about. Like Dark Matter which is all but invisible. You cannot say: There are no souls for sure.

This is my view. You don't have to agree with it.

---

a robot isn´t self aware...it doesn´t know what it is.

Replying to a thread about existentialism, what ever next?

People are people yes, I think that everyone will agree that we are. Rocks are rocks, tree are trees. You get my meaning.

People are made up from groups of molecules gathered together in a certain way, so are rocks and trees.

Molecules are atoms and atoms are collections of smaller bits and pieces. This is the same for people, rocks and trees.

When it gets right down to it, matter is nothing but energy gathered together and just made solid, energy and matter are totally interchangeable, in fact you can imagine matter as solid energy or energy as free matter, either works. Now this is proved by that equation that everyone knows: E = mc^2

This doesn't mean that there is no difference between a rock and a tree, just that the gathered bits that make up a rock and a tree are no more unique than a rain pattern on the ground or the scatter from a laser on a wall. The stuff that we are made from is the same of the stuff that makes up everything around us, we are not special or even a little bit significant in this world let alone the universe. People like to think that they are important which is why they ponder on the meaning of life when there really isn't one. We are just a lucky jumble of particles gathered together for a short while and then they will disperse. These particles will carry with them no memory, they will have no more impact on the universe than the paint on the walls of your house or the grain of sand 2 feet under the beach outside my parents house.

Just for the record as well, time isn't the constant thing that people seem to think it is either, time is entirely the perspective of the person there actually perceiving it. It goes slower the faster or heavier you are, which is actually, in Einsteinian terms, the same thing. This means that when the universe 'started' with the big bang, there was no time before that. This is a bloody difficult concept for many and impossible to comprehend for others. Just remember that the more massive something is the slower time goes, so when something has the mass of the entire universe in it, it is the most massive that something can get and therefore at the limit of how slow time can go: i.e. it has stopped.

Many people ask: what was there before the Big Bang then?

The answer is that there was nothing before the Big Bang, it was and still is everything that we have in this universe. There was nothing before it, time did not exist before it and only started to exist after it happened.

I will happily say more about any of this in the future, just ask :)

As for the existence of a soul, don't even get me started on that.

I think; therefore, I have a headache.

I love philosophy, though mostly the ancient Chinese and Greeks rather than those later Western Europeans. I don't dwell much on existentialism. I see no evidence for a soul. And I don't think it's necessary to believe in anything. I just need to eat, sleep, and play my drums.

like Life?
like blind ignorance?
i believe your book is the: Any Religious Text
Like reality?
i believe your book is : Cannot compute, too complex, insane list.... *sound of computer chips catching fire and exploding!*
hmm, stupid computer, obviously god fearing.
*finds an atheist computer, a very hard task finding a system with unix/linux installed*
Like Reality?
I believe the book you should read is: .... *5000 years later* .... * million years later * .... ah the answer is 42.
Wow the computer is a philosopher.
most philosophers are big bags of wind, read them, take out the meanings, tone them down 1000x and you have what the writer intended, unhappily this technique also works on the words.
take it from a writer.
just a few words on my latest philosophical book.
"Life is meaningless to those that ponder it and never take it, yes you may 'know' alot about it, but you don't know it personally, go out and ask that girl, go out and tell that boss he's ------------------ (make sure you don't have responsibilities before this), to succeed you must take the step, stand up for what you believe in and don't get pushed over, sitting around gets you nowhere." "life is all in the eye of the beholder, its all in your eyes, and never in others eyes"
thanks,
dessa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

Who cares about all those hacks. Nietzsche is the only philosopher I've read and it's enough.

I agree with you Emperor, anyone who actually thinks it's even possible that we are in a "Matrix" type of thing then they are definetely idiots.

---

Anyone who actually thinks it's even possible that the world is round and not flat are definetely idiots........
~:rolleyes:

You really shouldn't rule out any posibilities...

Any one with acsess to channel 4 in the UK will be able to see a program at 20:00 (Called: What we still don't know) that puts possible theroy's forward like the one in my opening post. Seeing the preivew for this program inspired me for this thread.....

I think; therefore, I missed the exit.

Whenever people mention existentialism, I am reminded of the last few minutes of the film, Darkstar.

I don’t know if this is the fora for heavy philosophy/theology. Anyone that has studied ancient philosophy knows they go hand in hand. The topic is existence. How do we get knowledge of our existence, where does the idea of our existence stem from? We supposedly get them from our sensory organs, our preceptors. This is not so, these sensors only communicate electrical impulses, this is all they are – just a form of energy (as some of the posters here already mentioned). The knowledge comes in as energy and you have to process it until it becomes part of your inner universe (self). It becomes intelligence. But as you will notice, none of the preceptors gives out. They only receive. The intelligence is locked inside you; you have your private little universe.
How do I know I am not a solipsist (with no reference to the .org member using this alias)?

There is a concept in ancient religion, and by this I mean not only the religions originating within the last 2000 years. I am talking about the ancient of ancients (Mesopotamian, Egyptian and even Judaism). Even in our more familiar Christianity this concept is communicated through in the infamous Bible. The gospel of John begins:”en arche en ho logos”, in the beginning was the logos (translated as Word). This is the key to existence, it has to be shared, trough the word. You will find this phrase throughout the entire before mentioned book: “there is no end to my works or my words (God speaking)”. The glory of God is intelligence, shared intelligence, and it is shared through the word (communication).

So you have this universe inside and there is only one way you can tell how you have constructed this universe inside. You have received information from your preceptors as non-structural impulses and you have to build it up inside. In Enuma Elish (ancient Mesopotamian creation myth based on an even older Sumerian myth) it goes from your preceptors to your heart where it receives its form. Then it is repeated on the tongue. Again you find the familiar words: “there is no end to my works or my words, and my glory is sharing it with the rest of them”. If you are going to prove that there is more than one universe it is done through the logos. You find all the familiar characters in the Enuma Elish; the creator, the hero and the adversary. And this is the antithesis; the deception by the word aka, lies. Satan (or equivalent) was a liar from the beginning.

If I start telling you what my universe is, you have no right to contradict me. If I tell you what I see, what I hear and what I remember, and I’m lying to you, I’ve thrown everything away. There’s no world between us; there is no universe.
A person takes it for granted you mean what you say, but he has no means to know whether you do or not because good liars are very clever. Deception is such an important part in Shakespeare’s plays; it leads to tragedy all the time. You are right back at square one aren’t you?

I once posted something that could fit in here about the different scenarios of our existence. That post effectively stopped further discussion in the actual thread and I hope it does not do the same here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane in "Life after Death?"

The discussion of the hereafter is indeed incomplete without the before or as a famous scholar said it: “Eschatology is inconceivable without the protology”.
This is one of the major defects with the Christian religion today. They speak of Traducianism and Creationism without considering the cause or purpose of the whole ordeal. This was not always so.
The early church believed in infusionism and believed in a distinct purpose of the Creation. This has been forgone by the doctors and religionists of the church (i.e. Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome etc.). This is why Christianity never speaks of pre-existence today.
The ancient texts are full of it and the Egyptian is the oldest.
The pyramid texts (2400BC) have readings like: “The Pharaoh was conceived by his father when there was yet no heaven, nor earth, nor people, nor birth of the gods, nor where there any dead. And every individual existed when the plan of the ancient Lord of heaven was not yet formulated”.
“My name is the son of the Primordial God”.
“Before I was born by hand or born of woman, he created me in the midst of his perfection, which caused to jubilate those who shared in the secrets.”

Second Enoch(Slavonic): “Write all the souls of men, however many of them are born, for all souls are prepared to eternity before the foundation of the world”.

The Gospel of Thomas: “Blessed is he who was before he came into being, and blessed are the solitary elect. For you shall find the kingdom because you came from it. You shall go there again”.

The Gospel of Philip: “At the Council in Heaven every spirit appeared before God in the very same form they were later to take in the human body. God examined them one by one, and many hesitated to come here and to be exposed to contamination”.

Barnabas (one of the seven apostolic fathers):” From eons unto the eons means that you come out of eons and you go into the eons”.
You have an eternity behind you and an eternity before you.

The Zohar (2000 year old commentary on the books of Moses – Genesis, Exodus etc.): “All men before they lived on earth were present in heaven in the identical form they possess in this life, and everything they learn on earth they knew already before they came to this world”.

The Patrologia is a great resource for what the church used to believe in.
It is a chronological record of writings done by all the famous characters in the church (later the Catholic Church) and what they believed in.
Particularly the confessions are interesting as they make straight what thy might have taught wrongly or said wrongly.
I guess they where thinking of the afterlife and their status with God…
Clement of Rome (first author in the Patrologia): “This world was made so that the number of spirits predestined to come here when their number was full could receive their bodies and again be conducted back to the light”.

The problems start with Augustine, the one person the Christian world of today depends on. He was the maker of western theology.
On the question of pre-existence he was first for it but later rejected it with the words: “The trouble is it does not agree with science”.
What! You say, from a guy that should consider the scriptures before science… but finally he admits in his … yes, confession: “I don’t know because I don’t know”.

From another scholar (on Clement of Alexandria): “You do not change the doctrine to agree with the scriptures, you change the scriptures to agree with Plato”. ->The so called evolution of the church that took it away from the basics and its orthodox foundation.

Then you have the concept of Anamnesis, which I will not go into here.
There has to be purpose in the Creation. The underlying plot if you want. There is always a plan behind every building project. A plan that serves a purpose.
So you have three major plots (with eight varieties) which all philosophies and religions are based upon; a past, present and future with either a dark status or light status.

1: Dark – Light – Dark;
The most common plot, the past is mysterious and lost, we know nothing about it. We come from nothing and we enjoy our stay as long as we can before we again return to nothing. Make the most of your stay, eat drink and be marry for tomorrow we die. It is all over, the worms will have you and you are oblivion. It is the reflection of the atheistic society.

2: Dark – Dark – Dark;
An even gloomier view than the one above. A good example is Macbeth: “Out, out brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
He came out of hell, he’s in hell and he’s going back to hell.
You can also use Hamlet:”How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world! Fie on’t! O fie! ‘tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature possesses it merely”
He is not happy with his life and wants to end it with a dagger; “No, what comes after might be worse. There is the respect that makes calamity of so long life”.
And the famous line: “The undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns…To die, to sleep; to sleep: perchance to dream; aye, there’s the rub; for in that sleep of death what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause.”
This is Stoicism.
Other relevant topics: Ragnarok, Gotterdammerung and Homer.

3: Light – Dark – Light;
The Hermetic doctrine (that came down from Toth, Hermes and the Egyptians in the beginning of the world), shared by Pythagoras, Plato, Moses, Abraham etc. You are with the father in the beginning, comes down to be tempted, then goes back again.
The Battle Scroll Milhama: “When Israel is defeated in battle, don’t be discouraged. Just remember what was before and what comes after. This won’t last forever.”
This is the Christian and Jewish tradition before the schools of theology took it away.

4: Dark – Dark – Light;
The standard Judaism and Christianity of today. They don’t believe in pre-existence. The defective scenario; it lacks in protology.
The problem of evil becomes a mystery if you are suddenly out of nothing and you come into something.
St. Augustine is your best guide here -> God has already decided whether you will be damned or blessed. You are predestined either for salvation or damnation. There is nothing you can do about it.
That’s why so many of them turned Gnostic. Where is the purpose in this?

5: Dark – Light – Light;
The Monastic movement, started by St. Anthony and Pachomius in the 4th century. The corruption of the world was so great and the Christian world so utterly vile, that the only way to escape was to go out to the desert and live by yourself. And then you could form communities.
You came out of darkness and by rejecting the world you do not suffer from it. Did it work? No…

6: Light – Dark – Dark;
This is an absurdity of course and I can’t think of any that live by this.
Maybe Romanticism that remembers the before, and the now and future sucks… but then again this is not about pre-existence.

7: Light – Light – Dark;
Also an absurdity and possible only taught by some of the native American tribes who believed in pre-existence and enjoyed life until the white man came and utterly wiped their traditions which resulted in their chances with the hereafter as nil. This is the Sun Dance religion.

8: Light – Light – Light;
Mormonism in a nutshell. Their books are full of examples of peoples living happily in the before, are sent down to earth living happily in the world but not of the world; keeping strict laws that ultimately brings happiness.
They have no hell and all born to this earth inherits a glory in the hereafter. The most successful of people will follow Christ in inheriting all that the Father has.

---

Quote:

---

Many people ask: what was there before the Big Bang then?

The answer is that there was nothing before the Big Bang, it was and still is everything that we have in this universe. There was nothing before it, time did not exist before it and only started to exist after it happened.

I will happily say more about any of this in the future, just ask :)

---

So what exploded? In order to have a big bang you must have something there to explode... Also if there was no time until after the big bang explosion then doesn't that mean that the explosion would never have happened as time itself would never progress?? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Emperor

So what exploded? In order to have a big bang you must have something there to explode... Also if there was no time until after the big bang explosion then doesn't that mean that the explosion would never have happened as time itself would never progress?? ~:confused:

---

Well the theory goes that all of the mass/energy in the universe was squished up into something about the size of a pea, not a great deal like a pea, but about the size of one, then something happened, no one really knows what because no one was there to see it, and then the universe exploded into being.

If this sounds a bit hairy fairy, that is due a lot of the background in Astrophysics being left out because, well, because mortal man was simply not meant to see equations of that complexity written down in one place, but I shall try to put what the equations in words.

The universe is expanding, we can see and test this by looking at other galaxies around us in space and working out the Red Shift in them, (basically, if something is moving away from you then it tends to have the light that it is emitting move toward the red end of the spectrum, and light that moves towards blue if it is coming towards you). Now by looking at the galaxies that we can see, and then tracing back along the lines that they are moving away from, factoring in the gravitic pull that they would have experienced from other things on that journey (told you it got complicated), you can trace that back to a point where they 'came' from. Now this as you can imagine is very hard and we have only just got to the stage where we can see enough Galaxies clearly enough and have enough computing power to even begin to work this out, but they (the galaxies) do seem to come from a central spot. So the theory goes that they must have come from that point. Now because of the frankly staggering forces that must have been involved in keeping that lump of all matter close together (Gravity gets more and more powerful the more massive something is) there must have been a hell of a kick to start the process off. Fortunately, we know what sort of thing can lots of stuff to go flying off in all directions and that is an explosion.

Now if you have something arranged neatly and in an ordered sequence, then generally you can arrange it so that there is less space and more ordered stuff, take diamond for example it is the living example, a perfect crystal, and one of the hardest things that we have, but when not ordered 'properly' that exact same substance is coal. Even when bits of it are ordered like a diamond, it is still flawed and doesn't work like a diamond.

I hope that this is making sense here.

Now if you have all of the matter in the universe squashed into the same spot, it would have to be in perfect order with things in a state of uttermost perfection for it to exist in this state for any length of time. Now this is where theory about the big bang splits, it is possible that the universe expands and contracts on a regular basis and that the state of being 'the size of a pea' just one part of a cycle the universe going round and round, so that it never actually have to exist in a stable state for any length of time or that there is only one cycle, which must have started due to some imperfection, however small, in that first pea sized ball of matter. Which in turn led to the biggest explosion that this universe has ever seen.

As for what actually started of the very first explosion in the first place, well that I cannot answer, for some people, that was God, for others it wasn't. Me? I think that we just don't know enough about the universe yet to know the answers to everything yet, but we will, it is just a matter of time.

If we went back to cave man times now and showed them what we could do, we would be worshiped as gods, that was probably about 100,000 years ago, imagine what we will be able to do 1,000 years from now, let alone 100 times that.

Why do we need to rush things? We have so much time left in exstence that it's not impossible at all that we could colonize this entire sola system and even the next.

In 1000 years we'll have colonies in Mars for sure. Shit ill own a house there by that time.

Now if only we can find to way to make water. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Who cares about all those hacks. Nietzsche is the only philosopher I've read and it's enough.

---

...if you take N at his own estimation, maybe. Stripped of the Marylin Manson "I'm so scary" rubbish he doesn't really say anything much that the ancient philosophers didn't say. Which is not intended as a criticism, N acknowledged as much and after all its modern in the correct sense of the word to build on the past. But you might at least think of trying, I don't know, Aristotle, in the spirit of "if you liked that then try this." (sits back and waits to be flamed)

Quote:

---

Any one with acsess to channel 4 in the UK will be able to see a program at 20:00 (Called: What we still don't know) that puts possible theroy's forward like the one in my opening post. Seeing the preivew for this program inspired me for this thread.....

---

I saw this and was very disappointed by it. What the astronomer royal is doing wasting his time wondering if the whole universe is a giant simulation being run in another universe I do not know. A question which makes no measureable difference to my observed experience whether the answer is "yes" or "no" is not a scientific question, for sure, and not a worthwhile question, though that is more debatable I accept.

For what it is worth I am prepared to believe my mental processes could be being run on hardware other than the 3.5 pounds of grey matter that I think is running them, and as I only experience the rest of the universe through my sense data it is already a simulation of a sort. The source of the simulation is only slightly interesting, my main concern is that it should continue for a few more years...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Prince

Who cares about all those hacks. Nietzsche is the only philosopher I've read and it's enough.

---

How sad, but it certainly explains where you are coming from. You might want to expand your horizons and look up a few of the other German, Greek, French, English, American, Oriental, etc - philosophers before hanging your hat on the ragings of one man.

The disorders of the universe - that quatum theory seems impossible to coexist with "relativity", and the string theory seems an interim to create a newer perception of "how things work" and the continuing arguements over a expanding-contracting universe. Could give light to the idea of our living in a "matrix" style universe. However, programmers donot like grey areas - they fix their glitches. Hense, we exist in a world, where by,we create answers to fit our perceptions, attitudes, prejudices, and previously made observations that suit us.
Did God create us, or did we create God? Do we exist, simply because we can think - or do we exist for the purpose of serving a supreme-being?

GAH! It's the old "what is the meaning of life" thing - what is existence without meaning. GAH!

Please ignore this post. j/k

~:handball:

Only one phillosophy works in this. "I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

The disorders of the universe - that quatum theory seems impossible to coexist with "relativity", and the string theory seems an interim to create a newer perception of "how things work" and the continuing arguements over a expanding-contracting universe.

---

Just out of interest how do relativity and quantum theory contradict each other? One deals with things the size of the universe as its primary target and the other deals with Quanta, set values to things in a tiny world. I dont really see how these two mix let alone disagree with each other.

For the microscopic, there is quantum physics, for the everyday world that we see around us there is Newtonian mechanics and for the universe that exists all about our heads we have astrophysics and relativity. You never see them fighting...

personally I believe that no matter how much we explorer and discover through science it will never give us the answers we are looking for, namely what the meaning of our existence is.

of course we will get new meanings and new technology, but they are all mauvaise foi. To get 'real' results we need to explore philosophy and build on it.

Whether science and philosophy can coexist, time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Chauncy

Just out of interest how do relativity and quantum theory contradict each other? One deals with things the size of the universe as its primary target and the other deals with Quanta, set values to things in a tiny world. I dont really see how these two mix let alone disagree with each other.

For the microscopic, there is quantum physics, for the everyday world that we see around us there is Newtonian mechanics and for the universe that exists all about our heads we have astrophysics and relativity. You never see them fighting...

---

Correct, to degree. However, all things (theories) must fit, or none at all. To argue that we live in two seperate universes (3) - a huge one, a itsy-bitsy-one, unexplainable one - and that their principles of existance are unrelated -well, that excludes the concept of devine perfection. Either all principles of life-universe are the same, or the existing factors of these theories are bogus - if they cannot be shown as being absolute. However, since they are theories, they of course can not be concidered as absolute (as the creation in 7 days, the birth of a man, etc). Ergo, we seperate; time from creation, man from being, time from the existence of man, the universe from molecular structure - give it a broad band, and dismiss the idea of a perfect universe.
Then we can recreate a new concept that precludes the faults of the previous ones, of course then we must reject 70 years of Einstein (God, forbid), but maybe those with the itelligents to grasp this crap will finally reject the past and find the future.

Me? I'm about as scientific as a walrus, but - I am knowledgeable at some levels. Not many, but some.
See, if one theory is in a disproportionate alliance not of worthy of another - then, the arguement of one being based on a larger universe than the other makes me question why an entity would not stay on plan? Why create two or three plans, when one should suffice? Then again, it simply leads me to believe that any theory is as random as I am.

Merry Christmas, y'all.

:balloon2:

I actually did not believe that I existed, until the bloody doctor slapped my ass. I must say getting born was not as funny as they said in my former life as a bug..... ;)

A note about the physics:

General Relativity and quantum mechanics aren't compatible because GR assumes bodies have definite positions and speeds which QM has shown that bodies don't have.

Also, the Big Bang refers to a period of rapid inflationary expansion caused by repulsive gravity due to a fluctuation in the inflaton field which created negative pressure. There was a brief period of time before this happened. In other words, the Big Bang is not the start of the universe, its the reason the observable universe is so big.

Yes we exist but only because of me. You are all in my mind, atleast that's what the voices told me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Yes we exist but only because of me. You are all in my mind, atleast that's what the voices told me.

---

I tell the voices what to say... So do I exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

I tell the voices what to say... So do I exist?

---

Could you please tell the voices to stop screaming at me when I'm day dreaming about voices screaming at about voices screaming at me about you telling the voices to stop screaming at me? Its kind of irritating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

Correct, to degree. However, all things (theories) must fit, or none at all. To argue that we live in two seperate universes (3) - a huge one, a itsy-bitsy-one, unexplainable one - and that their principles of existance are unrelated -well, that excludes the concept of devine perfection. Either all principles of life-universe are the same, or the existing factors of these theories are bogus - if they cannot be shown as being absolute.
See, if one theory is in a disproportionate alliance not of worthy of another - then, the arguement of one being based on a larger universe than the other makes me question why an entity would not stay on plan? Why create two or three plans, when one should suffice? Then again, it simply leads me to believe that any theory is as random as I am.

---

Actaully this is a really odd way of looking at the world and exactly what we (as people and scientists) are trying to do, but you seem to think that you can start off a theory knowing everything and then making sure that the world fits in around it. You take a few things, experiment until you have the maths on how it works and if that fits the theory: then great, but if that doesn't work you rework the theory. People started out with a few ideas and found that some worked and some didn't so they changed and messed about until they did and they could prove that the world worked like that.

Now what a great many people are trying to do is get the 'Theory of Everything' and of all the scientists that I know of Steven Hawking is the most prominent. To get to this theory you must first find a way to combine the others that lead to a universal or more complete understanding. Magnetic and electrical forces were first believed to be separate until they realised that you couldn't have one without the other, the same happened with strong and weak nuclear forces, so if a some point in the future it stands to reason, following on from all of the previous examples in history that we would continue combining theories and ultimately end up with the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. It would be nice wouldn't it? When it will happen is of course totally unknown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skomatth

General Relativity and quantum mechanics aren't compatible because GR assumes bodies have definite positions and speeds which QM has shown that bodies don't have.

---

This isn't strictly true, because with quantum mechanics knowing where an atom is to about 3 or 4 atoms width is very important and this must be factored into any calculations that you do, but in the scales of the planets and the galaxy, if one atom is 5 atoms diameter out from the others in a planets core, it really doesn't matter one bit. You have to get the scales right. If that were true then the whole of Newtonian physcis would be completely unworkable and Newton would never have come up with it. There is a distinct difference between the physics of the very tiny, the everyday and the astronomical. That doesn't mean that they don't mix though, there are 'grey bits' as the two fields overlap and it becomes more sensible to use other calculations that put a different emphasis of the different forces affecting particles. Gravity is almost none existant at atomic level but it is far more important than the strong nuclear force at a galactic scale.

As for negative pressure i have never heard of it, I shall have to do some research...

:)

Feels real enough to me, and I'm likin' it too... keep it like this for all I care, I'll jus' keep enjoying life as it is. I really couldn't give a dime less if we livin' in the Matrix or in a marble (M.I.B.), or if we live in a fake world, while the real world does not exist but on the other hand does (Plato's world of Ideas)...

To me 's just more interesting what's happenin' down to the ground, in my life, at this moment... carpe diem!



~Wiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Chauncy

Just out of interest how do relativity and quantum theory contradict each other? One deals with things the size of the universe as its primary target and the other deals with Quanta, set values to things in a tiny world. I dont really see how these two mix let alone disagree with each other.

For the microscopic, there is quantum physics, for the everyday world that we see around us there is Newtonian mechanics and for the universe that exists all about our heads we have astrophysics and relativity. You never see them fighting...

---

First of all I am not a scientist and therefore what I say here is an amature’s view of science and must be taken for what it is…

I think what KafirChobee and Skomatth are trying to convey is the problem with the big bang theory as it was in the 70ties. You do not make a precise point of what version of the theory you are referring to.
You say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Chauncy

Now if you have all of the matter in the universe squashed into the same spot, it would have to be in perfect order with things in a state of uttermost perfection for it to exist in this state for any length of time. Now this is where theory about the big bang splits, it is possible that the universe expands and contracts on a regular basis and that the state of being 'the size of a pea' just one part of a cycle the universe going round and round, so that it never actually have to exist in a stable state for any length of time or that there is only one cycle, which must have started due to some imperfection, however small, in that first pea sized ball of matter. Which in turn led to the biggest explosion that this universe has ever seen...

---

Reading this I am tempted to interpret it to the extent that you refer to a perfect singularity (the pea sized ball of matter) as the origin of our universe.

To the readers that do not know what a singularity is:
If we take our universe and extrapolate mechanically to the beginning of time (t=0) or as Sir Chauncy explained it above, you squash it together.
As the size decreases and density and temperature increases you will reach t = 1 year (the universe as it was 1 year after big bang).
You have a universe with a temperature of 2 million K (about the same as the solar corona) and a density of 10^-9 grams pr. ccm (cubic centimetre) (about the same as the surface of the Sun).
Moving closer to the beginning of time; t = 1 second.
You have a temperature of 10 billion K (centre of a supernova explosion) and a density of 500 000 grams pr. ccm (close to a white dwarf).
The closer you get to t = 0, the higher the temperature gets and the more dense it gets.
In fact at t = 0 you have a universe with zero radius and infinite values for temperature, density, pressure and energy. What happened before that instant would be completely unknown.

The beginning of time would have been a point of infinite density and infinite curvature of space-time. All the known laws of physics would break down at such a point. Such a point is called a singularity.
A singularity is allowed in the general theory of relativity but it is not allowed in quantum mechanics.

It should be noted that all classic theories in physics has been reformulated in the 20th century to harmonise with quantum mechanics. Except one, yes the general relativity has resisted this reformulation and there is today no harmonious combination of the two.
What does this mean?
It means that the big bang and the beginning of the universe—the one situation in nature in which both these theories are important—cannot be fully explained by scientists today.
This is what I believe KafirChobee and Skomatth are pointing at.

If quantum mechanics is a true theory, and much does indicate that it is, the universe could not originate in such (singularity) a point.There was always a finite extent to the material in the big bang, and the stuff had a very large, but finite, temperature and density.

All true scientists know that the current understanding of our “universe” is preliminary and that Science is a search that never ends.
Therefore all theories and answers should be treated as “preliminary” theories and answers with the humble realisation that it could be turned upside down in the near future.

This is why I find it amusing that religion (none in particular) throws itself over these theories and incorporate them in their dogmas. Dogmas that are supposed to be absolute.
This is another discussion altogether and should have an own thread.

At any rate I consider the Big Bang theory to be just another creation myth, like so many others that have come before... The only difference is that is came from the scientific establishment rather than religion.

Quote:

---

All true scientists know that the current understanding of our “universe” is preliminary and that Science is a search that never ends.
Therefore all theories and answers should be treated as “preliminary” theories and answers with the humble realisation that it could be turned upside down in the near future.

---

Very true. Our understanding of the universe is naturally lacking because we cannot go and look at things close up, until then we are "theorising" at things we haven't yet seen.

Ah you are absolutely right, this really has moved on from the topic it started out on and should really be in another topic, but I shall carry on regardless: mainly because I am a stubborn git who never knew when to quit :)

As for Relativity and Quantum physics mixing it up in the playground like naughty children vying for the best spots infront og the teacher on who gets to tell everyone else about how the universe started, well i think you are on to something. Quantum physics works, it works wondefully for the things that it was worked out for, all that tiny weeny stuff, Relativity works too, for all that massive spacey time stuff. But they seem to be mutually incompatable and indeed, Eistein never ever liked the idea of Quantum physics its inbuilt randoness never sat well with him, leading to that famous phrase: God does not play dice.

But the thing is, that neither relativity nor quantum physics play much of a part in our everyday lives, Newtonian physics does that very pleasantly, it has edges that it doesn't work for, but on the whole it works just fine. Now I present this idea: When things get really hot, really heavy and time slows down almost nothing, maybe relativity doesn't work either, maybe that is the edge of its usefulness, I don't know for definate because these conditions don't get seen very often (once at the start of every universe perhaps) so you cannot really form to many ideas about the physics of it all. But I have never been there.

But that is that, at the end of it all we still don't know, but I don't really think that the question was answerable, do we exist? If we don't then it is a bloody good illusion. Such questions are a bit daft as they connot be answered and it might be why people are so keen to ask them as they don't have an answer.

A bit like: What does blue smell like?