Why does the Universe exist?

@BeHereNow,

Is your perception the Universe, yes or no?

We can agree that it may be true that nothing exists as we perceive it, and agree that for the sake of continuity, we will assume that it is as we perceive, but we do well to remind ourselves that we may see the shadows of puppets, not the actors.
I'm not sure if that gives us progress.

I would still say out thoughts demonstrate some existence, not of ourselves perhaps, but some sort of universe.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Is your perception the Universe, yes or no?

No.
Perception separates me from the universe, creates dualism, not agreeable.

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

Quote:
Is your perception the Universe, yes or no?

No.
Perception separates me from the universe, creates dualism, not agreeable.

As you agree that your perception is not the universe and you cannot know the universe because you only have what you perceive then you cannot know the universe exists. Therefore you OP is meaningless. If your answer is, no it is not meaningless, then the universe must exist but I've shown that the only thing you can know that exists is your perception (whether that exists is another question as is the question of whether thoughts exist) and you've agreed.

How are you going to prove the universe exists having only your perception to go on?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

As you agree that your perception is not the universe and you cannot know the universe because you only have what you perceive then you cannot know the universe exists. Therefore you OP is meaningless. If your answer is, no it is not meaningless, then the universe must exist but I've shown that the only thing you can know that exists is your perception (whether that exists is another question as is the question of whether thoughts exist) and you've agreed.

There is certainly a way in which the OP question is meaningless, but we disagree on the reason for that.
I would say it is there, no need for a reason, it is what it is.
So we agree that my perceptions may not exist –as I understand you.
Possibly, what I take to be my perceptions, are actually ‘thought’ processes of an alien life form.
What I think of as my thoughts, may not be my thoughts, but the creation of an alien life form.
The existence of the universe is not dependent on my thoughts.

Quote:

How are you going to prove the universe exists having only your perception to go on?

I may have no perceptions of my own, since BHN may be the creation of an alien life form, changes nothing.
There are thoughts, my own, or the creation of some other being/existence.
These thoughts, real or imagined, mine or not, indicate some sort of existence (universe).
I can see it no other way, I do not see how you do.
~ ~
If I and the tree in the front yard are one, I do not need to perceive it, I am it.
In this case by ‘perceive’, I mean observer and observed, duality.
I can know the universe, not by perceiving, but by Being.
If you want to say it is possible to have a perception of oneself, well, okay, but that is not what I mean by the act of perceiving, as I said, requires an observer and the observed.
If I have a perception of myself, I am creating a duality, not agreeable.

So I do not agree with your statement “As you agree that your perception is not the universe and you cannot know the universe because you only have what you perceive then you cannot know the universe exists.”

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

Quote:
As you agree that your perception is not the universe and you cannot know the universe because you only have what you perceive then you cannot know the universe exists. Therefore you OP is meaningless. If your answer is, no it is not meaningless, then the universe must exist but I've shown that the only thing you can know that exists is your perception (whether that exists is another question as is the question of whether thoughts exist) and you've agreed.

So we agree that my perceptions may not exist –as I understand you.

No, re-read what I've said... I will explain further if you need it but you must understand what I've said before we move on.

igm wrote:

BeHereNow wrote:

Quote:
Is your perception the Universe, yes or no?

No.
Perception separates me from the universe, creates dualism, not agreeable.

As you agree that your perception is not the universe and you cannot know the universe because you only have what you perceive then you cannot know the universe exists. Therefore you OP is meaningless. If your answer is, no it is not meaningless, then the universe must exist but I've shown that the only thing you can know that exists is your perception (whether that exists is another question as is the question of whether thoughts exist) and you've agreed.

How are you going to prove the universe exists having only your perception to go on?

1 Reply

@igm,

Yes, you need to explain.
I read "...I've shown that the only thing you can know that exists is your perception (whether that exists is another question ..."
Your parenthetical had me confused.

If I try to demonstrate that I have perceptions, I will fail.

1 Reply

I wuz thinkin the same thing t'other day
Thinkin what if all this here wuz a dream
So I wuz a lookin upin the sky
Y'know?
And this burd dropt somethin on my head.
KRAPPS
That does it
The uny verse is here t messup are day.

0 Replies

@Merlinthephilosopher,

Quote:

Without language there would be no universe.

Hogwash. Dogs have no language and they exist in and perceive the universe.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

That has a real impact on all living things.

It would not have an impact on living things on another planet. Or 99.999 percent of the universe.

0 Replies

@BeHereNow,

If you don't want to doubt that the universe exists then don't ask others to attempt to show you that it can't be known to exist... just stop replying. If you want to continue...

How can you know the universe exists?

How can you prove the universe exists?

Can you only assume that it does (your OP is then meaningless)?

If you can't know it exists you can't ask why it exists.

I'm saying you can't know it exists you can only assume it does but you will never be able to prove it... but what appears is not non-existent because it appears... so to conclude that it cannot be known to exist does not therefore mean that everything is non-existent.

In everyday life it is okay to assume that the universe exists but when its existence is looked for it cannot be found. Science just assumes it exists and carries on with science... The bible explains that is exists and theists just believe what the read in the bible... but it nevertheless cannot be 'known' to be true that the universe exists... in fact there are many compelling reasons to assume it doesn't... that reality is beyond existence, non-existence, both and something other than those possibilities.

1 Reply

@igm,

I have explained how we know of existence, and if there is existence, then that is the universe.
The evidence from reasoning is overwhelming, IMO of course.
I only ask for reasonable evidence to show it is not true.

Which is easier, to know, to 'prove', that igm exists, and has perceptions, or that there is a larger existence, namely the universe?

You have no proof you exist. you cannot prove it to yourself, nor to BHN.
Tell me what proof you have, and I will show your false beliefs.
The best you can do is Descartes' "cogito ergo sum", which has at it core some very dubious premises.

If you exist, show me how it is that you exist WITHOUT the universe.
If you exist, and there is nothing else, then you ARE the universe.
Show me the proof you have existence without the universe, and I will show you your false beliefs.

You made a claim, namely, that you know you have existence, but cannot know there is a universe.
I objected, reasoned why this was not so.
You reject my reasoning. Fine.
I see no attempt to show proof of how it is that you can prove your own existence, and at the same time, show you cannot know the universe exists.

Quote:

If you don't want to doubt that the universe exists then don't ask others to attempt to show you that it can't be known to exist... just stop replying. If you want to continue...

Now, I do not ask that you show me the universe can not be known to exist, I ask you to support your claim that you can prove your own existence.
You make that claim with no prompt except the OP.
I see no reasoning from you that leads to that conclusion.

It does not matter what BHN believes about perceptions and the universe, only what igm believes and can 'prove'.
No need to ask me such questions.
What matters is what igm believes.
Please remember that your burden has three prongs.
1) igm exists
2) igm has perceptions
3) igm exists devoid of any universe
I see all of these claims in your position.
I see all of them as lacking any proof -and I am willing to accept sound reasoning as 'proof'.
I see sound reasoning that proof for all of them is lacking. If faith is your proof, so be it.
At this point it is not my reasoning or proof in question, it is your own.

I have presented my position here:
http://able2know.org/topic/188372-20#post-5565494
and
http://able2know.org/topic/188372-21#post-5565573

You offer no claim against my position, except to say it is false because yours is true.
Fine.
At this point it seems the most expedient thing is for igm to offer support for your claim, show you have proof for it, and if successful, we will know my position is false, as it is not reasonable to believe both are true.

You make claims, I offer counters, and you do not seem to want to support your own position.
I do not ask you to show my claims are false, only that your own are true, which seems to me a much easier position.
I do not ask you to use the belief system of BHN, but your own.

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

You made a claim, namely, that you know you have existence, but cannot know there is a universe.

We still cannot progress because you've claimed that I've said something when I have not and the rest of your post is based on this error you've made.

Show... by quoting what I said... that I claim that I know I have existence. I didn't but if you can show that I did I will apologize and confirm that I do not know if I exist.

We can then continue...

igm wrote:

How can you know the Universe exists?

How can you prove the Universe exists?

Can you only assume that it does (your OP is then meaningless)?

If you can't know it exists you can't ask why it exists.

I'm saying you can't know it exists you can only assume it does but you will never be able to prove it... but what appears is not non-existent because it appears... so to conclude that it cannot be known to exist does not therefore mean that everything is non-existent.

In everyday life it is okay to assume that the Universe exists but when its existence is looked for it cannot be found. Science just assumes it exists and carries on with science... The bible explains that it exists and theists just believe what they read in the bible... but it nevertheless cannot be 'known' to be true that the Universe exists... in fact there are many compelling reasons to assume it doesn't... that reality is beyond existence, non-existence, both and something other than those possibilities.

1 Reply

@igm,

Well, I see what you mean.
You do not make the outright claim that igm exists. We can agree.
However, you do make the claim that BHN has perceptions, therefore must exist.
Now that is an interesting twist.

Quote:

igm As you agree that your perception is not the universe and you cannot know the universe because you only have what you perceive then you cannot know the universe exists.

http://able2know.org/topic/188372-21#post-5565553

So you would have us believe that I have perceptions ('must have', implied), and the same is not true for igm.
Startling to say the least.
I've never seen anyone make that claim the I must exist, but they need not.
Well, wait...how is that possible?
How can you make a claim about my perceptions, unless you exist?
Quite confusing.
~ ~
Well, let us revert back.

You have, quite clearly it seems to me, in no uncertain terms, implied that BHN must exist.

Quote:

As you agree that your perception is not the universe and you cannot know the universe because you only have what you perceive then you cannot know the universe exists. Therefore you OP is meaningless. If your answer is, no it is not meaningless, then the universe must exist but I've shown that the only thing you can know that exists is your perception (whether that exists is another question as is the question of whether thoughts exist) and you've agreed.

How are you going to prove the universe exists having only your perception to go on?

So, please show me your reasoning that BHN must conclude that BHN exists, and perceives, but this is not true for igm.

If you agree with me, that neither BHN nor igm can know with certainty, that they exist and perceive, we can move forward, quite quickly I believe.

So which is it, you have no proof - such as sound reasoning - that you exist, or you do have sound reasoning you exist?

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

However, you do make the claim that BHN has perceptions, therefore must exist.

Again you are in error... you made the claim first that you have perceptions and as the subject was whether the Universe exists then I allowed you to say that you have perceptions (without challenging it) because I did not want to detract from your central assertion that the Universe exists:

igm wrote:

BeHereNow wrote:

Quote:
Is your perception the Universe, yes or no?

No.
Perception separates me from the universe, creates dualism, not agreeable.

As you agree that your perception is not the universe and you cannot know the universe because you only have what you perceive then you cannot know the universe exists. Therefore you OP is meaningless. If your answer is, no it is not meaningless, then the universe must exist but I've shown that the only thing you can know that exists is your perception (whether that exists is another question as is the question of whether thoughts exist) and you've agreed.

How are you going to prove the universe exists having only your perception to go on?

I also said later in that same post (one of the highlights in blue above) that whether the perception or thoughts can be known to exist is another matter i.e. to be discussed after the discussion on the ability to know the Universe exists.

Again your post (see above this post) is entirely based on your error. I have not asserted that your perceptions exist you implied that in the post that I then replied to. I then used your implied belief that both you and your perceptions exist to further my argument... I never agreed that you or your perceptions exist.

When this problem has been rectified we can move on:

igm wrote:

How can you know the Universe exists?

How can you prove the Universe exists?

Can you only assume that it does (your OP is then meaningless)?

If you can't know it exists you can't ask why it exists.

I'm saying you can't know it exists you can only assume it does but you will never be able to prove it... but what appears is not non-existent because it appears... so to conclude that it cannot be known to exist does not therefore mean that everything is non-existent.

In everyday life it is okay to assume that the Universe exists but when its existence is looked for it cannot be found. Science just assumes it exists and carries on with science... The bible explains that it exists and theists just believe what they read in the bible... but it nevertheless cannot be 'known' to be true that the Universe exists... in fact there are many compelling reasons to assume it doesn't... that reality is beyond existence, non-existence, both and something other than those possibilities.

1 Reply

@igm,

Like the universe, which for convenience we assume exists, I assumed that my perceptions exist. Never said they must exist, you misread my post as I misread yours.

So now we have an even keel.
We agree that igm and BHN may exist, but both lack certainty.

So now I repeat from previous posts:

Quote:

BHN: The simple fact that I have a thought, means something exists, and that is, or can be considered, by definition, the universe.
Not substance, but thoughts of an alien life form, fine, the universe is not material, simply the thoughts of an alien life form. Still a universe.
Or is it your point that the universe may not be as we perceive it – seven dimensional, instead of 3 or 4, for example? ( http://able2know.org/topic/188372-20#post-5565494 )
Later:
We can agree that it may be true that nothing exists as we perceive it…( http://able2know.org/topic/188372-21#post-5565536 )
And:
I may have no perceptions of my own, since BHN may be the creation of an alien life form, changes nothing.
There are thoughts, my own, or the creation of some other being/existence.
These thoughts, real or imagined, mine or not, indicate some sort of existence (universe).
I can see it no other way, I do not see how you do. (http://able2know.org/topic/188372-21#post-5565573 )

To summarize:
There are or appear to be thoughts. When I say 'appear to be', I mean something exists, if not thoughts, something masquerading as thoughts, still something, an existence.
These demand, are an imperative for, existence.
This existence is or can be considered, the universe.

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

To summarize:
There are or appear to be thoughts. When I say 'appear to be', I mean something exists, if not thoughts, something masquerading as thoughts, still something, an existence.
These demand, are an imperative for, existence.
This existence is or can be considered, the universe.

What are your defining characteristics that something has to have to be existent in your opinion? Apologies if you believe you have already explained this amongst the rest of your posts... I need to see just the defining characteristics or if you like the prerequisites required for something to be said to be existent... in your opinion.

1 Reply

@igm,

It has to be a fact, that is, an actual occurrence.
If it occurs, it is factual, it has existence.

1 Reply

@BeHereNow,

BeHereNow wrote:

It has to be a fact, that is, an actual occurrence.
If it occurs, it is factual, it has existence.

Can an occurrence exist if there is no one who is conscious of that occurrence? If not then you have not yet defined existence because a completely isolated occurrence is impossible to know.... therefore it is impossible to know the Universe exists based on an occurrence.

In the light of what I've said, can you restate the prerequisites that are required for something to be said to be existent.. IYO.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Can an occurrence exist if there is no one who is conscious of that occurrence?

Yes, put an unconscious tape recorder near that tree and record the sound.
Shall I assume you believe that nothing existed until there was a conscious being.
You hint at so many things.....

Quote:

Can you restate the prerequisites that are required for something to be said to be existent.. IYO.

Restate?
I would rather clear your confusion.
You imply these thoughts, real or masquerades, from us, aliens, or whatnot, have no existence.
How do you define existence such that they are not in existence?

1 Reply

Why does the Universe exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know