Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:
What's this obsession with spoons here, anyway?

Uri Geller. Google is your friend.

Cito, you will be surprised to learn that I know who Mr Geller is without using a search engine.

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:

I am ignorant of which definition of "existence" you are using. Please, enlighten me.

Existence = Existence... There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".

Permission to speak candidly, sir!

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Jesus H. Christ home-gargoyle, even a minute of the winternet will reveal that there is more than one definition of existence.

I would be very interested in hearing another definition of existence. If you would be so kind.

Sure, how about the most obvious example. You say "There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists"", but this simply not true, for others say that existence is a property of things, and not that existence is "that which exists".

Start here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

Sorry but your statement that there is only one definition of existence is simply wrong.

Regina wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:
What's this obsession with spoons here, anyway?

Uri Geller. Google is your friend.

Cito, you will be surprised to learn that I know who Mr Geller is without using a search engine.

Of course, I know that. There's no way for you to know how this obsession with spoons, as you glibly call it, originated. But really, I had to needle you a little for bluntly asking about the meaning of a running joke.

IOW, it is not self-evident. Really, it is not my obsession with spoons. It's someone else's obsession with self-evidence. Some people simply cannot suss that god is not self-evident. Some people have so much trouble with this that they deify self-evidence.

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
I am confident that you have nothing coherent to say about "the cause of existence" because the concept is incoherent.

The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously. Your move...

Non-existence is precisely where we do start.

And how can the non-existent (not)be a cause?

GrahamH wrote:
And how can the non-existent (not)be a cause?

Non-existence is intrinsically unstable. Obviously. Now you're supposed to ask what causes non-existence to be intrinsically unstable. Are we having fun yet?

Cito di Pense wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously.

Graham, I think you may have neglected to consider the self-causing existent. But let us not tarry with such trivialities, and move directly on to the problem of enumerating the relata of a property-exemplification nexus.

That sounds fun.

GrahamH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously.

Graham, I think you may have neglected to consider the self-causing existent. But let us not tarry with such trivialities, and move directly on to the problem of enumerating the relata of a property-exemplification nexus.

That sounds fun.

I guess we are having fun yet. It is self-evident that non-existence is intrinsically unstable.

GrahamH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously.

Graham, I think you may have neglected to consider the self-causing existent. But let us not tarry with such trivialities, and move directly on to the problem of enumerating the relata of a property-exemplification nexus.

That sounds fun.

Isn't that a novel by Henry Miller?

lobawad wrote:Sorry but your statement that there is only one definition of existence is simply wrong.

Oh, noes. Is somebody wrong on the internet again? Or is it just that somebody is inebriated on the internet again?

I'm not inebriated yet, but I am inclining in that direction.

Cito di Pense wrote:

lobawad wrote:Sorry but your statement that there is only one definition of existence is simply wrong.

Oh, noes. Is somebody wrong on the internet again?

Yeah, here comes another sleepless night of anguish! Or not, if I'm posting here you can be sure there stuff I have to listen to running in the background- I catch or concieve different things when my logicificatious mind is engaged elsewhere.

Regina wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously.

Graham, I think you may have neglected to consider the self-causing existent. But let us not tarry with such trivialities, and move directly on to the problem of enumerating the relata of a property-exemplification nexus.

That sounds fun.

Isn't that a novel by Henry Miller?

Nexus nexus nexus. Have you ever noticed that the shoes of homeless people are often several sizes too large? Rabbit pancake in 4...3...2...1...

Yeah, I'm pondering to beer or not to beer, too.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
The concept is only incoherent to the ignorant.

Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously. Your move...

Non-existence is precisely where we do start.

And how can the non-existent (not)be a cause?

Non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:
What's this obsession with spoons here, anyway?

Uri Geller. Google is your friend.

Cito, you will be surprised to learn that I know who Mr Geller is without using a search engine.

Of course, I know that. There's no way for you to know how this obsession with spoons, as you glibly call it, originated. But really, I had to needle you a little for bluntly asking about the meaning of a running joke.

IOW, it is not self-evident. Really, it is not my obsession with spoons. It's someone else's obsession with self-evidence. Some people simply cannot suss that god is not self-evident. Some people have so much trouble with this that they deify self-evidence.

It is the minds of many that are bent to accept such proclaimed self-evidence, for it is not the world that bends for the gymnast. Indeed, we know it to be the other way around.

lobawad wrote:Yeah, I'm pondering to beer or not to beer, too.

You're early, assuming that you're in Slovenia at the moment.

lobawad wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Existence = Existence... There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists".

Permission to speak candidly, sir!

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Jesus H. Christ home-gargoyle, even a minute of the winternet will reveal that there is more than one definition of existence.

I would be very interested in hearing another definition of existence. If you would be so kind.

Sure, how about the most obvious example. You say "There is only one definition of existence: "that which exists"", but this simply not true, for others say that existence is a property of things, and not that existence is "that which exists".

Start here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

Sorry but your statement that there is only one definition of existence is simply wrong.

Existence is a property of things: what the hell does that mean?

I shall demonstrate to you that it is you who have no idea what you are talking about!!

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
Seeking a cause for existence we would have to start with the non-existent, obviously. Your move...

Non-existence is precisely where we do start.

And how can the non-existent (not)be a cause?

Non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely.

My humble thanks for solving my current philosophical dilemma for me with that profundimality- back in about 20 minutes.

Regina wrote:
"You're early, assuming that you're in Slovenia at the moment."

In Slovenia, it's more like, I'm late.

Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely.

Well, you and I agree that reality isn't everything, since there is unreality to deal with, at least discursively. Discourse exists. But you would never say that non-existence and unreality are the same thing. Would you? You'd probably say everything is everything.

lobawad wrote:
In Slovenia, it's more like, I'm late.

... as in 'the late Dent Arthur Dent'. -- Slartibarfast [ DNA ]

Cito di Pense wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely.

Well, you and I agree that reality isn't everything, since there is unreality to deal with, at least discursively. Discourse exists. But you would never say that non-existence and unreality are the same thing. Would you? You'd probably say everything is everything.

When I say that non-existence in reality does not equate to non-existence entirely, what I mean is that existence is now entirely illusory.