For the sake of argument, since in your last reply, you switched up existence as a verb, whereas before (see quote) you were saying it was a plural noun, let’s say I define existence as an essence. 
Why not? Let’s get our wiggles out.
Existence is a noun, Ichthus, because it denotes all persons, places, and things. Exist, however, is a verb. It’s an intransitive verb. It means to be something or to have real being.
You haven’t explained how something can exist outside of existence. Simply applying temporal parameters does not work and, in fact, defeats your purpose since non-existence has no attributes, temporal or otherwise.
The physical body is programmed with binary software.We know this because it picks up (via the five senses) varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from vibrating matter.All matter vibrates because the electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS that exist between all spinning particles that make up all matter are balanced out by the formula N/S=NS.The balancing of these force interactions produces binary code 00,01,10,11 (0/1=0/1) and the physical body is programmed with binary software.
A physical biological machine bot. programmed with binary software doesn’t possess life.It exists because it needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t exist in the context that it doesn’t possess life.
Life is separate from the physical.
As the individual INTERPRETS varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from vibrating matter then the individual is not vibrating matter nor the varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from it.There are equal but opposite claims like I exist/I don’t exist in binary software programming.
Where did I claim it, and why would I do that?
You must be confusing me with someone else.
Transcendent immanence is omnipresence (omnitemporality, omnispatiality) — not restricted to or from one or any location/time, but present in/at every location/time (locations/times which are not necessarily completely distinct from each other). Maybe that’s your confusion.
Beings subject to time think that being in/at THIS moment means being out/away of/from THAT moment. Being who IS time … is not out/away of/from any moment. That’s not knowledge-after-the-fact (perceptualist). That’s BEING the referent (subsuming all contingents co-creatively—so not the sort of B Theory that does not account for creativity) [conceptualist, but not empty, like A Theorists would have it—so, let’s go with Kant’s “intellectual intuition” (of original being), which we can call creationism, or essentialism, or functionalism)].
The individual needs to step away/be separated from the biological machine bot. which is programmed with binary software and see it for what it is.The lifeless automated side of our make up has to work somehow.
Mainstream cognitively biased atheistic science doesn’t explain REALITY!!! because it tries to deny God with its half logic philosophy science.
Steer well clear of it.
What is imaginary is the separate self you think you are.
I don’t see how this relates to the question. Can you clarify?
I had asked what else exists besides (outside of) existence. You said “they that always exist.” I then asked “If these things exist, how are they not part of existence?” You replied that they “exist in the fullness of time.” Well, if something exists, then it is part of existence, no matter it’s place in time. And by giving these these things that exist but aren’t included in existence for some reason attributes, you place them squarely in existence because only existing things have attributes.
There is no life without a movement away…separation.
There is no self-consciousness without a similar separation.
Never complete…always a towards completion.
You claim God is imaginary. I’m saying God is real you are imaginary.
I know that when I consider what people claim about a god, I have no alternative but to imagine it. I also know that imaginary things aren’t real. You’re claiming that I’m imaginary does not make it so. So, this does not help. I ask this question because it is a window into a person’s psychoepistemology, their habitual way of thinking. To date, no one has been able to give me a reliable method to distinguish what they call ‘God’ from something that they may merely be imagining. That which is indistinguishable from that which is imaginary in imaginary. Maybe someday someone will succeed but you haven’t.
Classic nihilists.
What exists, is perceptible, is an “illusion”….but what is imperceptible, and can only be imagined, is real.
This is what self-hatred produces.
Psychology of slaves…..distrusting their won senses to preserve their comfort, their safe zones; denying their own existence to maintain their comforting delusions.
These sheeple are the ones who are exploited by charlatans, claiming to be shamans, or philosophers with occult knowledge….using words to trigger their emotions.
1 Like
Reread this:
After you reread that^, then reread my reply directly below it.
Then reread this, or perhaps read it for the first time:
Yes. We agree. Nothing I have said has disagreed with that.
The separate self is not a real, unified entity but an illusion —a “bundle of perceptions” constantly in flux, like a theater where perceptions (thoughts, feelings, sensations) appear, mingle, and vanish without any constant, underlying self to hold them together. Introspection reveals no single, invariable impression of a “self,” only a succession of distinct, separate mental events. The idea of a continuous self is a product of the mind’s tendency to connect these disparate perceptions through resemblance, contiguity, and causation, creating a false sense of unity.
Pseudo-Nietzschean poppycock.
Believing in invisible entities, whilst denying the existence of the perceived is …what?
Genius?
Needy?
Deceit?
By the way…I ain’t no Nietzsche bitch.
I’m a realist…closer to Schopenhauer.
1 Like
How can you talk about there not being a self, and then talk about the tendency of the mind? @abc1231, what have you been putting in Felix Dakat’s kitty chow?
The self is held together by…..drum role…..memories.
DNA is a type of memory.
Memory = successful past interactions informing future interactions.
Precedent.
Past is constantly manifesting presence, interpreted by consciousness as…..appearance, the apparent = phenomenon.
The SELF isn’t held together by anything.
ALL matter including the lifeless BINARY PROCESSING biological machine bot. physical body is held together by vibratory balanced electromagnetic forces.
I’m glad we both agree that existence is all that exists, and there is no outside or above existence. No supernatural.