Doesn’t existence exist per definition?
And nothing indeed has no quality except its non existence.
That’s most of the point, the OP is actually about why existence exists… Your second line is the answer to that.
If a being can destroy itself along with the totality of the universe and all parallel universes and all timelines, it can also destroy existence.
Jakob
Despite its reality, existence is inevitably no more than how we define it?
So the Judaic/Christian god is everything which is in accord with the bible and with how people think?
Have you ever experienced “nothingness” and a sense of non-existence, Jakob? There can be very much a particular sense of quality within that but not necessarily positive. lol
Why existence exists?
…What the hell else is it gonna do?
Doesn’t a “presence” merely mean a “nearby existence”? … shouldn’t use the concept being defined as a part of the definition of the concept.
Consciousness is a very recent phenomenon and has only existed for an infinitesimal period of time
It is conditional on life and specifically complex life which because of cosmology cannot be eternal
The universe is significantly less recent and may be infinite although that has yet to be determined
You have no evidence of that, nor do you have evidence proving you didn’t have past lives. Just because you can’t remember something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I would not be relying on something so fleeting as memory to determine if I had past lives
I would instead be using something way more rigorous than it and it shows that I had none
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Or
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS BLOWN 
Hallucinogens of course open doors but that does not necessarily lead to greater clarity of thought
And amazing journeys can be achieved without zero chemical assistance so each to their own I say
Then do with your mind as you please so long as that does not involve the harming of any one else
James already knows the answer to this Trixie, he’s just baiting you because you have a way of calling us idiots in your own way and so he’s just letting you dig your hole here.
The actual answer is that existence is the lack of homogeneity. As for your other ideas about existence being able to be destroyed, you actually didn’t understand the proof I gave you… if it were ever destroyed, we wouldn’t be here, because we exist, existence as a whole cannot be destroyed after the fact, because we are part of existence as a whole, if it’s destroyed a trillion years from now, we still wouldn’t be here.
So to sum this up:
Existence is a lack of homogeneity.
1.) If existence were ever destroyed we wouldn’t be here reading and typing messages.
2.) Non existence of all doesn’t exist at all, so it can’t be the case of reality.
Existence cannot be created or destroyed by any being, read proof number one, and actually proof number two is that an intelligent being is not “non existence of all doesn’t exist at all, so it can’t be the case of reality” that’s just a deterministic aspect of the self generation of existence through the proofs I just provided.
um, no.
Amazing observation. I believe I already said that several times.
Reality is the totality of all there is. if the totality of all there is was zero, that would be reality. Only there’d be noone around to say it.
Id like to see the proof please, because I read proof 1 and it doesn’t seem to prove it, so I must have read the wrong proof 1.
So you did an experiment, which gave you evidence and proof? Care to share it with us?
Really now? Can never be too careful.
Trixie, it’s a proof through inference, as I described to you earlier… Remember when I said that the set of all natural numbers are in the plus one algorithm even though we can’t count them all? That’s what proof through inference is.
Lack of all existents isn’t zero, it’s also the lack of zero… Total nothingness, it’s so totally nothingness that it’s not even possible for it to manifest, and because of this, it never was, is or will be.
The other proof is that if someone destroyed existence, we wouldn’t be here typing and reading this discussion board.
Those are proofs for why existence has to exist and why it cannot be destroyed.
Zero entails the absence of it’s word. It’s non manifestation is it’s true condition for it to be true for reality. The other type of zero, value zero, implies a relation to other numbers, the origin value. This is not the zero to which we refer.
Time is now. If in some future time, someone destroyed existence, that would be the now, and existence would be destroyed. Then corporeal time would travel an infinite span until real time (ethereal time, true time, T 0) existed again. Large conditions would have to be met for existence to be destroyed, it would have to be planned so that the conditions of existence would not possibly ever arise again, thus allowing corporeal time to travel infinitely without existence and true time (ethereal time, T 0) ever popping up again.
This is complete nonsense. If existence is ever destroyed it takes zero time to reach everything at once… We would not be typing these messages if it ever was destroyed, you reading this reply is proof that existence always exists. I also explained to you why, but you keep being obtuse when I say non existence of all existents cannot manifest because it isn’t a possible reality (it can’t exist in any form).
You don’t understand my theories. Perhaps I should have first defined things for you.
corporeal time - the timeline as earthlings call it, which is apart from absolute reality. the time you see on the clock and calendar (BC 0 AD)
ethereal time - real time, based on absolute reality and your consciousness. (T 0)
Perhaps after learning these definitions it may make more sense to you.
With that being said, I will redisplay what I already stated, which are all logical truths.
Time is now. If in some future time, someone destroyed existence, that would be the now, and existence would be destroyed. Then corporeal time would travel an infinite span until real time (ethereal time, true time, T 0) existed again. Large conditions would have to be met for existence to be destroyed, it would have to be planned so that the conditions of existence would not possibly ever arise again, thus allowing corporeal time to travel infinitely without existence and true time (ethereal time, T 0) ever popping up again.
Now, just for fun, I will add a hypothesis.
I suspect the easiest way to resolve or explore paradoxes and navigate corporeal timelines is through your mind, using a time machine that moves your consciousness.
Make more sense now?
No. It’s nonsense. Ethereal time needs to process in corporeal time to have the capacity of distinction of referents. I covered all this in my disproof of a being having an omnistate.
There is only ethereal time, corporeal time is sort of like a derived thing, an empirical abstraction. Ethereal is dependent on the corporeal, and if one of them goes, poof goes reality, forever.
Ethereal time does not need to “process” corporeal time, ethereal time only needs to have a presence of contrast and/or movement for it to be perceived.