Where are we before we are conceived?

jack

Argument Topic: Where are we before we are conceived?

@RexTheDog

Hello Rex:

Welcome to the site.

Me??  Well, half of me was residing in my moms ovaries, and the other half was taking up refuge in my dad's nutsack.

Are we good?

excon

RexTheDog

@jack agreed that's exactly where you where but that's not the whole story now is it? where where you say a bazillion years before your dads nutsack existed? before even time and space existed, before it all existed ... where where you then? 

RickeyHoltsclaw

Before fertilization in the womb where natural life is initiated, you were in the mind of our Creator awaiting an appointed time and place and purpose for your introduction into Time and physics. You were were created for a specific purpose according to a divine eschatological plan that emanates from the Spiritual Realm and once your purpose has been realized, whether or not you were successful in attaining your specific purpose, you will return to the Realm of the Spiritual for adjudication concerning what you were entrusted with and what you did with the gifts, talents, purposes, ordained before Time began.

RexTheDog

@RickeyHoltsclaw we are very much aligned on this matter what formulation of Christianity is this?

jack

RexTheDog said:

 before even time and space existed, before it all existed ... where where you then? 

Hello again, Rex:

My hometown was Uranus.   Where do YOU think we were?

excon

RickeyHoltsclaw

@RexTheDog ; "Biblical"...I simply trust what the Holy Spirit teaches me.

RexTheDog

@RickeyHoltsclaw this quote is a perfect reflection of what has occurred and is occurring now as we speak, God teaches us with the experience, the ability to experience is the anointing the exploration of truth is the learning and the reality is with these tools (our body and Mind) we are free to explore Gods existence and being of our own accord for a while eventually returning to the forefront of Gods mind where he has manifest a heaven for us to reside in and explore. quite the Gift God has given us.

RexTheDog

@jack ok Jack I don't really know, that's why I have asked you, let me try to be clearer did you exist before you existed? 

JulesKorngold

We start in Hoboken, New Jersey.  Just like Adam and Eve.

MayCaesar

The pedestrian answer is that there is no "we" before we are conceived. There are some interesting philosophical discussions to have along the lines of the Theseus' Paradox (since approximately every 7 years virtually every atom in our body changes, are we from 7 years ago the same "we" as today?), but there certainly is little to talk about before the original ship existed.

You can certainly look at every particle in your body and trace its history (in theory). If you look, say, a billion years back, your particles will be all over the Universe - in fact, many of them will not be there at all, but particles that eventually formed them will be there somewhere. Clearly that chaotic collection of particles does not represent "you" in any meaningful sense.

When we talk about a particular entity, we always assume certain boundaries of its existence. If you look at my car, you can say that it existed when it was driveable - but it did not exist 20 years before that, since it was not what we could call a "car". Sure, the engine was built separately and existed before the car with the engine in it was built - but that engine outside of the car was not very useful and did not constitute a part of the car. Much like if I cut out one of your kidneys and pull it outside of your body, that kidney will no longer be a part of you.

There is no reason for any entity to be infinitely continuous. Just like there was no car 20 years ago, there was no me or you 200 years ago - and, likely, there will not be me or you 200 years from now. The idea that our consciousness is somehow continuous and, upon death or before birth, still exists, is not entirely unreasonable - but there is zero evidence supporting it as of now. There is plenty of evidence, in fact, to suggest that consciousness requires a brain (since many processes subjects claimed to be conscious were reflected by observable signals in the brain), therefore once the human dies and the brain falls apart, the consciousness is terminated as well. By the same token, the consciousness did not exist before the brain was formed.

Factfinder

RexTheDog said:

@jack ok Jack I don't really know, that's why I have asked you, let me try to be clearer did you exist before you existed? 

That doesn't make sense. We exist so for all of time we existed. We will never not have existed. If we don't exist, we don't. Nothing further. Where did "existence" come from? Don't know and I'm comfortable with that. There are theories in philosophical, religious, spiritual and scientific realms but no one knows definitely where we came from.

Joeseph

@RexTheDog

***God teaches us with the experience, ***

Really? He watches parents experience babies die of cancer whats that " teaching" the parents?

Factfinder

Joeseph said:

@RexTheDog

***God teaches us with the experience, ***

Really? He watches parents experience babies die of cancer whats that " teaching" the parents?

It is I'm god and you're ants na na na na.

Barnardot

@RexTheDog Well first of all I was in the back seat of Dads car. Then I spent some time at my grandmas home. Then I went to visit Dad a few times at the penitentiary. Then hay bingo just before I was born I was in the back seat of an other car.
So it just goes to show that the circle of life happens even before your born.

RexTheDog01

@Joeseph ok so you've said "***God teaches us with the experience, *** Really? He watches parents experience babies die of cancer what's that " teaching" the parents?" I don't understand the sentiment or context of this point, is it your belief God exists separately from us and thus is watching babies die of cancer? or is your view that God doesn't exist so it could only be man with self awareness watching babies die of cancer?

RexTheDog01

@Barnardot What a perfect thing, thinking about this from an overview perspective, the entire majesty of the universe as a whole, the awe its size magnitude and composition strikes in the hearts of all beings observing it, zoom in a little and your Jail Bird Dad is getting his leg over in the back of a car he proly stole, spawning you in to existence only for you to expose him in his debauchery at a later date on some online forum that didn’t exist at the time you were conceived, you Dad without even knowing contributed you and all that you spawn in to the universe, without him taking to the backseat of that car your entire future blood line wouldn’t exist, the absurdity of it is there would be nobody to look up to the stars in awe if people like your dad were not compelled by an urge he has no real control over its ‘Just Natural’. For those who say science explains all… explain that as part of your universal model, explain Barnarot’s Dads existence without a God having a right laugh at us from above with his dark sense of humour. 

RexTheDog01

@Factfinder ;

Fact Finder: You have said ‘We exist so for all of time we existed’ I believe it is this that doesn’t make sense as in science there is the logic system of cause and effect, in the case of ‘‘We exist so for all of time we existed’ existence is the effect but what is the cause? To simply say, yeah we have just always existed without an explanation as to why we have always existed requires a leap of ‘Faith’ probably the biggest of all leaps of faith as the answer to this question most certainly does come with death and its either going to be a yes or a no at that stage there is no pulling back from the real answer to the ultimate question of Why?. Strangely enough the notion all will be revealed according to Gods plan certainly does align with the idea that Death is a forced answer to a fundamental question, whether we like it or not ‘all will be revealed’ eventually. its not so much 'There's God and we are ants" its more like There's God and we are the blood running through his veins, taking things from a to b within his body, all be it an abstract body in the shape of a universe just knocking around somewhere doing something. 

MayCaesar

RexTheDog01 said:

@Factfinder ;

Fact Finder: You have said ‘We exist so for all of time we existed’ I believe it is this that doesn’t make sense as in science there is the logic system of cause and effect, in the case of ‘‘We exist so for all of time we existed’ existence is the effect but what is the cause? To simply say, yeah we have just always existed without an explanation as to why we have always existed requires a leap of ‘Faith’ probably the biggest of all leaps of faith as the answer to this question most certainly does come with death and its either going to be a yes or a no at that stage there is no pulling back from the real answer to the ultimate question of Why?. Strangely enough the notion all will be revealed according to Gods plan certainly does align with the idea that Death is a forced answer to a fundamental question, whether we like it or not ‘all will be revealed’ eventually. its not so much 'There's God and we are ants" its more like There's God and we are the blood running through his veins, taking things from a to b within his body, all be it an abstract body in the shape of a universe just knocking around somewhere doing something. 

I would disagree here. Intuitively, it makes sense that the claims of the change of state would need to be proven, not the claims of the absence of change. That is, the claim that something used to not exist, but then came about, warrants justification - while the claim that something has always existed should be the null hypothesis. For something to perpetually exist, no reason is required - while for something to start existing or to stop existing, something particular has to happen.

The idea that "god" created the world makes no sense to me, for before there is world, it makes no sense to talk about anything, including "god". For "god" to exist in the first place, some world must harbor it, and that world must necessarily causally precede "god". "God" could have created this particular thing that we nowadays call the "Universe" - however, this would imply that there is something bigger, a "metaverse", in which "god" exists and in which it acts in a way that causes our Universe to emerge. And given that without our Universe there is no time either, it is not clear what all this can possibly mean.

Some very serious justification is required to make the claim that "god" created the Universe sound plausible. On the other hand, the idea that the "metaverse" exists perpetually and the Universe is its product - seems fairly obvious and indisputable to me. What do you think?

RexTheDog01

@MayCaesar you raise some interesting point here, so say if it all just existed and that the reality of if, no before just existence then what of the container of existence the space existence exists in, to occupy space you have to exist within it this requires the space to be in existence before physical matter so that the matter has a place to be, if id didn't have a place to be it wouldn't all be moving in a direction of some sort but it is so we know it is existent within something that has to logically have existed before it in order to contain it, that space is pure nothingness, this is what existence is contained within, we can see it bit there because if we weren't 'inside of something we would be outside of it and able to perceive what it is made from, whos to say we aren't outside of it, something is holding the planets up as if we are moving along a sheet of material rather than just suspended in the middle of nothing, nonmatter what way you look at it we are some where and every part of science and physics tells us cause and effect is what causes movement, what's the cause of reality? what causes reality to exist? without a cause how come it has an effect? the idea 'we just existed' breaks science, the idea 'God exists' dances with science a little, if fits a little better than an effect with no cause. for me anyways, each to their own conclusion, it would be crazy to think we could ever find answers to these fundamental in anything but death given the timespans between new discoveries and advancements maybe one day somebody will land upon a solid theory until then we need only wait out death where in it will either be all reviled or all quiet for a while until hopefully existence decides it wants to exist again for a while. quite a life we get to live, not knowing until our final breath if it was all worth it or not, having to all face down such an ending for better or worse all roads lead the same way in the end how can we say its not planed when its more precise than a highway, all paths lead to God surly? God who has proclaimed all paths lead to him, God who has proclaimed that He has conquered death and invites us to join him at the end of our days where we will see out infinity among the stars. when it comes down to it its either a choice to exists or not exist, non-existence doesn't seem to stop existence from existing so even in non existent nothingness there is still hope to exist as existence itself exists within nothingness, if it can exist there anything can exist there, nothingness is no barrier it is instead a releasing of the limit in to the infinity, a fall in to nothingness is a fall in to infinity, in a space of infinite nothingness anything is possible, we are living breathing proof of that fact. Our ability to fart out a rendition of star spankeled banner is further proof if proof where needed anything is possible in infinity! I close my case.

really enjoyed this train of thought, it has reconnected me to thinking about God. Thank you.

Barnardot

@RexTheDog01 ; Barnarot’s Dads existence without a God having a right laugh at us from above with his dark sense of humour. 

Well I hope you dont give up your day time job scrubbing pots or whatever because you have a long way to go if you want to be some sort of literary wizz. But your got to start some where I suppose. Paraphrasing what some one else says then padding it out with a heap of waffling crap is a start I suppose. So the next thing they will teach you at the remedial school for slow learning tards on the spectrum is they will get you trying to come up with some original ideas of your own to write about.

Factfinder

@RexTheDog01

 You have said ‘We exist so for all of time we existed’ I believe it is this that doesn’t make sense as in science there is the logic system of cause and effect, in the case of ‘‘We exist so for all of time we existed’ existence is the effect but what is the cause?

There is a logical construct out there of cause and effect, that is true however it is not some guidance manual for how science conducts its search for answers. Regardless of cause and effect we do exist. We've existed in the past and we exist till the next tick of the clock, the future. Now if you want to think about logical axioms you've got to think about this: If we existed in the past, we exist now, and we exist continually into the future as we are, we have existed throughout past, present and future. On top of that no amount of time will erase the fact we exist. Logical conclusion we have existed throughout the three realms of time. No apparent cause. So if everything needs a cause what caused god? Now's when you'll introduce special pleading?

Joeseph

 @RexTheDog01@MayCaesar

 you raise some interesting point here, so say if it all just existed and that the reality of if, no before just existence then what of the container of existence the space existence exists in, to occupy space you have to exist within it this requires the space to be in existence before physical matter so that the matter has a place to be, if id didn't have a place to be it wouldn't all be moving in a direction of some sort but it is so we know it is existent within something that has to logically have existed before it in order to contain it, that space is pure nothingness, this is what existence is contained within, we can see it bit there because if we weren't 'inside of something we would be outside of it and able to perceive what it is made from, whos to say we aren't outside of it, something is holding the planets up as if we are moving along a sheet of material rather than just suspended in the middle of nothing, nonmatter what way you look at it we are some where and every part of science and physics tells us cause and effect is what causes movement, what's the cause of reality? what causes reality to exist? without a cause how come it has an effect?


Causal "necessity " is psychological not logical. All we ever observe in the world is constant conjunction.


 the idea 'we just existed' breaks science, the idea 'God exists' dances with science a little, if fits a little better than an effect with no cause. for me anyways,

You haven't defined your god yet , I've said before and no offence intended but all you're doing is constantly re-stating what you've said previously but offering no proofs for your assertions.


 each to their own conclusion, it would be crazy to think we could ever find answers to these fundamental in anything but death given the timespans between new discoveries and advancements maybe one day somebody will land upon a solid theory until then we need only wait out death where in it will either be all reviled or all quiet for a while until hopefully existence decides it wants to exist again for a while. quite a life we get to live, not knowing until our final breath if it was all worth it or not, having to all face down such an ending for better or worse all roads lead the same way in the end how can we say its not planed when its more precise than a highway, all paths lead to God surly?

That's merely another unfounded assertion how did you conclude we " find answers in death"?

You also finish by saying " all paths lead to god surely " how do you know this? What's god?


God who has proclaimed all paths lead to him, God who has proclaimed that He has conquered death and invites us to join him at the end of our days where we will see out infinity among the stars. when it comes down to it its either a choice to exists or not exist, non-existence doesn't seem to stop existence from existing so even in non existent nothingness there is still hope to exist as existence itself exists within nothingness, if it can exist there anything can exist there, nothingness is no barrier it is instead a releasing of the limit in to the infinity, a fall in to nothingness is a fall in to infinity, in a space of infinite nothingness anything is possible, we are living breathing proof of that fact

Which god proclaimed this to you and when? When you're dead you're dead if that's not the case prove otherwise.

You keep talking about " nothingness" and then defining what it is do you not see how utterly ridiculous that is?


. Our ability to fart out a rendition of star spankeled banner is further proof if proof where needed anything is possible in infinity! I close my case.


You haven't got a case I'm afraid just subjective opinion after subjective opinion you never once attempt to back up , that's preaching my friend not debating.

MayCaesar

RexTheDog01 said:

@MayCaesar you raise some interesting point here, so say if it all just existed and that the reality of if, no before just existence then what of the container of existence the space existence exists in, to occupy space you have to exist within it this requires the space to be in existence before physical matter so that the matter has a place to be, if id didn't have a place to be it wouldn't all be moving in a direction of some sort but it is so we know it is existent within something that has to logically have existed before it in order to contain it, that space is pure nothingness, this is what existence is contained within, we can see it bit there because if we weren't 'inside of something we would be outside of it and able to perceive what it is made from, whos to say we aren't outside of it, something is holding the planets up as if we are moving along a sheet of material rather than just suspended in the middle of nothing, nonmatter what way you look at it we are some where and every part of science and physics tells us cause and effect is what causes movement, what's the cause of reality? what causes reality to exist? without a cause how come it has an effect? the idea 'we just existed' breaks science, the idea 'God exists' dances with science a little, if fits a little better than an effect with no cause. for me anyways, each to their own conclusion, it would be crazy to think we could ever find answers to these fundamental in anything but death given the timespans between new discoveries and advancements maybe one day somebody will land upon a solid theory until then we need only wait out death where in it will either be all reviled or all quiet for a while until hopefully existence decides it wants to exist again for a while. quite a life we get to live, not knowing until our final breath if it was all worth it or not, having to all face down such an ending for better or worse all roads lead the same way in the end how can we say its not planed when its more precise than a highway, all paths lead to God surly? God who has proclaimed all paths lead to him, God who has proclaimed that He has conquered death and invites us to join him at the end of our days where we will see out infinity among the stars. when it comes down to it its either a choice to exists or not exist, non-existence doesn't seem to stop existence from existing so even in non existent nothingness there is still hope to exist as existence itself exists within nothingness, if it can exist there anything can exist there, nothingness is no barrier it is instead a releasing of the limit in to the infinity, a fall in to nothingness is a fall in to infinity, in a space of infinite nothingness anything is possible, we are living breathing proof of that fact. Our ability to fart out a rendition of star spankeled banner is further proof if proof where needed anything is possible in infinity! I close my case.

really enjoyed this train of thought, it has reconnected me to thinking about God. Thank you.

One of the most dangerous actions epistemologically is extrapolating a phenomenon from a particular domain to all domains. It is true that in physics every phenomenon must have a cause: that is, everything that happens can be described by equations that are fundamentally grounded in some immutable properties of reality. However, it does not imply that everything must have a cause.

Let me ask you one question illustrating it in a spectacular way: "What is the cause of the fact that everything must have a cause?" This question is unanswerable: if you were to find something that is such a cause, then that cause, in turn, would be a part of "everything" and would need to have its own cause... But then that cause would be the true cause of everything having a cause... You see the problem here, right?

Physics we all are familiar with deals with the properties of the Universe that already exists (there are some models that try to go beyond it and consider "Metaverse", or "Multiverse" - but those models are abstractions and do not generate any observable predictions, for it is fundamentally impossible to look beyond the Universe). They are ill-extrapolatable to domains outside of said Universe. We know that, for instance, the spacetime we inhabit is confined to our Universe: "outside" of it time and space make no sense, neither does the concept of "cause". "Cause" fundamentally implies temporality of the phenomenon - something has to happen "before" the effect - and there is no "before" if there is no time.

So it is not just that "the Universe has always existed" is the null hypothesis. It is even that the Universe just is. It makes no sense to talk about non-existence of the Universe, for without the Universe "existence" loses all meaning. We can say that this rock exists in this Universe, but we cannot say that this rock exists in any meaningful way without the Universe. If there is no Universe, there is no rock - moreover, there is no "there", there is no "is", and there is no "no".

Now, many people are uncomfortable with this. They feel that this is a cop-out, an attempt to terminate the discussion of something important. They have a hard time accepting the idea that there is nothing beyond this Universe, before or after it, that there is nothing before conception or after death (for there is no conscious mind which could perceive something). That there is no external purpose to one's existence, that we are all just bunches of particles moving around and gradually decaying. That, according to modern theories, a very long time into the future the Universe will become a very-very empty place with nothing interesting happening in it and no conscious minds to even observe it. "Should there not be something more to all of this?"

But I struggle to understand where the discomfort comes from. It is not that different from growing up and leaving one's parents' place. When you lived with your parents, they gave you directions, they told you what to do and how to navigate this life. Then you moved out and started living on your own, and nobody tells you what to do anymore. Does it mean that your life is suddenly empty and meaningless?

As the popular saying goes, "Change that which you can change, and accept that which you cannot". If you are bound to die eventually and if all traces of your existence are bound to be gone a few thousand years after that, then so be it. It is neither good nor bad: it is just how the world works. Now you can take the life that you do currently have and build something amazing in it, not worrying what happens when it is gone. And when it is gone, then... what happens happens, if anything. No need to worry about things that are inevitable and that everyone eventually goes through. You do not remember the day when you were born, and that does not torment you (I assume) - why would not having anything after the day you die be any different?

If anything, death is the most peaceful experience you can have. After death you have nothing to worry about (literally), as far as this reality goes. Maybe you then wake up in a white room with a headset on and realize that all this was just a simulation - you go eat a sci-fi breakfast, then browse through the list of simulations to choose the next one (and you choose to be some bizarre octopus-like creature in a 4-dimensional space). Maybe you become a different human or animal here on Earth, and your life starts all over again, with no memories of your current life. Or maybe there is just... nothing afterwards. You die and that is it. Again, since you do not have consciousness any more, it is not the same as being stuck in some dark place forever not being able to do anything: it is rather the same as not being born yet - there is nothing there.

Joeseph

@RexTheDog01


" I don't understand the sentiment or context of this point,

Really? You said " god teaches us with experience " right ? My  follow up question is asking you something very specific about your assertion.


 is it your belief God exists separately from us and thus is watching babies die of cancer?

I don't believe in god I'm asking you a pretty simple question regards your contentions about how your particular god thinks.


or is your view that God doesn't exist so it could only be man with self awareness watching babies die of cancer?

Read above , why is it you never address questions instead preferring to issue contradictory statements that have nothing to do with what I actually asked 

RexTheDog01

@Joeseph ;Some excellent and fair points you have raised

“Causal "necessity” is psychological not logical. All we ever observe in the world is constant conjunction.”

-          This is not completely true, we are not only able to observe what’s not there, we observe the not there at all times. Thoughts are not ‘there’ but they certainly are ‘observable’ my ‘non physically existent thoughts are conversing with me right now as I write this I can hear these thoughts but they are not physically there. The idea something has to be physically existent to be observed is flawed, dreams are not physically there but they are observable in some dream states we can even feel in some cases causing movement response. So a strong part of the world in constant conjunction is the non-physical manifest as some form of observable ‘visible’ and reality

 

You haven't defined your god yet , I've said before and no offence intended but all you're doing is constantly re-stating what you've said previously but offering no proofs for your assertions.

-          I have defined God may times across many threads of conversation, to clarify I personally believe God is everything in existence as a whole, if I were to try and make it clearer I would say:

 

-          “God is the totality of existence in movement”

 

That's merely another unfounded assertion how did you conclude we "find answers in death"?

-          Death itself is the answer I was referring too, it is certain that we all face death it is certain that one of 2 things will occur at the point of death either we will enter non-existence or we will continue to exist, death is the answer to the meaning of life question as death forces us to confront the answer by pushing us ‘one way’ over the edge of life and in to death, we can’t stop death we can only observe its cause and effect, the effect part is only visible when one dies, thus the ultimate question in answered in death as we draw our last breath.

 

You also finish by saying " all paths lead to god surely " how do you know this? What's god?

-          All paths lead to death, God is death we know this because death is where we came from, before we were born we were dead (non –existent) we came from non – existence to exist that space of nonexistence I believe is God, I have described the infinity of nothing in another argument but this is to big to get in to again so I’m happy to filed any questions you have about this part of my argument rather than getting in to the rabbit hole of nothingness again.

 

Which god proclaimed this to you and when? When you're dead you're dead if that's not the case prove otherwise.

-          When we are dead we are non-existent but nonexistence is no barrier to existence, science is finding this with the idea of super position, physical matter at the quantum level can seemingly pop in and out of existence at will, thus it’s reasonable to conclude that non-existence is no barrier to existence, in this case something has to exist outside of existence as if it doesn’t then where do the quantum particles go? Where do they come from when they just ‘pop in’ to existence? This is where my belief in God is founded it is in the understanding that things can just exists or not exists, no barrier to existence seems present so why would there be a barrier to existing again after death? The science we ‘believe’ in has no concrete answers as to the mechanism for super position, at a fundamental level a particles position is ‘non-permanent’ yet at the same time permanent a ‘super’ position that not an exact position. It stands to reason that if we cannot lock on to the position of matter with some degree of accuracy then we cannot say for sure it exists at all because one minute its there the next it isn’t. my belief in God is closer to the belief set of science than the dogmatic set offered by religion  

 

You keep talking about " nothingness" and then defining what it is do you not see how utterly ridiculous that is?

 

-          Nothingness is ridiculous! this is the foundation of my argument, it is in this ridiculousness we find the infinity required to produce a ‘God’ and or everything else we know infinity exists but where does it exist? The nothing that can logically contain an infinity is an equal and opposite infinity of nothingness, you need only look past the stars to see this infinite nothingness how can we say nothingness is not present when it is all around us?  Is nothingness not the background upon which all things are visible?

 

You haven't got a case I'm afraid just subjective opinion after subjective opinion you never once attempt to back up , that's preaching my friend not debating.

 

Agreed my opinion is subjective and formulated for my case only. If science can ‘fill in the gaps then by all means this is a belief you should dwell in. it should be noted though when science rewards itself for each new discovery with lavish award ceremonies and dinners, and networking events, and that weird Shiva cult at Cern do they not feel embarrassed that they cannot answer fundamental questions such as ‘what is between physical matter?’ Their best answer being ‘dark matter’ no more than a ‘Subjective opinion’ copy pasted as factual serious science.

When science says you die and that’s it for me this is not an adequate answer without proof of non-existence for you see non-existence cannot exist so what then is death? How can it be non-existence? Nonexistence doesn’t exist so only one answer is available in death further existence exists and there in is the problem at hand, either non-existence exists or it doesn’t exist which is it?

Factfinder

@RexTheDog01

-          Nothingness is ridiculous! this is the foundation of my argument, it is in this ridiculousness we find the infinity required to produce a ‘God’ and or everything else we know infinity exists but where does it exist? The nothing that can logically contain an infinity is an equal and opposite infinity of nothingness, you need only look past the stars to see this infinite nothingness how can we say nothingness is not present when it is all around us?  Is nothingness not the background upon which all things are visible?

No for a couple reasons. When you look out into space and see 'nothing' that doesn't mean nothing is there. Everything you see in the foreground has something, (not nothing) in the background yet the object of your attention is the thing in the foreground being seen. Your statements are too broad leaving way to much for interpretation. Finally if you're saying that infinity produced god then god has a beginning and can't be the one constant in the universe that Christians tend to argue. Also they tend to say an 'intelligence', not any element or concept of time had to have been creator.

RexTheDog01

@Joeseph ;

With regard your point about ‘Babies Dying Of Cancer’ I am misinterpreting your sentiment with this line of questioning?

 

I will take your examples as lead

 

So first let’s say God exists the question is why does He give babies cancer? I personally don’t know why, my understanding is not that God is separate from us my view is God is everything, the Baby, the cancer, himself the universe all of it. God is manifest as everything everywhere. Quite why everything everywhere would feel the need to play through a story where millions of Babies die of cancer over thousands of years this is beyond my scope of reasoning. The cope I cling to with this thought is the possibility of eternal life in which case the babies have not died of cancer they have merely had cancer for a while then moved to a new form of life in the existence infinity.

 

I agree with you this is a weak attempt to rationalise such atrocity manifest I will re-address this when we get to the ‘No God’ stage of my point. In the case of Gods existence that’s a question He has to be asked directly and with the conviction to not go weak at the knees in the face of the creator of the universe when asking it. In scripture Jesus says God allows his creation to ‘come boldly to the throne’ the question you have raised would certainly be a good reason to take God up on this offer however this is Biblical God, the same God who cast floods and plagues upon us, the same God who gambled with Satan to test Job, a God of jealously and wrath, its should be noted though that the idea of biblical God comes from scripture, scripture is the work of Mans hands not God and thus subject to mans flawed corruption, we need only look to the profit that has been made from this scripture to see it cannot be of a ‘good’ God as in is disgusting opulence and deviancy paintings adorn the walls of its palace, its profits have their own Bank, a bank that was used to harbour the gold taken from the fillings of Jews during the holocaust,  or in the way the men who preach this scripture guard it so viciously as to have initiated conflict after conflict in its name. Universal God is a different concept all together, it’s not the manmade God of yore, it’s the everything all at once seemingly … forever.     

 

Now let’s say God doesn’t exist how then can we explain babies with cancer? Well we have the manmade industrial revolution in our rear view, we know for sure there is no good reason for a healthy baby to get cancer unless genetic predisposition to it exists as the baby hasn’t had enough time to develop the neurosis that often leads to cancer outcomes. This genetic predisposition in mind it could be postulated that the impact of industrialisation on our forefathers DNA caused genomic weakness in the DNA information that was passed on generationally, pre disposing future spawn to damaged DNA, we know for sure older cultures had much more lax rules when it came to health and safety, in some cases uranium face masks where all the rage not too long ago, along with baby heroin and cocaine pain killers sold by snake oil salesmen, now morphed in to forever chemicals, micro plastics and MRNA poisoning in the modern day.

 

To further this point questions could also be asked as to why babies are still dying of cancer? We have all the medical marvels at our disposal, the most advanced equipment and treatments however man being man an insidious pay wall exists between babies and access to the most advanced treatment. It stands to reason that somewhere somebody decided it ok to put a price on a child’s life, that price is the cost of advanced cancer treatment made inaccessible to those who can’t afford thus the most disgusting statistic in existence increases year on year as man stands by and lets other men tell them it’s ok to price children out of life. In this Godless world who is to blame for babies with cancer? The answer is quite simple Man is to blame for it is man who has dominion over life and death in a Godless world, it is Man who sends man to nonexistence knowing full well that without God non-existence means nonexistence. It easy to blame God for babies with cancer ignoring man’s influence in the matter but when man’s actions are brought in to question it is much more conceivable that man is to blame for babies with cancer than the universe itself creating such conditions, the universe certainly gave rise to us but we are free to make our own decisions, looking at the reality we have created for ourselves one can’t help but hope there is an eternal life so this one can be left behind for a fairer more reasonable existence.

 

Your case is correct in the end I merely hope God exists I don’t actually know, my logic says he has to but my logic is man’s logic my kin in this realm have proven man’s logic is flawed enough to look at a defenceless innocent baby with cancer and first try to blame a mystical God for it and then instead of addressing the problem apply the additional burden of profit to it instead. The mankind I am part of invented a monetary system out of thin air then stuck by the rules of this system with such vigilance as to watch countless baby’s die of cancer when treatments exist and are left unoffered to assist the child because somebody somewhere will lose the money required to buy a new car or an expensive coat, mankind itself is illogical in this circumstance, in fact far beyond illogical and well in to the absurd, enough so to compel me to seek a deeper meaning beyond that of the ‘universe just exists this way’ no reason applicable, that to me is more of an insult to babies with cancer than ‘God did it, if God did it, it stands to reason that God can undo it, looking in to eternity God sure has enough time to undo it.

RexTheDog01

@MayCaesar to keep it simple i have italic and bolded your points and responded in order again what a journey you have opened up before me

One of the most dangerous actions epistemologically is extrapolating a phenomenon from a particular domain to all domains. It is true that in physics every phenomenon must have a cause: that is, everything that happens can be described by equations that are fundamentally grounded in some immutable properties of reality. However, it does not imply that everything must have a cause.

 Let me ask you one question illustrating it in a spectacular way: "What is the cause of the fact that everything must have a cause?" This question is unanswerable: if you were to find something that is such a cause, then that cause, in turn, would be a part of "everything" and would need to have its own cause... But then that cause would be the true cause of everything having a cause... You see the problem here, right?

 This is a problem, you are correct, for everything to have a cause requires cause itself to have a cause, this places my logic into a self-feeding paradox loop. Interesting, I have not seen it from this perspective before.

 Physics we all are familiar with deals with the properties of the Universe that already exists (there are some models that try to go beyond it and consider "Metaverse", or "Multiverse" - but those models are abstractions and do not generate any observable predictions, for it is fundamentally impossible to look beyond the Universe). They are ill-extrapolatable to domains outside of said Universe. We know that, for instance, the spacetime we inhabit is confined to our Universe: "outside" of it time and space make no sense, neither does the concept of "cause". "Cause" fundamentally implies temporality of the phenomenon - something has to happen "before" the effect - and there is no "before" if there is no time.

 Again this is correct, the idea of an "outside" of it time and space certainly would make absolutely no sense to an observer locked within this reality however I would add that to the observer death represents a place that is outside of ‘space time’ so I can say that for sure we get too at some point experience what it means for our conscious awareness now to at some point be ‘outside of space time’ in this case could it not be said that we get the answer or ‘truth’ of it all in the end?

 So it is not just that "the Universe has always existed" is the null hypothesis. It is even that the Universe just is. It makes no sense to talk about non-existence of the Universe, for without the Universe "existence" loses all meaning. We can say that this rock exists in this Universe, but we cannot say that this rock exists in any meaningful way without the Universe. If there is no Universe, there is no rock - moreover, there is no "there", there is no "is", and there is no "no".

 Now this is pure philosophy at its finest, you are presenting a space outside of time and space where no logic or reason exists, yet through the medium of philosophy unburdened by established facts we are able to explore this space and ask questions of it, the point you have made above has me interested in your thoughts on observable universal laws and the concept of duality? How do these concepts fit with the non-existence of non-existence? Are we not currently exploring non-existence using non-physically existent thought as our body? Quite as strange thing to have though come to us from nonexistence to explain to us that non-existence is non-existent. Though itself becomes an abstract concept when we consider its physical constituents logically.  

Now, many people are uncomfortable with this. They feel that this is a cop-out, an attempt to terminate the discussion of something important. They have a hard time accepting the idea that there is nothing beyond this Universe, before or after it, that there is nothing before conception or after death (for there is no conscious mind which could perceive something). That there is no external purpose to one's existence, that we are all just bunches of particles moving around and gradually decaying. That, according to modern theories, a very long time into the future the Universe will become a very-very empty place with nothing interesting happening in it and no conscious minds to even observe it. "Should there not be something more to all of this?"

But I struggle to understand where the discomfort comes from. It is not that different from growing up and leaving one's parents' place. When you lived with your parents, they gave you directions, they told you what to do and how to navigate this life. Then you moved out and started living on your own, and nobody tells you what to do anymore. Does it mean that your life is suddenly empty and meaningless?

I accept this view point, but in exploring it I find more questions than answers, what you say is logically 100% correct there is nothing outside of this universe, before or after it, this is correct I can’t dispute it but when I accept it I am left with questions such as is that nothing ‘infinite’? Following your train of thought ‘we are here, we will be here until a long time in to the future as we expand in to the future, in to the nothingness.

 All we really know is that we are here and now which begs the question if we are here, what’s ‘over there’ and this is where infinity trips me up because if nothingness is infinite then there is an infinite amount of nothingness for something ‘other’ than us (when I say us I mean all of reality and existence) to exist, if we exist the way we do then it is reasonable to assume another can too, what would stop it? to play devil’s advocate if nothing isn’t infinite then it’s not nothing it’s a container, it has an edge, it contains us ‘existence’ within its limitations. Nothing can only be one or the other it can be either infinite nothing or limited nothing, it can’t be both, we are expanding in to it somehow, at so point we will discover an edge or we won’t and thus an answer is automatically generated at that exact time of eith reaching the edge or dying out before we do.

As the popular saying goes, "Change that which you can change, and accept that which you cannot". If you are bound to die eventually and if all traces of your existence are bound to be gone a few thousand years after that, then so be it. It is neither good nor bad: it is just how the world works. Now you can take the life that you do currently have and build something amazing in it, not worrying what happens when it is gone. And when it is gone, then... what happens happens, if anything. No need to worry about things that are inevitable and that everyone eventually goes through. You do not remember the day when you were born, and that does not torment you (I assume) - why would not having anything after the day you die be any different?

If anything, death is the most peaceful experience you can have. After death you have nothing to worry about (literally), as far as this reality goes. Maybe you then wake up in a white room with a headset on and realize that all this was just a simulation - you go eat a sci-fi breakfast, then browse through the list of simulations to choose the next one (and you choose to be some bizarre octopus-like creature in a 4-dimensional space). Maybe you become a different human or animal here on Earth, and your life starts all over again, with no memories of your current life. Or maybe there is just... nothing afterwards. You die and that is it. Again, since you do not have consciousness any more, it is not the same as being stuck in some dark place forever not being able to do anything: it is rather the same as not being born yet - there is nothing there.

We are certainly moving on to a similar wavelength now, I like to imagine the prospect of it being an opening of real eyes with the perception of everything all at once, in near death experiences a tangible amount of people refer to a download of knowledge taking place and a feeling of being everywhere at once, the interesting aspect being that to be a confirmed NDE requires you to have been clinically dead at the time of experience, the interesting thing is consciousness seems to persist for some going on to meet the creator whom they discover is themselves manifest as human for a while, even in the event its lights out as you say the bliss of ‘total peace’ I have the suspicion I was there before I was here and now which comforts me to the extent that as we now swim around in this nothingness outside of our entire being in its totality I know for sure that even in nothing existence is possible at any time in the infinity of nothing we are all just ‘floating around in’  

 What compels me to think this way is exactly as you say a seeking of meaning where there is the possibility of no meaning. The logic trap I have falling into for comfort is the trap of infinitely asking ‘but why?” for me there is comfort in both not knowing why and seeking the why of it all as this propels my thoughts forward rather than holding them still to dwell on the prospect of meaningless nothingness, it is fear of the unknown that drives me forward it is the prospect of infinity that lights the way towards a future, it is the fear of no infinity that drags me back towards the nothing, my comfort now requires me to face the infinity meaningless nothing and try to draw meaning from it so I ask why over and over until the answer arrives. Fate has placed a time limit on this quest where in at the end, as my eyes close one last time I will see one last thing just before the answer comes, an answer I cannot escape, an inevitable answer a simple Yes or No. my response being either ‘oh now I see!’ or …    

Joeseph

When I talk of casual necessity I'm addressing your point regards cause and effect , you are talking about something else that's totally unrelated.


God is the totality of existence in movement”

You have given several different definitions for god all of them so far just attach god to a label that already has a definition, you have just done it again with this definition.

Existence is always in movement so all you've said "god is movement" nothing else.

Death itself is the answer I was referring too,

You don't know this again it's just your best guess based on nothing but personal whim.

All paths lead to death, God is death

You just said god is existence ,you previously said god is nothing , now god is death , it seems anything you cannot explain becomes god.


When we are dead we are non-existent but nonexistence is no barrier to existence

Really ? How many of the trillions of dead people have returned and walked the planet to prove this assertion?

Non existence is exactly what it means , it gets a bit tedious the way you constantly re -define terms to.mean something they don't.


Nothingness is ridiculous! this is the foundation of my argument, it is in this ridiculousness we find the infinity required to produce a ‘God’ and or everything else we know infinity exists but where does it exist? The nothing that can logically contain an infinity is an equal and opposite infinity of nothingness, you need only look past the stars to see this infinite nothingness how can we say nothingness is not present when it is all around us?  Is nothingness not the background upon which all things are visible?***

I didn't say nothingness was ridiculous I said you attempting to define it is, can you see the difference?

There you go again attempting to assert your definition of god into existence.

You're again defining " nothing" as something without a shred of evidence for your claims , you have never examined " nothing" or " nothinness" if so tell me when and how you've gotten back to a  state of so called  " nothingness" to make these unfounded claims?

. If science can ‘fill in the gaps then by all means this is a belief you should dwell in.

Will you stop attempting to constantly misrepresent me?

I never said I was waiting for science to fill the gaps and it's not my " belief " they can. You seem to be so eager to type back an answer you don't even properly read what's being said to you.


when science rewards itself for each new discovery with lavish award ceremonies and dinners, and networking events, and that weird Shiva cult at Cern do they not feel embarrassed that they cannot answer fundamental questions such as ‘what is between physical matter?’ Their best answer being ‘dark matter’ no more than a ‘Subjective opinion’ copy pasted as factual serious science.

So why don't you help them.out and answer for them seeing as you know it all?

That sounds pretty petty and narrow minded ro me , Scientific discoveries of brilliance are rightly rewarded many save and enhance lives.

A " Shiva cult " at cern? That sounds like something a young earther would say are you a young earther?

The CERN ritual hoax is a found footage video that depicts a faux occult ritual occurring in the grounds of CERN, the intergovernmental organization that operates the largest particle physics laboratory in the world. The video became popular in August 2016 and shows several people dressed in black cloaks surrounding a statue of the Hindu deity Shiva and apparently performing a human sacrifice, in apparent mockery of existing conspiracy theories which suggest that CERN aims to use the Large Hadron Collider to create a portal to hell, summon the antichrist, or destroy the universe.[1] The video ended with the person filming crying out and running away.[2]

YOU FELL FOR THAT SERIOUSLY?!!!!!

Because science cannot answer everything like you and other belivers in a god is no cause for embarrassment , the opposite in fact is true as people like you and fellow believers in god answer everything you don't know with "GODIDIT".

Your contentions regards Science just being a " subjective opinion " is utterly ridiculous and the " copy and pasted" smacks of childish petulance.

Listen you may claim to know everything like other believers by resorting to an appeal to magic but science is comfortable with saying we don't know but we don't mind working on it , you see that as a point to spiteful attack and mockery , I wonder why?


When science says you die and that’s it for me this is not an adequate answer without proof of non-existence for you see non-existence cannot exist so what then is death? How can it be non-existence? Nonexistence doesn’t exist so only one answer is available in death further existence exists and there in is the problem at hand, either non-existence exists or it doesn’t exist which is it?


Non existence is the terminology as in a descriptor for that which is dead , that which is dead is non existent , I'm beginning to think your trolling now as no one can be so utterly confused by basic terminology and it's meaning.

Joeseph

@RexTheDog01

So first let’s say God exists the question is why does He give babies cancer? I personally don’t know why, my understanding is not that God is separate from us my view is God is everything, the Baby, the cancer, himself the universe all of it. God is manifest as everything everywhere. Quite why everything everywhere would feel the need to play through a story where millions of Babies die of cancer over thousands of years this is beyond my scope of reasoning. The cope I cling to with this thought is the possibility of eternal life in which case the babies have not died of cancer they have merely had cancer for a while then moved to a new form of life in the existence infinity.

But you previously said .......
 " god teaches us with experience "
now you admit you don't know ?
Why can you not just stick to that?

Your best answer now is that the babies " didn't die of cancer they just had it then moved to.a new life" .......seriously? 

Bet you wouldn't say that to grieving parents?



. It easy to blame God for babies with cancer ignoring man’s influence in the matter but when man’s actions are brought in to question it is much more conceivable that man is to blame for babies with cancer than the universe itself creating such conditions, the universe certainly gave rise to us but we are free to make our own decisions, looking at the reality we have created for ourselves one can’t help but hope there is an eternal life so this one can be left behind for a fairer more reasonable existence.


There you go again totally misreprenting what I said you keep doing this as in misquoting me , I said and asked ......

He watches parents experience babies die of cancer what's that " teaching" the parents?" .....

You said you don't know yet type paragraph after paragraph of totally unrelated content never answering what I'm actually asking

So in closing you mock science for not being able to answer what you call " fundamental questions" yet when your asked several times now how god watching parents experience a baby die of cancer is teaching them with experience " yet now admit you don't know and instead deliver a sermon on how parents around the world are guilty by association for their child's cancer.

You seem to be a conspiracy theorist as in the totally anti science type is that correct?

 

jack

Factfinder said:

RexTheDog said:

@jack ok Jack I don't really know, that's why I have asked you, let me try to be clearer did you exist before you existed? 

That doesn't make sense. We exist so for all of time we existed. We will never not have existed.

Hello Rex and Fact:

Deep stuff, du*des.  What you say might be true once we ascertain the origins of life.  Personally, I believe in reincarnation...  I only believe that because I know my dog is me.  

excon

Factfinder

jack said:

Factfinder said:

RexTheDog said:

@jack ok Jack I don't really know, that's why I have asked you, let me try to be clearer did you exist before you existed? 

That doesn't make sense. We exist so for all of time we existed. We will never not have existed.

Hello Rex and Fact:

Deep stuff, du*des.  What you say might be true once we ascertain the origins of life.  Personally, I believe in reincarnation...  I only believe that because I know my dog is me.  

excon

Good point.

Wait, how can your dog be you when you're still breathing? Don't you have to die before you incarnate?

RexTheDog01

@Joeseph I no longer understand your stance, you have become incoherent, in my argument i gave my opinion from both perspectives as I view the matter, i used scenarios for and against what you had underpinned your ‘babies with cancer argument with, I attempted to see it from both perspectives and this threw up new questions which I asked in a relatively rhetorical way so as to not offend, this was done because your argument was underpinned by emotion ‘Babies with Cancer’ a very sensitive subject. I truly admitted I don’t know as my perspective had been changed by the points you raised which is the overarching objective of debate ‘changing minds’ yet somehow you took offence to this anyway so much so as to target points in my argument revolving around conspiracy.

 

As to the incoherence of your response you made the initial point that God is to blame for babies with cancer yet your view point seems to be God doesn’t exist, in response to this I generated a hypothetical scenario where God doesn’t exist and asked a key question, if God doesn’t exist then whos to blame for babies with cancer, I then attempted to attribute blame to man in such a scenario giving examples of where I believe true blame lies on the matter, rather than challenge this point you have swung back to God existing and attempted to box me off in the view God exists which is incoherent as you don’t seem to believe this yet you are trying to force me to stick to this belief rather than convince me otherwise. Are you able to hold two opposing views within your frame of thought so as to explore the topic from opposing sides? I have attempted to do this and you seem to have been insulted by it, this is implied by how you finished your response “You seem to be a conspiracy theorist as in the totally anti science type is that correct?” I am certainly not anti-science and I am keen to explore ideas generated by science, that being said I am certainly anti-establishment science as this type of closed minded science generates characters such as Degrease Tyson and Bill Nye whom to be clear are ‘ shills’.

As to the conspiracy element to my response, you are correct in this at least, I am for better or worse a conspiracy theorist, I had mentioned The Shiva Cult at CERN (the home of frontier science) you mocked this idea, to that I would say have a look at the entrance to CERN and explain the statue of Shiva an Indian deity that sits directly outside CERN, explain the demonic opening ceremony for the CERN complex which featured Satan of all things or the ‘Mock human sacrifice’ that took place at the statue of Shiva outside, attached below is some evidence for this...

 

 

all just a conspiracy right? you wana talk about scientist lets talk about these scientists! 

Joeseph

@RexTheDog01


ARGUMENT TOPIC:  REX CANNOT ANSWER ONE QUESTION I HAVE ASKED HIM TO ANSWER 6 TIMES NOW BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS APPARENTLY " INCOHERENT" .......WHAT A COWARDLY RESPONSE

THIS TO ADD TO HIS LONG LIST OF UNPROVEN CLAIMS THAT HE NEVER ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY


You previously said .......
 " god teaches us with experience "
now you admit you don't know ?
Why can you not just stick to that?

Your best answer now is that the babies " didn't die of cancer they just had it then moved to.a new life" .......seriously? 

Do you want it simplified even more to make it more " coherent"?

 I no longer understand your stance, you have become incoherent,

I haven't become " incoherent " you said " god teaches by experience " then you said " you dont know why  god watches babies die of cancer" , now you make an excuse and attempt to blame me for your dishonesty.

In my argument i gave my opinion from both perspectives as I view the matter, i used scenarios for and against what you had underpinned your ‘babies witcancer argument with, I attempted to see it from both perspectives and this threw up new questions which I asked in a relatively rhetorical way so as to not offend, this was done because your argument was underpinned by emotion ‘Babies with Cancer’ a very sensitive subject.

My argument asked  you to explain how god teaches by experience you now resort to yet another lie in an attempt to avoid answering , so what if its a " sensitive matter" ?

t. I truly admitted I don’t know as my perspective had been changed by the points you raised which is the overarching objective of debate ‘changing minds’ yet somehow you took offence to this anyway so much so as to target points in my argument revolving around conspiracy.

Yet another lie from you I didn't take offence I asked you how god teaches by experience and here you are still running.

 

As to the incoherence of your response you made the initial point that God is to blame for babies with cancer 

I never said  that god is to blame yet another lie.

My response is perfectly coherent I'm asking you to answer the claim you made you refuse to answer.

et your view point seems to be God doesn’t exist, in response to this I generated a hypothetical scenario where God doesn’t exist and asked a key question, if God doesn’t exist then whos to blame for babies with cancer, I then attempted to attribute blame to man in such a scenario giving examples of where I believe true blame lies on the matter, rather than challenge this point you have swung back to God existing and attempted to box me off in the view God exists which is incoherent as you don’t seem to believe this yet you are trying to force me to stick to this belief rather than convince me otherwise. Are you able to hold two opposing views within your frame of thought so as to explore the topic from opposing sides? I have attempted to do this and you seem to have been insulted by it, this is implied by how you finished your response “You seem to be a conspiracy theorist as in the totally anti science type is that correct?” I am certainly not anti-science and I am keen to explore ideas generated by science, that being said I am certainly anti-establishment science as this type of closed minded science generates characters such as Degrease Tyson and Bill Nye whom to be clear are ‘ shills’.

You're still lying and running.

As to the conspiracy element to my response, you are correct in this at least, I am for better or worse a conspiracy theorist, I had mentioned The Shiva Cult at CERN (the home of frontier science) you mocked this idea, to that I would say have a look at the entrance to CERN and explain the statue of Shiva an Indian deity that sits directly outside CERN, explain the demonic opening ceremony for the CERN complex which featured Satan of all things or the ‘Mock human sacrifice’ that took place at the statue of Shiva outside, attached below is some evidence for this...

I sent you a link you totally ignored as true to form.you refuse to answer anything that challenges your long winded theories ,the CERN hoax was designed and planned to dupe  gullible  people ike you .....I see it worked.

MayCaesar

RexTheDog01 said:

 Physics we all are familiar with deals with the properties of the Universe that already exists (there are some models that try to go beyond it and consider "Metaverse", or "Multiverse" - but those models are abstractions and do not generate any observable predictions, for it is fundamentally impossible to look beyond the Universe). They are ill-extrapolatable to domains outside of said Universe. We know that, for instance, the spacetime we inhabit is confined to our Universe: "outside" of it time and space make no sense, neither does the concept of "cause". "Cause" fundamentally implies temporality of the phenomenon - something has to happen "before" the effect - and there is no "before" if there is no time.

 Again this is correct, the idea of an "outside" of it time and space certainly would make absolutely no sense to an observer locked within this reality however I would add that to the observer death represents a place that is outside of ‘space time’ so I can say that for sure we get too at some point experience what it means for our conscious awareness now to at some point be ‘outside of space time’ in this case could it not be said that we get the answer or ‘truth’ of it all in the end?

The problem here is, our conscious awareness itself it confined to the spacetime. It seems to me that outside of the spacetime it makes no sense to talk about it, unless the spacetime itself is derivative of something else where the "true consciousness" is grounded. If we live in a simulated world and our consciousness (which, admittedly, we have no scientific explanation of at the moment) comes from that world, then upon our death here we might find ourselves back in that world. But this is a very far-fetched theory.

RexTheDog01 said:

So it is not just that "the Universe has always existed" is the null hypothesis. It is even that the Universe just is. It makes no sense to talk about non-existence of the Universe, for without the Universe "existence" loses all meaning. We can say that this rock exists in this Universe, but we cannot say that this rock exists in any meaningful way without the Universe. If there is no Universe, there is no rock - moreover, there is no "there", there is no "is", and there is no "no".

 Now this is pure philosophy at its finest, you are presenting a space outside of time and space where no logic or reason exists, yet through the medium of philosophy unburdened by established facts we are able to explore this space and ask questions of it, the point you have made above has me interested in your thoughts on observable universal laws and the concept of duality? How do these concepts fit with the non-existence of non-existence? Are we not currently exploring non-existence using non-physically existent thought as our body? Quite as strange thing to have though come to us from nonexistence to explain to us that non-existence is non-existent. Though itself becomes an abstract concept when we consider its physical constituents logically. 

My approach to epistemology is based around the idea of modeling. I am not sure if there are universal laws the Universe follows or not, but I think that assuming that they are there and building models that approximate them based on empirical observations is how we learn about anything. When learning cooking a steak, I might not be aware of all the underlying physical processes involved in the process of cooking - but I use some modeling heuristics to structure my approach to cooking it, such as assuming that there is some "cookingness" scale, from raw meat to meat so overcooked that it has turned to ashes and burned down my house, and that there is an optimal point somewhere on the scale. Obviously there is no such thing as "cookingness" in the Universe - it is just different states of matter - but this is a helpful heuristic and I do not need a better one to cook a close-to-perfection steak.

As for duality versus materialism, I think that this distinction is somewhat artificial. Empirically our minds are tied to our brains: the termination of one always comes with the termination of the other, and the emergence of one always comes with the emergence of the other. Where our first-person perspective comes from, I do not know, but I think about it as just a representation of something. You know how you can use an equalizer to represent a song visually? Similarly our first-person perspective represents the sensory inputs we receive by mapping them onto some processing system.

Ask ChatGPT to make an argument that it is alive: it will be able to make a very good one. Yet intuitively you know that it does not have the same first-person perspective as me or you do. But is that really true? If we were to somehow "infuse" it with that first-person perspective, would absolutely anything change externally? If the answer is "no", then consciousness is itself just a model and does not correspond to anything real (i.e. having impact on reality). That still does not explain why we "experience" consciousness the way we do, but it does suggest that this experience is not a phenomenon external to the physical world.

RexTheDog01 said:

Now, many people are uncomfortable with this. They feel that this is a cop-out, an attempt to terminate the discussion of something important. They have a hard time accepting the idea that there is nothing beyond this Universe, before or after it, that there is nothing before conception or after death (for there is no conscious mind which could perceive something). That there is no external purpose to one's existence, that we are all just bunches of particles moving around and gradually decaying. That, according to modern theories, a very long time into the future the Universe will become a very-very empty place with nothing interesting happening in it and no conscious minds to even observe it. "Should there not be something more to all of this?"

But I struggle to understand where the discomfort comes from. It is not that different from growing up and leaving one's parents' place. When you lived with your parents, they gave you directions, they told you what to do and how to navigate this life. Then you moved out and started living on your own, and nobody tells you what to do anymore. Does it mean that your life is suddenly empty and meaningless?

I accept this view point, but in exploring it I find more questions than answers, what you say is logically 100% correct there is nothing outside of this universe, before or after it, this is correct I can’t dispute it but when I accept it I am left with questions such as is that nothing ‘infinite’? Following your train of thought ‘we are here, we will be here until a long time in to the future as we expand in to the future, in to the nothingness.

 All we really know is that we are here and now which begs the question if we are here, what’s ‘over there’ and this is where infinity trips me up because if nothingness is infinite then there is an infinite amount of nothingness for something ‘other’ than us (when I say us I mean all of reality and existence) to exist, if we exist the way we do then it is reasonable to assume another can too, what would stop it? to play devil’s advocate if nothing isn’t infinite then it’s not nothing it’s a container, it has an edge, it contains us ‘existence’ within its limitations. Nothing can only be one or the other it can be either infinite nothing or limited nothing, it can’t be both, we are expanding in to it somehow, at so point we will discover an edge or we won’t and thus an answer is automatically generated at that exact time of eith reaching the edge or dying out before we do.

Here I think that you are trying to redefine "nothing" as something. Nothing, by definition, is the absence of anything. It cannot be finite or infinite, for it is, well, nothing. As an analogy, think about applies on a table. If you have two apples on the table, one Fuji and another Granny Smith, then you have Fuji and Granny Smith apples on the table. But if you have no apples on the table, then it makes no sense to talk about the breeds of apples on the table: there are no apples, hence there are no breeds.

In this context, our mind cannot perceive nothingness, because "nothing" is absence of anything, including absence of perception by our mind. It is not blackness, it is not infiniteness... It is not even "it". It just is absence of anything.

So I see little use in discussing what is "out there" if "out there" is nothingness. It is like talking about the 4th dimension while living in 3 spatial dimensions. There is up and down, forward and back, left and right. There is nothing else.

RexTheDog01 said:

As the popular saying goes, "Change that which you can change, and accept that which you cannot". If you are bound to die eventually and if all traces of your existence are bound to be gone a few thousand years after that, then so be it. It is neither good nor bad: it is just how the world works. Now you can take the life that you do currently have and build something amazing in it, not worrying what happens when it is gone. And when it is gone, then... what happens happens, if anything. No need to worry about things that are inevitable and that everyone eventually goes through. You do not remember the day when you were born, and that does not torment you (I assume) - why would not having anything after the day you die be any different?

If anything, death is the most peaceful experience you can have. After death you have nothing to worry about (literally), as far as this reality goes. Maybe you then wake up in a white room with a headset on and realize that all this was just a simulation - you go eat a sci-fi breakfast, then browse through the list of simulations to choose the next one (and you choose to be some bizarre octopus-like creature in a 4-dimensional space). Maybe you become a different human or animal here on Earth, and your life starts all over again, with no memories of your current life. Or maybe there is just... nothing afterwards. You die and that is it. Again, since you do not have consciousness any more, it is not the same as being stuck in some dark place forever not being able to do anything: it is rather the same as not being born yet - there is nothing there.

We are certainly moving on to a similar wavelength now, I like to imagine the prospect of it being an opening of real eyes with the perception of everything all at once, in near death experiences a tangible amount of people refer to a download of knowledge taking place and a feeling of being everywhere at once, the interesting aspect being that to be a confirmed NDE requires you to have been clinically dead at the time of experience, the interesting thing is consciousness seems to persist for some going on to meet the creator whom they discover is themselves manifest as human for a while, even in the event its lights out as you say the bliss of ‘total peace’ I have the suspicion I was there before I was here and now which comforts me to the extent that as we now swim around in this nothingness outside of our entire being in its totality I know for sure that even in nothing existence is possible at any time in the infinity of nothing we are all just ‘floating around in’  

 What compels me to think this way is exactly as you say a seeking of meaning where there is the possibility of no meaning. The logic trap I have falling into for comfort is the trap of infinitely asking ‘but why?” for me there is comfort in both not knowing why and seeking the why of it all as this propels my thoughts forward rather than holding them still to dwell on the prospect of meaningless nothingness, it is fear of the unknown that drives me forward it is the prospect of infinity that lights the way towards a future, it is the fear of no infinity that drags me back towards the nothing, my comfort now requires me to face the infinity meaningless nothing and try to draw meaning from it so I ask why over and over until the answer arrives. Fate has placed a time limit on this quest where in at the end, as my eyes close one last time I will see one last thing just before the answer comes, an answer I cannot escape, an inevitable answer a simple Yes or No. my response being either ‘oh now I see!’ or …   

Something to point out here is that human brains are a product of long messy evolutionary processes and are very much bug-ridden. Countless mental illnesses are a testament to that, brains clearly misperceiving reality. Near-death experiences are likely to be just this, the brain temporarily deprived of oxygen and other nutrients and producing bizarre images - which humans, in their natural affinity to grand narratives, interpret as something more than they are. They see a bright light or something and interpret it as the light of a higher being in another dimension, while in reality it was just bright light and nothing else.

I will add that if we lived in a simulation, then it is very unlikely that such experiences would be intended either. It would likely be a consequence of a buggy code. Much like in some video games you have NPCs doing very weird, unintended things, because their behavioral code was not written accurately.

I suppose you could say that you have always been there and always will be there in the sense in which one of my friends does: he says that, since his body is fundamentally made of particles and those particles (or their descendants) will still be around millions of years from now, he is essentially immortal. His particular physical form may be destroyed eventually, but he will go on existing in a different state of matter. It is not a very useful interpretation, but if it gives someone consolation, then great! Whatever works.

To your last point, one of the pivotal moments in my life was when I realized that discomfort is not a bad thing. Discomfort pushes us to new heights and makes us stronger. If the fear of death makes you uncomfortable, it is a great opportunity to do some inner work and try to arrive at a stronger state of mind. Personally for me the biggest fear is living a mediocre and unfulfilling life, and this fear overrides everything else and makes me unapologetically wacky and adventurous. I have done some things that most other people find to be utterly insane, because I wanted to have special experiences that are hard to come by just living your life regularly.

I think that finding comfort in beliefs that are not very well justified is better than nothing, but it is not optimal. It is better to become comfortable with constantly facing discomfort and prevailing and learning from it. Since January 1st of 2023 I was trying to do something that scared me every single day and mostly succeeded, and it led to a much more fulfilling life than any amount of comfort ever could.