egafd.com

Ha ha!

You miss my point. Of course ideas cannot start as being self-existent, and if we think about it, can anything be self-existent? Surely everything relies on something else to exist, or relied on something to be created in the first place? That means Man, the Earth, or the Solar System isn't self-existent.

Since we're talking -well I was- about self-existence in the 'existing without man' sense, then though the idea may need man to be thought of, and recorded; once recorded it becomes independent of man........kind of. (though probably dependent on the paper it's written down upon!)

You could also argue that: 'is an idea, an idea without a concious mind to understand it?' Thus the paper holding the idea is just paper & ink, and only becomes an idea again when someone -ie 'Man'- reads it. But this is the same kind of question as 'Does a falling tree make a noise if there's no-one there to hear it?'

Now we're getting down to an individuals perception of this. What I'm trying to say is that an idea cannot be 'self-creating', but once created -and recorded-, may be considered as 'self-existent' to some people.

If you read the dictionary's meaning again: 'Existing of or by himself, independent of any other being or cause;' you will notice the 'or' that precedes 'cause' is telling us that to be self-existent, you have to be independent of any other being 'or' cause. It doesn't say 'and cause'. This seems to back up my theory -or 'idea' !laugh!- that a piece of paper holding an idea can exist independently of man 'after' it has been created by man.

The clincher is the insertion of the 'or' and the absence of 'and' in the definition. This suggests a choice between 'independent existence' and 'independent cause'. Maybe we need a new word like 'self-causing' or 'self-creating'?

[quote]So the and/or thing is not really relevant, as the two words are interchangeable.[/quote]

I can't see how 'and' & 'or' can be interchangeable! The former is an 'inclusive' word, and the latter states an alternative (in this instance).

As for God.........well without scientific proof, God comes under the category of an 'idea!' which evolved into a belief!

Now, if an idea is written down, the paper, ink & idea are created by man, but once written down, that idea exists within the ink & paper as an object. That object can now exist independently of man as far as I'm concerned.

The definition of 'self-existent' does state 'existing independently' as one of the factors needed to be deemed self-existent. I'm not denying the idea doesn't owe it's creation to man, nor it's future existence, but to be indebted to something doesn't mean constant dependency.

I really don't see how an object -created by man- cannot then 'exist' independently. That's like saying 'I will not be an independent being once my parents die.' ('independence' as opposed to constant parental dependence, not total independent existence).

Now, a belief is a feeling, and if written down would just be a description of that belief. So if God is a belief, then God needs man to exist, and cannot be self-existent........EVER!

I suppose you could be right if you argue that an idea written down is just a description of that idea, and not the 'idea' itself, thus ideas cannot be self-existent. This would mean I'm wrong and you're right. This means that you're right but gave the wrong reasons, while I'm wrong by giving the right reasons.

Like I said before: It's all to do with an individuals perception on whether an idea which is written down, then becomes an idea in physical form. That object would still exist independently whether man was around or vanished from the Earth completely and would carry on existing until destroyed.

I'm using cause/creation as 'past tense' and existence as 'present tense', and cannot see how something that was once created cannot then exist by itself, in the present, independently of it's creator.

The moon was created -in part- by the Earth, but it will still exist -as an object- if the Earth vanished, and as an object would exist independently, until it was pulled into something and absorbed, or broken up into smaller separate objects..............right?

P.s. Why do you only understand analogies using communism? !laugh!

[quote]the two words that were interchangeable were "cause" and "being," not "and " and "or"[/quote]

Aghh I see............ I was sure you meant 'and' & 'or' so I checked back to your previous message and I'll quote you:
[quote]So the and/or thing is not really relevant, as the two words are interchangeable.

At least in my world![/quote]

Maybe that's where I got it from?

Anyway, I think we'll have to 'agree to disagree' on this one. It seems that you take the meaning of existence as a whole package which includes creation, and if you look at existence from afar -as a past tense- I can see that existence 'has' to include creation. I was looking at 'existing' in the present tense, thus creation is in the past. The creation was necessary for existence, but the creator isn't needed to carry on existing, and so 'exists' -present tense remember!- independently.

Thanks for the debate....

This is an excellent post, Warren. Clear, concise, rational and objective. When so many such (Mrs T) posts are rabid, irrational, and downright muddle-headed, it?s a breath of fresh air. When someone can acknowledge the positive aspects of something (like Thatcherism) that they may not wholeheartedly agree with, it marks them out as a member of that endangered species - a rational person. Someone worth lending an ear to.



Officer Dibble

Mein Kampf was written in 1924 in Landsberg prison where Hitler was serving a sentence following the failed beerhall putsch. Hitler dictated it to Rudolf Hess who wrote it down. No one can say that Hitler did not warn the world of his intentions!