There aren't many things you can truly be certain of in life, but you ought to be sure that you exist. Without debating beliefs about what existence is, we exist, that is true, period. So the question is... Can existence ever become non-existence? After all, by definition, non-existence doesn't exist. We debate the nature of consciousness, life after death, etc, but we know that energy cannot be destroyed it can only change form. So, if we know we exist, and existence cannot become non-existence because non-existence doesn't, then consciousness must exist no matter what changes we go through, implying that it must have been there before and will continue to be there after.
Conservation of energy and matter states once my fat ass dies my corpse will return to the earth. Those i still exist just in a different form.
There can be no existence without non-existence. Like darkness and light, you can't have one without the other. If there was no darkness then there wouldn't be a concept of light, it would just be. There's non-existence all around us, it's only broken by pools of existence which we call life and when we die we cease to exist.
Except in this case existence exists, whereas non-existence doesn't. Therefore unlike darkness and light, things can clearly exist without the existence of non-existence, outside the idea of non-existence as a mental concept. That can't be anything other than an idea. You're imagining the idea of non-existence which allows it to exist in your mind and perhaps the mind of another, but that doesn't mean non-existence exists. How can it, by definition?
That is true, but that doesn't account for you consciously existing, so you must be assuming just because your fat arse dies your consciousness must therefore cease to exist too. This not being the science section we don't need to get into whether science says our brain creates consciousness or not. That's just an opinion anyway. So allowing for another possibility, namely that consciousness exists independently, making you something more than the lump of meat between your ears, it is quite possible that this consciousness is everywhere, all that is in fact, and the thing we believe ourselves to be, the individual ego, THAT is what interferes with realising something that is effectively beyond it.
If there's no non-existence then there's no existence. Where were you in the year 1242, did you exist?
That isn't the conclusion one ought to reach logically. We know that by definition, non-existence doesn't exist. Why? If it existed it wouldn't be non-existence. So, when you imagine anything about the idea of non-existence, and attempt to define it in some way, it becomes something that now exists, which is no longer non-existence. That's a good question. Some say that we have all done this thing called life before, in many different ways, and that in most cases, the memory of those lives are just not relevant as they would easily interfere with the one we're currently in. Without going into why this makes sense, if this is what happens, then in 1242, I existed. But, because everything exists in the here and now, this thing we call time; past, present, future, must exist in this moment too, and therefore under the right circumstances, some say we can experience it. So, my answer is a definite yes, I existed. In what form or under what circumstances, I cannot say. It isn't necessary to wrap a belief around this anyway as in most cases it just gets in the way. The fact that I exist only really matters in the present. And because I exist, I always exist. I am aware I exist, so must continue to be aware in some form, even if what that means is beyond what I need to know in order to get the most out of experiencing my present life as me.
It must take a lot of faith to absolutely believe in what you cannot know. I guess we all have to believe in something. I believe in mind viruses that are transmitted by communication. They get into our heads thru our ears and eyes then replicate before being spread to others when we communicate with them.
I admit I'd never heard of mirror neurons but yeah, something similar to that concept. I was thinking computer viruses where the computer is our brains. Thoughts get in and take over our opinions, kinda like what happened to @SmokinP with his hate America first opinions. While I agree he has the right to express his honest opinions, they are harmful to peace in general.
No, that's different. I came up with my "strange ideas" on age of consent laws all on my own. I'm not in favor of sex with underage teenagers but I think age of consent laws are silly. I'm sure you realize that having sex with a 17 year old in Ireland is just fine but would be a sex offense in most of the states in America? Having sex with a 16 year old in the UK is fine, in Ireland it's a sex offense. There's only one day difference between16 and 17 and between 17 and 18, does it really matter? I'll discuss this anytime in the proper thread but I've derailed this thread enough.
I think not entirely, but mostly. In the quantum world, we know that quarks make up about 1% of a protons mass. The remaining parts, gluons, make up the remaining 99%. Gluons pop in and out of existence, almost at will. It is possible that science simply has not developed the tools to measure where these suckers go when they pop in to "non-existence." But let's say you existed in 1242. You probably did, but mostly didn't. You have no memory, no physical implications of it. But there is a small quark about you that existed, then and there as much as you do now. I don't think it's a matter of whether or not existence exists, but how much existence permeates the vacuum.
"Almost at Will' seems to imply intelligence, intention, consciousness, which is interesting don't you think? It is true that science has not developed the tools to understand much of what it currently has to assume, but that's why it's science. It has to take certain paths to understanding which can often require assumption and much time, and rightly so. The thing is, they don't pop into non-existence. They may no longer be detectable, but that is very different to saying they no longer exist. This is all getting a little sciencey for this thread, so let me bring it back. In order for something to exist that currently doesn't, there has to be some possibility, some imperative, which exists prior to that something existing, which therefore exists, and therefore is not non-existence. Remember, non-existence by definition doesn't exist, thinking about it changes it into something that does exist, which therefore can't be it. Tricky isn't it. Just because I have no memory doesn't mean it isn't possible to remember. There are many who feel they remember living before, but without getting into the specifics of those that seem realer than others, for me, the issue is one of relevancy rather that reality. I don't need to hold a belief of certainty, whether it makes sense to me, whether I've experienced something that reveals it. That only matters if I need YOU to believe it too. You don't. Not at all. This thread is not about life beyond what we call death per se, only by implication. What people imagine or believe about this is just that...imagination and belief. Those who say more than this, attempt to offer certainty because something has convinced them of it, and try to share something that by its nature is not really sharable, invariably meet with scepticism. I accept the possibility that who we are in some form continues, not because the idea of death as non-existence is a problem for me as there would be nothing there to know it if it were so. But deciding existence must become non-existence, and wanting to justify it simply because people can't deal with this idea without creating a mind-made construct to do so, begs the question...is there another way? If there is something real to discover, it cannot be done the way we always do it. How do you begin to do so without the mind taking ideas and imaginations and ending up with beliefs? I say there is something to find, but I can't tell you what that is, because if I did, it wouldn't be it.
If you can imagine something, then by definition it already exists in some form. You cannot imagine something that doesn't.
Everything that can possibly exist does indeed 'exist' in the state of potential, which is not actual or non-existent. You are imagining non-existence, by your reasoning that means it exists no?
Exactly. Non-existence does not exist. So anything you imagine cannot be it. Meaning...because we exist, we cannot then cease to exist. Existence can never become non-existence as we know non-existence doesn't exist. We have to clear that up first in order to go further. We have to start from that basis, otherwise there's nowhere else to go with it.