h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> Is it possible for non existence to exist? Isn't that a logical impossibility. <<

Do things exist if we don't know they exist? Radio waves without a radio receiver, dark matter, dark energy etc.

That's not quite the same. That's asking if it's possibly for things to exist if we're ignorant of them. To which the answer is a certain yes and you've given some excellent examples.

But is it possible for non-existence to exist? I suppose that's more towards the anti-matter side of things isn't it?

A good scientist would say non-existence is a theoretical construct. We have an instrumental method for labelling something with the property of existence: If it can be "measured", if it can be "observed", if it can be "identified" ... then we can say something exists ... therefore existence is instrumentally defined. Logical positivists would say it is useless to comment on things that fall outside those categories (with a focus on whether something is measurable or not).

Atheists claim that God cannot be detected and therefore doesn't exist, theists claim they detect God everywhere and therefore for them God exists. Ultimately it comes down to the instrumental definitions for existence. Personally I believe delusions exists on both sides but the meaning of this sentence depends on what is meant by "exist". Of course we can live our lives without worrying about Gods ... but we live our lives in a social milieu ... which itself is a difficult to measure construct.

So antimatter exists because it can identified in the laboratory:

"In November 2010, for the first time, cold antihydrogen was produced and magnetically confined for about a sixth of a second by the Antihydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus (ALPHA) team at CERN,[1] and in 2011 antihydrogen was maintained for over 15 minutes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

That's very well put Stone.

""Pastey: If you see me in italics, it's because I'm breaking something

"who is this god person anyway?"

It's me, I admit it. Sorry about all that."""

GREETINGS PASTEY - JUST REMIND ME ARE YOU THE GOD OF ITALICS OR OF BREAKING THINGS
IF IS THE FORMER SHOULDN'T YOU MANIFEST IN ITALICS (WE DIETIES ALWAYS APPEAR IN UPPER CASE)
IF IT IS THE LATTER SOMEDIETY GOT THERE FIRST OR ARE THEY ACTS OF PASTEY?

The italics is actually because I'm trying to split out the editorial access permissions for h2g2, so that we can have more volunteers doing more things, without letting everyone have the ability to press the wrong button and lock us all out

>>Is it possible for non existence to exist?<<

Cold is simply a lack of heat - it does not exist as such it is just an absence of something
Dark is simply a lack of light - it does not exist as such it is just an absence of something

It is possible to have an absence of energy, matter and (theoretically) time so nothingness is possible (now you'll have to argue is impossibilty possible )

Of course our understanding of nothingness has been altered by quantum theory and some observations seem to show that nothingness (total vacuum) fizzes with potentuality as tiny packets of matter and antimatter constantly pop into existence and instantly annialate each other.

Douglas Adams was right the closer we get to understanding the more increasingly bizarre realms of existence pop into being
If god exist he/she is doing acid

"The italics is actually because I'm trying to split out the editorial access permissions......"

At last a diety that explains itself and doesn't shout - so oh Lord what do I wear, what can't I eat, which bits do I snip off, how many religious days off do I get and who do I persecute?

1. Wear something that won't expose you to ridicule -- unless you want it to.

2. You may be better off asking your doctor what not to eat.

3. It's getting harder to find targets for persecution. You may need to persecute yourself.If you wake up one morning and find paranoid thoughts in your mind, you've succeeded.

Do things behind the "event horizon" exist? I would say that time and the speed of light are the same thing. Anything on the other side of an event horizon is in a different time setup and therefore does not exist.

Obviously if God were to exist behind a time/light event horizon in order to exist/not-exist, then I imagine it would severely curtail omnipotence.

I think it's a mistake to assume that any human could comprehend the nature of any deity that might exist. Turning gods into manlike creatures [but with more powers] risks being seen as mocking -- but then, we don't know if deities get their feelings hurt. I tend to ignore the earnest street-corner preachers who talk about God's love for us or the fiery pits that await us if we don't embrace this love. It's a nice try, by the way, but recent scholarship supports the idea that Jesus' disciples did not know that Jesus was the son of God. That deification was superimposed on the Jesus legend much later. Reincarnation was part of the mix in the early days of Christianity, but it was abandoned after Constantine threatened to execute those who espoused it during the Council of Nicea. That put the kibosh on the whole thing, and made Christianity a captive of Roman Imperial mentality. Protestantism was an attempt to reboot the Jesus franchise, but by then the early documents had been destroyed or hidden, not to resurface until the discoveries in Nag Hammadi in 1945.

But what would be wrong in regarding Jesus as a mere mortal who had an influential moral philosophy? He wouldn't be the only such philosopher worth listening to [Buddha and Saint Francis come to mind, but there must be many others]. So what if we don't have the ultimate answers? We have an amazing assortment of wise people to absorb concepts from, and numerous role models who are around us right now. I sometimes worry that Roman Catholicism's focus on the virtues of Jesus'mother Mary eclipses the value of present-day women who are amazing in their own right. We can't go back in time to see what the real Mary was like
[for that matter, we might find that she wasn't as holy as she's been made out to be. In fact, I hope that she wasn't!]. The closest we can come to that is the scholars' insistence that Mary was well-liked by her contemporaries.

In any event, I think the archaic nature of many worship practices puts many people off. Let's start with verbal constructions. What's with all this "thee" and "thou"? We don;t talk like that any more. And why do some of the hymns exhort us to praise God's "name?" Who cares about the name? It came from us. If God [if there is one] has a name, there's a notable lack of communication of that fact.

In any era there are people who want to live in the past. Many denominations are tailor-made for them. There are also people who want to live in the present, who want to be "in the moment." And there are people who want to anticipate the future. I wonder if Scientology was devised as an outlet for the last group.

I agree with you on this paulh except with the exception of the use of the word 'archaic' to describe 'thee' and 'thou'. You possibly haven't travelled in rural Yorkshire recently?

I have, it's full of Londoners

I'm pretty sure I've never set foot [or any other body part] in Yorkshire before.