Everything that can exist must exist.

[Mouthwash]

The initial part of your argument seems to translate to me as:

1. Some things exist. (is that an axiom?)
2. Things that exist derive from other things that exist. (I share Souron's confusion of the term "derive". What does it mean in the context of physical entities? "Caused by"? "Created by"?)

Then I'm losing you. Just because everything that exists requires something that exists to "derive" from doesn't mean that everything exists. Why should it? Or do you mean that for the idea of something to exist the subject of the idea has to exist as well? That is ... dubious to me.

Derive in this context means "come from." I suggest you read it again, very carefully, because you have no idea what I'm saying. The point was that nonexistence could never exist. Reading this quickly or sloppily will result in confusion.

 

[Global Skeptic]

...
My philosophy suggests that it is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. For existence to derive there must be something for it to derive from and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. Therefor existence is not derivative. Given that existence cannot derive from nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence. There is no such condition of nonexistence. Nonexistence does not exist, ergo, everything exists. Existence exists because it can.

It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist."[/I]

1) Existence can't come from non-Existence; i.e. nothing.
2) Existence must come from Something exists.
Therefore Everything Exists.

1) Ex is not non-Ex
2) Ex is S
-> Ev Ex

Mouthwash, it doesn't follow from the "fact" that something exists that everything exists.
You have to learn to "transcribe" claims into premises and check if the conclusion follows from the premises.

 

[Borachio]

1) Existence can't come from non-Existence; i.e. nothing.

I don't think this is necessarily true. But my knowledge of physics is shaky to say the least.

 

[dutchfire]

"Everything not forbidden is compulsory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle

 

[Global Skeptic]

I don't think this is necessarily true. But my knowledge of physics is shaky to say the least.

Nor do I! But the point is that the deduction:
P: Something exists
-> Everything exists
is not valid.

 

[Leoreth]

Derive in this context means "come from." I suggest you read it again, very carefully, because you have no idea what I'm saying. The point was that nonexistence could never exist. Reading this quickly or sloppily will result in confusion.

I have carefully read it, multiple times. And you're right, at the end I had no idea what you were saying. This is why I made this post and tried to reproduce what I thought you mean, thus providing you the opportunity to explain where my mistake is.

Instead you chose (again) in a knee-jerk reaction to flaunt your self-perceived superiority by suggesting I am simply incapable of understanding human thought or didn't give it enough effort, instead of even acknowledging the possibility that you could have been more clear.

The only thing you have accomplished by that is that I have lost any interest in your "philosophy".

I'm leaving with a quick reminder:

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm sorry that you evidently take offense so quickly. I need to be more gentle with sensitive people like you. Is that the lesson here?

 

[Leoreth]

No, the lesson is that you're smug and condescending. I get along fine with most other people here.

 

[Borachio]

"Everything that can exist must exist." Hmmm. I've been thinking about this. I wouldn't want you to think I haven't. I'll let you know. If I ever make up my mind.

Carry on. Ignore this. This is just a notification that I've noticed the thread.

 

[Crezth]

Derive in this context means "come from." I suggest you read it again, very carefully, because you have no idea what I'm saying. The point was that nonexistence could never exist. Reading this quickly or sloppily will result in confusion.

You know, for someone with the debating acumen of a squirrel, you have a nasty habit of assuming too much of your own incoherent argument-likes.

 

[Souron]

Derive in this context means "come from."

That's better than referring to the dictionary, but it doesn't help much either. In the most literal meaning "come from" means "emerging from the direction of", which clearly does not apply in this context.

To narrow the ambiguity further, I would highlight this dubious sentence:
Given that existence cannot [come from] nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence.
I don't see how it follows.

 

[Yeekim]

You know, for someone with the debating acumen of a squirrel, you have a nasty habit of assuming too much of your own incoherent argument-likes.

Spoiler :

 

[Borachio]

"Everything not forbidden is compulsory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle

I get this:

The jocular saying is that, in England, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany, the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". This may be extended to France — "everything is allowed even if it is forbidden"[2] — and Russia where "everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed".[3] While in North Korea it is said that "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory"[

 

[Mouthwash]

That's better than referring to the dictionary, but it doesn't help much either. In the most literal meaning "come from" means "emerging from the direction of", which clearly does not apply in this context.

To narrow the ambiguity further, I would highlight this dubious sentence:
Given that existence cannot [come from] nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence.
I don't see how it follows.

Existence exists. It cannot come out of nothing. Therefore we have the question "Why does existence exist?" The answer is that existence necessarily exists, because the only alternative is that it came from nothing, which is impossible. By taking one sentence out of its context it becomes confusing.

 

[Mouthwash]

No, the lesson is that you're smug and condescending. I get along fine with most other people here.

Coming from the guy who pokes fun at the Mongol thread every time he gets frustrated at me?

I honestly don't know what you're taking offense at. The OP was about as clear as can be.

 

[Crezth]

Existence exists. It cannot come out of nothing. Therefore we have the question "Why does existence exist?" The answer is that existence necessarily exists, because the only alternative is that it came from nothing, which is impossible. By taking one sentence out of its context it becomes confusing.

God damnit did you completely ignore my Lawrence Krauss post? Seriously, you are so dishonest in a debate that it is kind of infuriating.

 

[Mouthwash]

God damnit did you completely ignore my Lawrence Krauss post? Seriously, you are so dishonest in a debate that it is kind of infuriating.

I'll look into it.

 

[Leoreth]

Coming from the guy who pokes fun at the Mongol thread every time he gets frustrated at me?

I poke fun at the Mongol thread because it's just one example of how you haven't earned my respect so far. If I was at least sure that someone who talks down to me knows what he's talking about it would be less of an issue.

I honestly don't know what you're taking offense at. The OP was about as clear as can be.

I don't take offense at your OP. I take offense at your idea that everyone who has problems following your reasoning can't have read it. It's plain offensive. Look around you, I'm not the only one who has problems with it.

If I treated your OP like you treated my post I would have simply said that you're wrong instead of admitting my confusion and asking for clarification.

 

[Mouthwash]

I poke fun at the Mongol thread because it's just one example of how you haven't earned my respect so far. If I was at least sure that someone who talks down to me knows what he's talking about it would be less of an issue.


I don't take offense at your OP. I take offense at your idea that everyone who has problems following your reasoning can't have read it. It's plain offensive. Look around you, I'm not the only one who has problems with it.

If I treated your OP like you treated my post I would have simply said that you're wrong instead of admitting my confusion and asking for clarification.

OK, how do you propose I clarify it better? I don't know.

 

[Souron]

Existence exists. It cannot come out of nothing. Therefore we have the question "Why does existence exist?" The answer is that existence necessarily exists, because the only alternative is that it came from nothing, which is impossible. By taking one sentence out of its context it becomes confusing.

No, it was confusing in context too.

I don't see existing and coming from nothing to be two alternatives to anything. Of course, I still don't understand what "come from nothing" means here. Now I do agree that some things exists. And I agree that it might make sense to say existence itself exists, though when I say that I don't mean the same thing by existence as I do when I say "horses exist"; existence is not a physical thing like a horse, ergo it does not exist in the same sense as a horse.