Buddha came to this conclusion 2500 years ago.
Insults aside, the argument is the same: if the principle of everything can’t be a thing, existence collapses.
Brainmogged OP
If 'everything' is merely the sum of specific things, then it is not a principle; it is a collection. Collections don’t support existence; they rely on the things they gather. My point focuses on the origin, not the whole. If the principle is unclear, it cannot come from clear parts without already assuming those parts exist. This creates a circular explanation.
You used the word 'exclude' in the original post, wouldn't that imply it being collection? Maybe I don't understand the definition of the word principle.
ok jeet
It’s not about the word ‘exclude’ in ordinary language. It’s about what a principle of everything must be to be a source. If the principle is a thing or a set of things, it already contains determinate content, which means it can’t produce existence—it’s up to what exists to define it. ‘Everything’ as a set of all qualities has its members exist; it doesn’t account for their existence. That’s why the principle has to be undetermined, and an undetermined origin can’t produce determinate things.
Oh so you're talking about 'everything' as a source. You could still be wrong in a meta way. You're applying logic to the source of everything, but wouldn't that source exist outside of logic? Logic is a part of 'everything', 'everything' also defines logic so before 'everything' logic didn't exist. Upon it's formation, 'everything' didn't follow logic. 'Everything' can't be bound by logic because before 'everything' logic didn't exist.
Exactly, if the source exists outside logic, then it cannot produce logic-bound things. Anything that comes from it would either be undefined or non-existent. That’s precisely why an indetermined principle can’t generate determinate reality: logic itself is contingent on existence, so without it, nothing can exist.
Oink harderok jeet
But if you abandon logic, anything goes, including logic coming from something illogical, including determinate things coming from something indeterminate.
Any attempt to reason about the source of everything already presumes logic. That’s the point: if the principle is truly undetermined, nothing it produces can be treated as determinate, including logic itself. Logic arises after existence, not before, so applying logic to the source is meaningless which is why nothing can truly exist.
This only concludes that the source is illogical, not that the logical can't come from the illogical.
Sure, we can’t ‘claim’ it doesn’t exist. But the moment a source is truly undetermined and illogical, anything derived from it, including reality itself, cannot be treated as existing in any coherent sense. Not knowing it exists doesn’t grant it existence it just remains undefined, which for all practical and logical purposes is nothing.
But you did claim it didn't exist, in the original post, it is that title of the thread. Yes, it doesn't grant it existence, but it doesn't deny it. You can't say it's nothing, you can only say, it's incomprehensible.
Fair I claimed it doesn’t exist as a determinate thing. But that’s exactly the point: an undetermined source cannot produce determinate reality. Call it incomprehensible if it is comfortable for you, but incomprehensible doesn’t equal real. Nothing we call a ‘thing’ can arise from it, so for all practical purposes, nothing exists.”
You originally said that the source doesn't exist at all. Back then you said that it is indeterminate and the determinate can't come from that. What you are now waying is: The source is indeterminate, determinate can come from indeterminate, but it doesn't matter since we can't comprehend it. Those are two different things.
You’re right you have to overstimate in the thread if you want entagement,back to the argument.
You can definitely call the things that come from the source real. You accepted earlier that if we abandon logic determinate things can come from indeterminate things.
Yes, individual things can exist once they emerge, but the question isn’t about what appears it’s about the principle of everything. If the source is truly indeterminate, it cannot ground the existence of determinate things; it can’t explain why anything exists rather than nothing. So while things may appear real, their existence is contingent and ungrounded. The source itself remains unknowable, and without a grounding principle, ‘existence’ has no ultimate foundation
Ok we're arguing in circles now but earlier did accept that it is possible for determinate things to come from the unknowable source, if that unknowable source isn't bound by logic (which you've accepted it isn't). So if that's the case, determinate things, AKA any individual thing, must exist. Your original post said "Nothing exists."
Yes, individual things can appear to exist once the source produces them, but my original point wasn’t about appearances—it was about the grounding of existence itself. If the source is indeterminate and unbound by logic, nothing it produces has a firm ontological foundation. Things may emerge, but they do so without an ultimate principle holding them in being. So while individual things can ‘exist’ in some sense, existence itself is ungrounded and ultimately meaningless
You are goddam rightGuess there's no point in reading this thread then
Okay so we agree now but your original reasoning has shifted. You originally said indeterminate can't come from determinate, which we now have both said isn't true. Things emerge, we can't figure out why or how they've emerged, but we know they did. The end result is that they exist.
go worship your cows and drink sewage water jeet.Oink harder
The shift isn’t in the logic, just in the framing. I originally said the indeterminate can’t logically generate determinate things and you agreed logic doesn’t apply at the source. So yes, things can emerge, but they emerge without any rational grounding. The fact they appear doesn’t explain their being; it only shows that something happened. So we can say they ‘exist,’ but their existence has no coherent principle behind it it’s appearance without foundation
So just say being has no comprehensive source, to say the source doesn't exist is an oversimplification that sounds cool.
Fair. Saying ‘the source doesn’t exist’ is the oversimplified, punchy version. The more precise claim is that being has no comprehensible or coherent source. Without that grounding, existence has no ultimate foundation which is what my original post was getting at.
Btw Only reason I pressed hard was because I've never debated philosophy before so I thought it would be interesting if I pushed the debate to it's conclusion.
Well that's cool, i am also too tired to reply back
