I have a couple different but related questions. I think that they are relevant both to theists and non-theists. Forgive me if this is crappy, repeats itself and/or is hard to read.

First question: Why is there existence rather than non-existence?
Also: Wouldn't it have been more simple if there were non-existence?

This question can not be answered without answering the second question:

Second question: Why is there awareness rather than non-awareness?


My argument (critique it please):

If there is awareness, then we can conclude that there is no such thing as a void. This is because as soon as something is aware of a void then it ceases to be a void.

If there is not a void, then there is awareness.

It is impossible for something such as a void to exist, so therefore there is only awareness.

If there is no such thing as non-awareness or a void, then there is no such thing as non-existence.

If there is no such thing as non-existence, then every possible thing must exist. Therefore limited awareness and limited existence must exist.

If every possible thing must exist, unlimited awareness must exist.

Therefore there is an all-pervasive awareness.

No one has any idea.

Why? What do you mean by "simple"?

No one has any idea.

This makes no sense. Voids can exist outside of awareness. This is the one of the sources of your later erroneous conclusions.

Here you are using two different meanings of non-existence. In the first sentence you are using it in the sense of "voids don't exist", and in the second you are using non-existence as meaning as "does not exist anywhere". Therefore, the second does not follow from the first. You are also confusing the abstract and the concrete.

This is the second source of your erroneous conclusions.

It should be obvious by this point that you have painted yourself into a corner. If every possible thing must exist, then voids must exist, unlimited evil more powerful than God must exist, and non-pervert, non-smug David Sklanskys must exist, and all kinds of mutually exclusive and impossible things must exist. Which means logic does not function in this universe. You have just destroyed your own argument.

yeah er ..... what ping said imo

Well, I think we can wrap this thread up.

Wow... pass the bong, ya Bogart.

Cogito ergo sum

Let us pray.

I have no idea to answer any of these.

I don’t think you need to argue against nothingness or the void to reach your conclusion. Something like:

(The experience of one’s own beingness and/or the beingness of other persons and things is the experience of being.)

Experience of being is all there is.
Awareness is experience of being.
Therefore, awareness is all there is.

Reality is all there is.
Awareness is all there is.
Therefore, awareness is reality.

Reality is all-pervasive (holistic).
Awareness is reality.
Therefore, awareness is all-pervasive (holistic).

Voids can exist? Prove it please, I'd like some evidence.

A void is not possible because something must be aware of it to exist, once there is a awareness then there ceases to be a void.

Maybe evil more powerful than god or nonpervert non-smug Sklanskys are not possible. I didn't claim to know everything that was possible or not possible, except that a void is definitely not possible

I'm just not following this argument. Perhaps you could explain:
- What is a void?
- Why must there be awareness for it to exist?
- Why does awareness of a void make it disappear?

This looks awfully circular at present.
The trouble with this argument is that there are an infinite number of mutually exclusive things that can exist. Because we live in a world with rules, we necessarily live in a specific subset of all possible realities. Why does this one contains God? It may be the one of the many subsets of the infinite possible realities in which God is excluded.

A void is just a lack of awareness. Basically what I am trying to say is that the fundamental thing about reality is awareness; it is all encompassing and nothing exists outside of it. Here is sort of a lame representation:

-----.-----

Think of the dashes as "void" and the dot as awareness. If you think about it this is what it actually look like:

...........


I think this because the dashes don't have any identifiable qualities without the period in the middle.
So if there is even a speck of awareness in a sea of what looks like void then the awareness is all encompassing.

Seems like a discussion of semantics to me. Are you saying a void is aware, or that it's no longer a void if something aware has knowledge of it? Or that there is no such thing as a void when awareness exists?

There is a void of logic in your argument that we are all aware of.