The difference between being and not being is only now.

1) Question:- Is something something even if it ends.

Answer:-  That something is something when it is something but when its not, its not(For itself)

Proof

1.1) What is being something? It is being whatever it is that it is. What is being?

'To be' is to exist, to occur, to take place. https://www.google.co.in/search?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C4835760478(type being for result)

To occur

Things can only occur when they occur. When they dont, they dont.

To exist

The best definition I like is  google's definition which is "in existence or operation at the current time."
https://www.google.co.in/search?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C2768304109(type existence for result)

- So it is "in existance or operation at the current time". If it is not in existence at the current time, it is not existing or being since there is no other time.

Looking at it in a logical way, it can not be that something when it clearly is not. But it is when it is. So when it ends being that something, it clearly is not that particular something anymore. As far as it is concerned(Without an outside observer), it is not that something period. No extention to that definition is allowed because it just is not(The something is not).

X is something on time Y(X is on time Y)

X is not something on time Z(X is not on time Z)

So, X is not on time Z means it is not existent on time Z.

So on time Z, X is not or is not existent.

So whilst on time Z, is there an X as that particular something? No.

So In time Z, X is not existent as that particular something which is X so there is no X.

But

1.2) That something may have a residual effect on other things  that it came in contact with or somehow affected in anyway when it was that something even if it is not that something anymore.

2) Same goes for us living things as individuals.

2.1) As an individual, when the individual is no more, it is no more

2.2) As an individual, what happens next is unknown but in this realm of existence and also talking according to logic and reality(which is reality that we are in) there is no such a thing for the individual because there is no such a thing as that individual at that time or after the individual dies.

2.2.1) So is there an individual after the individual dies? No

2.2.2) Was there an individual?

2.2.2.1) As far as the things that the individual affected are concerned, yes. Because that individual caused some kind of effect on them.(If it did)

2.2.2.2)  As far as the individual is concerned, even the question would be inexistent and invalid.

because the individual is not there to have any effect of it.

Also

2.2.2.2.1) For the individual, being dead after existing would be the same as not existing at all.

Proof

2.2.2.2.1.1) The state that the individual is in during the time it didn't exist is 'no state'

2.2.2.2.1.2) The state that the individual is in after individual dies is also 'no state'

2.2.2.2.1.3) At 'no state' there is no present, past or future since there is no state to begin with.(This article argues there is no past and future per se even if something or individual exists).
At 'no state' there is no such a thing as the individual.

2.2.2.2.1.4) Thus both 2.2.2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2.1.2 are the same in everyway possible because there is no way to compare them since both are not existent and are not available and are both inexistent.

So what is the difference between existing and not existing?

3) The difference between existing and not existing or being and not being is only now.

Proof

3.1) As stated above, one of the definitions of 'to be' is 'to occur'.

So

Things can only occur when they occur and no other time.

the concept of time may just be an illusion.

" Time may have no independent existence it may be just a common unit of motion making the world that is filled with motion easier to describe." http://www.timephysics.com

3.2) Something can only exist in the now.(In its own now)

3.3) There may not be such a thing as time per se but occurrences.(again things can only occur when they occur).

3.4) Can something be in the past or future?

- No it can not. Why? Its very hard to explain but

3.4.1) For something to exist it has to be. Something can not be anywhere else but the present. Even the verb be points twoards that.

3.4.2) If we say something is in the past, it is a contradictory statement because the verb 'is' denotes present.

3.4.3) Same for the future. If we say something is in the future, same contradiction.

3.4.4) The moment something becomes, it is present and can not be any other way. It can only be when and only when it becomes.

4) So being or existing is always in present. So the present is the difference between being and not being or existing and not existing.



Posted via Blogaway

7 differences between '0' and 'nothing'

Zero:- "0(zero;BrE:/ˈzɪərəʊ/orAmE:/ˈziːroʊ/) is both a number[1]and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. It fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity of the integers,real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, 0 is used as a place holder in place value systems.Names for the number 0 in Englishinclude zero,nought or (US)naught(/ˈnɔːt/),nil, or — in contexts where at least one adjacent digit distinguishes it from the letter "O" —ohoro(/ˈoʊ/). Informal or slang terms for zero includezilchandzip.[2]Oughtandaught(/ˈɔːt/), as well as cipher, have also been used historically". wikipidia

Nothing:- "Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness.[1]In non technical uses,nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance.[1]Nothingnessis the state of being nothing,[2]the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing". wikipidia

Nothing does not and can not be defined since it does not exist.

                       Differences

1) There is a '0', but there is no such a thing as 'nothing'

2) Total nothing is inexistance and therefore inexistant and thus can not be seen, touched, heard, thought about or imagined since it does not exist. 0 is to be realized. eg 0 potatos, 0 energy, the number 0 etc

3) 0 is a number and number is something

4) 0 is a something(a number) used in a system of counting and measuring.

                        Proof

4.1) There is always a _____ after 0. eg 0 potatoes, 0 energy. Other than that, there is no such thing as 0 by itself unless "the number 0" which is a number thus something.

and thus

4.2) Since it is in a system of counting and measuring, there is always the counter, measurer or comprehender and can not be without a counter, measurer or comprehender. On the other hand 'nothing' doesn't need or have or can't have  anything(like counter, measurer or comprehender)

5) '0' can be a result of a minus and plus of a same number and those numbers also can be made from '0'. Hence '0' can be a result and also other results can be derived from it. 'Nothing' can't be a result because
i) A result is something
ii) A result to begin with needs preexistance or existance of things that it is a result of.  But total nothing is inexistant, has never existed nor will it ever exist. There is nothing before or after it as there is no it.
Also, there isn't anything that can be derived from it because there is no it.

6) Something can be added or subtracted to '0'. But there is nothing that can be added to or subtracted from something that does not exist.

7) 0 is a concept, while 'nothing' can't be conceptualized.

Posted via Blogaway

Faith in a higher power

Belief:- Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: the free dictiinary

How and why should one accept something as true or false. Should it be blindly or reasonabhly?

Faith:- Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof. wikipidia

1) Faith is a type of belief

2) Faith is a step taken to believe in something when a belief is not strong, concrete or justifiable enough to be absolutely sure.

3)  Even so, to have faith in something still needs some kind of evidence.
There is no faith without evidence
  eg :- To have faith in someone when giving that someone an important task, one atleast needs an evidence of the capability of the person.

4) Faith is naturaly believing in something when there is a probability in one's mind that that something may not occure, happen or be there. But if one has faith towards it, the probability in one's mind weighs towards the thing that one has put one's faith on. Meaning that one would somehow put one's confidence in that thing that one has put one's faith on occuring, happening or beaing there.

5) Faith is natural and is determined unconsciously rather than consciously
eg1:- To have faith on one's friend lending one money when one is in need, that faith is predetermined by the way that friend acted before during such situations. The faith one would have would be predetermined by the previous situations and the courage to ask would also be predetermined subconsciously by the previous actions. If that friend is a type of person that would get angry at such situations, one's subconscious mind wouldn't give one the courage to ask. (This would be observed to a greater magnitude if, at the time of the incident, one stops and thinks to decide whether one has faith in that particular situation or not)

eg2:- To have faith that the car one is in would reach the destination safely would greately depend on the history of the driver's driving record. If one has had too many accidents already, the faith will decrease to a great extent. Even more so, if the driver has never driven. So faith is predetermined subconsciously.(This would be observed to a greater magnitude if, at the time of the incident, one stops and thinks to decide whether one has faith in that particular situation or not)

            Faith in a higher power

Should faith in a higher power be blind or should it be based on reason? As I have mentioned above(with proof), there can be no faith without some kind of basic proof or evidence.
eg:- To be a christian, one either has to grow up in a christian family, where one trusts one's parents and the parent's faith affects one's faith. By beaing indoctrined christianity from childhood one would fill the unexplainabe(as there are many unexplainables in life) in life by the doctrines of christianity as an obvious answer. Or one has to be convinced through reasoning and evidence that fits and defeates one's mind and one's reasoning in that particular subject.

That beaing so, should the questioning and evidence searching stop at a certain level like what many theists do?(this is solely from my observation) Or should the questioning continue until one's reasonable questions towards that query is fully answered?

               Questions

1) Should one have believe in a higher power in order to gain something in this life and or after or should one believe because of the simple fact that it is true?

2) Would a reasonable higher power expect us to believe in him/her blindly?

3) Would he/she reward those that believed in him/her blindly or those that believe in him/her with evidence?

4) Is it faith blindly or faith with evidence that is stronger and unshakable?

5) What is the big deal about believing? What difference does that bring to the higher power or self?

6) Say the higher power one believes in has no power over one in life nor in death, would one still worship that power?

         Things I have observed

From the religions that I know of, even though most to all are not conscious of it, unconsciously, the reason that people have faith in a higher power is

i) for that higher power to help them in their daily lives

ii) To live a better or ever blissful life forever after this life.

iii) To avoid punishment in this life and after from that certain higher power.

Proof

- There is no mention of other objectives in the motives as to why one should believe in a particular sect of faith than the promise of good life, reward after death and avoidance of punishment here and after life.
- If the motive for following a particular path of faith in a higher power is just because that it is a true path, the belief system should be based on evidence and search of truth rather than just faith.

Posted via Blogaway

Morality

Morality(from the Latin moralitas"manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper functions and those which involve the omission of proper functions, the disjunction between right and wrong.[1]Morality canbe a body of standards or principles derived from acode of conductfrom a particularphilosophy,religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should beuniversal.[2]Morality may also be specifically synonymous with"goodness" or "rightness." wikipidia

1) Morality is an ideological set of rules that one followes in one's standard of thinking and acting.

2) One's morality may be derived from society, religion, comprehention and nature.

3) Morality is an inescapable characteristc that a normal human beaing has and is unseparable from a thinking human.

Proof:-

3.1) A normal human beaing has to have a say(to self) about what one thinks is right and what one thinks is wrong about any thing or something that one comes across in one's life. One can't just stay indifferent to everything in life.

3.2) If one has one's own view about anything based on anything be it based on religion or social values or self value, one has morality.

4) The set of values that one has because of one's morality is not an an indefinite constant and are prone to change.

Proof:-

4.1) Say I believe in God and have certain values based on my belief in God and the commandments. Then say that I got into science and got convinced that there may not be a God.

4.2) I start following a different set of moral values that are not based on religion.
Which is a possible outcome

5) Moral values are set to be kept but are not always kept

Proof

5.1) Say I believe that premarital sex is wrong I shouldn't get involved in it because of my religious convictions.

5.2) I meet a tempting woman at a tempting situation.

5.2.1) I fell my values and have premarital sex.
Which is a possible outcome

6) Moral values do get in conflict with instincts.

Proof
6.1) Take 5.1, 5.2 and 5.2.1

6.2) Why did I fell my moral values and have premarital sex?

6.2.1) I fell because I had an instinctive desire to have sex.

6.2.2) But I also had a morality that forbid me from doing such an act.
Thus those two entities are in one and are in conflict.

7) Morality or moral values are not kept because the strength in which those beliefs have a pull on one is not strong enough to overcome the strength in which those instincts that oposes those moral values have a pull on one

Proof

7.1) Take examples 5.1 - 6.2.2 Which indicated that the pull that was exerted on one by instinct was greater in force than the pull that was exerted on one by one's morality.
If that was not the case the results would have been otherwise(One is a different entity)

8) What if the pull exerted on one by both is equal.

8.1) (One is a different entity)

8.1.1) When in the process of making a decision, one choice has to be made

8.2) In the case where both forces are equal, decision would be made according to the inclination one takes during the time of decision.

8.2.1) So if these two forces are a pull, they get stronger when closer and weaker when farther just like gravity.

8.2.2) Getting closer is entertaining the idea more. Farther is not entertaining the idea

8.2.2.1) The more one entertaines either of the pulls, the more force either of the pulls have on one and vice versa.

8.3) So one can either strengthen or weaken a pull by entertaining it or by not entertaining it.

9) This is only true, if both forces are true.

Posted via Blogaway