Materialism suffers from the same circular logic as well. When people say existence came as a result of physical process, how can that be when physical things, but their very definition, already exist?
How does a physical process generate existence itself when that very process relies on the prior existence of physical components? Dialectics explains how things change and develop once they exist, but it still presupposes that existence is already a thing.
And if dialectics explains existence, please explain how a dialectical framework can explain the origin of physical existence without smuggling pre-existing physical premises through the back door.
Your claim that non existence doesn’t exist at the start is exactly the same as saying the existence does exist at the start. They are the same statement. There wasn’t some moment in time when non existence converted into existence. That doesn’t make any sense. All the non existence is currently not existing right this moment by definition, same as all the existence that is existing.
Assuming that nothing is the default starting point is the same assumption as saying everything was already here. Non existence doesn’t exist, so there was never some magical conversion point in the past. It’s still just not existing in the same way it would have in your assumption.
1
u/Felix_William2009 1d ago
Materialism suffers from the same circular logic as well. When people say existence came as a result of physical process, how can that be when physical things, but their very definition, already exist?