Existence as an Attribute

Tree of Life · Jan 1, 2016

One problem with the ontological argument for God's existence is the idea that existence is an attribute. The weaker versions of the ontological argument, as you know, go something like:

God is the greatest conceivable being.
Having the attribute "exists" is greater than not having the attribute.
Therefore God exists.

However, existence is not an attribute of things. When one says: "God exists" or "I exist" or "planet Earth exists" one is not really describing God, oneself, or planet earth. "X exists" describes the world, not X. "X exists" really means "the world includes X". So existence is not an attribute.

Albion · Jan 1, 2016

Tree of Life said:
One problem with the ontological argument for God's existence is the idea that existence is an attribute. The weaker versions of the ontological argument, as you know, go something like:

God is the greatest conceivable being.

Having the attribute "exists" is greater than not having the attribute.

Therefore God exists.

However, existence is not an attribute of things.

My guess is that most Christians would agree with you on this ^.

Davian · Jan 1, 2016

Tree of Life said:
One problem with the ontological argument for God's existence is the idea that existence is an attribute. The weaker versions of the ontological argument, as you know, go something like:

God is the greatest conceivable being.

Having the attribute "exists" is greater than not having the attribute.

Therefore God exists.

However, existence is not an attribute of things. When one says: "God exists" or "I exist" or "planet Earth exists" one is not really describing God, oneself, or planet earth. "X exists" describes the world, not X. "X exists" really means "the world includes X". So existence is not an attribute.

Is this a generic "God", or the "God" character in the bible that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

Tree of Life · Jan 1, 2016

Davian said:
Is this a generic "God", or the "God" character in the bible that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing?

Usually the God of the ontological argument is as generic as possible.

quatona · Jan 1, 2016

Tree of Life said:
One problem with the ontological argument for God's existence is the idea that existence is an attribute. The weaker versions of the ontological argument, as you know, go something like:

God is the greatest conceivable being.

Having the attribute "exists" is greater than not having the attribute.

Therefore God exists.

However, existence is not an attribute of things. When one says: "God exists" or "I exist" or "planet Earth exists" one is not really describing God, oneself, or planet earth. "X exists" describes the world, not X. "X exists" really means "the world includes X". So existence is not an attribute.

Yes, very important point!
Existence is the frame of reference which is required for having attributes.

Ahermit · Jan 2, 2016

Existence is caused by God.
Existence is attributed to God.

GrowingSmaller · Jan 2, 2016

actus purus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus

Eudaimonist · Jan 2, 2016

Tree of Life said:
However, existence is not an attribute of things. When one says: "God exists" or "I exist" or "planet Earth exists" one is not really describing God, oneself, or planet earth. "X exists" describes the world, not X. "X exists" really means "the world includes X". So existence is not an attribute.

I agree that that existence is not an attribute -- but I think rather that it is what one says about anything that has attributes. Anything that has attributes necessarily exists. The having of attributes is how one recognizes that some-thing is there.

To exist is to exist as something.
-- Aristotle

Any "thing" that doesn't have any attributes at all is a contradiction in terms. One may as well say that one is talking about no-thing (i.e., nothing).

So, existence does not describe anything and therefore shouldn't be considered an attribute.

eudaimonia,

Mark

GrowingSmaller · Jan 3, 2016

The human spirit is mean to be immortal but contingent on Gods will, yet indestructible by material things. Whereas God is indestructible as such.

But what about numbers.... 2+2=4 is meant to be an eternal relationship, yet many people believe God created maths.

Ahermit · Jan 3, 2016

I concur.

Long time ago, some people thought that the sum total was always unity.
That is 2 + 2 = 4 was perceived as 4/4 (unity) = 2/4 + 2/4. It's all relative to ones point of reference.

What God did create was the source energy behind the development of the material world.
This includes the device (brain) to deduce the material world.
Mathematics is simply another language that actually works better than linguistics in certain abstractions. That is why science books have lots of maths. The maths take over where linguistics fail to communicate effectively.

Beechwell · Jan 3, 2016

Eudaimonist said:
I agree that that existence is not an attribute -- but I think rather that it is what one says about anything that has attributes. Anything that has attributes necessarily exists. The having of attributes is how one recognizes that some-thing is there.

I don't follow you here. What do you mean by 'attributes' . I could say that superman has the attribute of super - strength. But I assume that is not the kind of attribute you are thinking of, is it?

I entirely agree with the op, by the way

Tree of Life · Jan 3, 2016

GrowingSmaller said:
The human spirit is mean to be immortal but contingent on Gods will, yet indestructible by material things. Whereas God is indestructible as such.

But what about numbers.... 2+2=4 is meant to be an eternal relationship, yet many people believe God created maths.

God did not create math if math is an artificial language used to describe reality (which it is). Yet God did create the reality that math seeks to describe.

Could God have created a reality in which 2+2=5? Simplify that question: could God have created a reality in which 4=5? Simplify it further: could God have created a reality in which (not 5)=5. Can God create a square circle? No. I don't think God can create something logically incoherent because something logically incoherent cannot exist. Indeed, it cannot even be imagined or described.

Eudaimonist · Jan 3, 2016

Beechwell said:
I don't follow you here. What do you mean by 'attributes' . I could say that superman has the attribute of super - strength. But I assume that is not the kind of attribute you are thinking of, is it?

I mean a property of a characteristic of an entity -- something that makes a corresponding description of that entity true. Yes, Superman, if he were to exist, would have an attribute of strength greater than my own, unless he were to fall into my Kryptonite trap! Bwahahaha!

eudaimonia,

Mark

Ahermit · Jan 3, 2016

Tree of Life said:
God did not create math if math is an artificial language used to describe reality (which it is). Yet God did create the reality that math seeks to describe....

Interesting thread Tree of Life.

I concur with this statement, but see it differently with the next one.

Tree of Life said:
... Can God create a square circle? No. I don't think God can create something logically incoherent because something logically incoherent cannot exist. Indeed, it cannot even be imagined or described.

I believe anything is possible for God. What I think is not possible is only because I cannot understand (yet) how it could be.

Our physicality is based on the space-time continuum of this realm. If time was warped so too will space. There maybe a plane of warped space were geometrically, a circle and a square become one. Though our current imagination will argue that the square and circle is no longer a square or a circle, but a warped version of it. But who is to say that our (new) warped brain, in this warped realm, cannot see a square-circle?

There are many different dimensions. Who is to say that there are no realms without time, and therefore without space?

"The heavens have opened!" statements from others, and which I have witnessed, defies this realm of space-time continuum.
There are other realities besides this one. Actually, our realm is the densest one we know. All others that people have perceived by either mind / senses, have been finer/subtler ones. If we are in the densest realm, it may explain why it is the hardest one to ignore.

GoldenBoy89 · Jan 3, 2016

Ahermit said:
Existence is caused by God.
Existence is attributed to God.

Existence is caused by a being that already exists?

How does that work?

Ahermit · Jan 3, 2016

GoldenBoy89 said:
Existence is caused by a being that already exists?
How does that work?

Who said that existence is caused by a being?
Using God is Truth, and Truth is the only reality, because what is not true does not exist, then is Truth a being? (I use Truth as all that is truth).
It is said that if Truth could describe itself it would say "I Am". Sounds familiar.
I Am, does not point to a "being", it points to "Is".

Eryk · Jan 3, 2016

Tree of Life said:
However, existence is not an attribute of things.

We are using language - nouns - semantically realized things. The referents for some of these things have the attribute of existence, and the referents for some of these things are potential or hypothetical or made-up things. For instance, when we read The Hobbit, Bag End is as real as New York City. But we know that Bag End is not a real thing - it doesn't have the attribute of existence. New York is a thing with the attribute of existence. Non-existent things are a vivid part of life because our minds are not limited to what is.

Plato's Beard

Tree of Life · Jan 3, 2016

Ahermit said:
Interesting thread Tree of Life.

I concur with this statement, but see it differently with the next one.

I believe anything is possible for God. What I think is not possible is only because I cannot understand (yet) how it could be.

Our physicality is based on the space-time continuum of this realm. If time was warped so too will space. There maybe a plane of warped space were geometrically, a circle and a square become one. Though our current imagination will argue that the square and circle is no longer a square or a circle, but a warped version of it. But who is to say that our (new) warped brain, in this warped realm, cannot see a square-circle?

There are many different dimensions. Who is to say that there are no realms without time, and therefore without space?

"The heavens have opened!" statements from others, and which I have witnessed, defies this realm of space-time continuum.
There are other realities besides this one. Actually, our realm is the densest one we know. All others that people have perceived by either mind / senses, have been finer/subtler ones. If we are in the densest realm, it may explain why it is the hardest one to ignore.

As soon as you can tell me what you mean by "square circle" then I'll tell you whether or not God can make one.

Tree of Life · Jan 3, 2016

Eryk said:
We are using language - nouns - semantically realized things. The referents for some of these things have the attribute of existence, and the referents for some of these things are potential or hypothetical or made-up things. For instance, when we read The Hobbit, Bag End is as real as New York City. But we know that Bag End is not a real thing - it doesn't have the attribute of existence. New York is a thing with the attribute of existence. Non-existent things are a vivid part of life because our minds are not limited to what is.

Plato's Beard

What you're trying to say is that the world includes "New York" but does not include "Bag End". You're not really describing these places. You're describing the world when you say "New York exists".

Eryk · Jan 3, 2016

Tree of Life said:
What you're trying to say is that the world includes "New York" but does not include "Bag End". You're not really describing these places. You're describing the world when you say "New York exists".

I'm comparing New York to Bag End. We constantly make distinctions between things that exist and things that don't (truth and lies, reality and fantasy), and we have to make existence an attribute to do that.

Changing the subject now - conventionally, practically, existence cannot be anything other than an attribute of beings, because existence would not exist without them. We could not speak of existence if things did not exist. Seen in this way, existence isn't filled-in with things. Existence is the ontological property of things, and it is all things. But seen in another way, primordial existence is space: it makes room for things and allows them to appear. It makes possible the existence of distinct entities and their activities, and time itself. Both points of view are valid and useful.

Existence as an Attribute

Hide The Pain

Facilitator

fallible

Hide The Pain

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Muslm Humanist

I believe in life before death!

Muslm Humanist

Well-Known Member

Glücksdrache

Hide The Pain

I believe in life before death!

Well-Known Member

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hide The Pain

Hide The Pain

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency