Existence as an Attribute

[Eudaimonist]

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".

If God is not a being, then God doesn't exist. I'm glad that we agree on something.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ahermit]

If God is not a being, then God doesn't exist. I'm glad that we agree on something.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I did not say that.
I said that God is Truth, and only Truth exists.
God/Truth encompasses everything that is real/exist, including a being.
I said that God/Truth does not point to a "being", but what "Is".

If that does not clarify it for you then we are on different levels of consciousness.

 

[timewerx]

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.

Can we say "the world includes God"? doesn't sound right.

The nature of existence is dependent upon the truth.

This means nobody knows.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about a symmetry. Physics is full of them, so why not theology? Particle antiparticle, up down etc. Why not finite infinite, creation creator, or existing non existing, creation creator...

take your pick!

 

[The Cadet]

Could God have created a reality in which 2+2=5?

Actually, it's fairly trivial to do; simply make the order of the numbers swapped.

I believe anything is possible for God.

Then you have cut off any branch from which you have to defend or even assess your own position. If you reject the basic logical axioms of "A is not equal to (NOT A)", "A==A", and "For all A, A OR NOT A", then you leave absolutely no place from which to argue for or even evaluate your position. The claim that god can create a square circle implies that you reject that first axiom - that A cannot be equal to Not A. The definitions of squares and circles are fundamentally incompatible, so unless you're being a smart-alek and just messing with the definitions like I was above, I don't see how you could possibly argue for this. You've removed literally every tool from your arsenal.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Could God have created a reality in which 2+2=5?

2+2=5, maybe on a zig zag number line?

Let y = x creates a linear graph for ordinary numbers. 1st =1, 1nd=2, 3rd=3 etc. A line goes up at 45 degrees form the axis.

For "non ordinarly numbers" (i just invented the terms and idea, afaik, but theres probably a maths term for it) you could have 1st number =2, 2nd=4 etc 3rd = 6 4th = 8 etc...

...and have not a 45 degree line but a increase towards the vertical. ie y = 2x....

Look here, https://graphsketch.com/ , in the blue box put x and in the red one put 2x, press enter and you have your fresh so-called "number lines".

But still the initial numbers would form an index or basis for the new, and the new line a transformation or a "cipher" or likewise a fresh look based on the initial numbers...

If you enter in the green box x + 0.5 then youll have a new so-called number line where 2+2=5!!!

 

[Eudaimonist]

I did not say that.
I said that God is Truth, and only Truth exists.
God/Truth encompasses everything that is real/exist, including a being.
I said that God/Truth does not point to a "being", but what "Is".

If that does not clarify it for you then we are on different levels of consciousness.

We aren't on different levels of consciousness. We simply disagree on these matters, and possibly due to word definitions.

I think that you need to define "being" if we are to advance this discussion. To me, a being refers to an entity. An entity is simply something that exists.

If Truth exists, then Truth is an entity.

What distinction are you trying to draw between "being" and "what Is"? An entity can't be distinguished from what Is if that entity is all that Is.

If you are suggesting that God is merely the property of existence, I'll just suggest that this may run into philosophical problems. There really isn't any good reason to speak of existence as a property distinct from existing entities. I realize that mystics may perceive things in that way, but I think that they are making an intellectual error when they try to speak philosophically.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Simon_Templar]

Existence is caused by a being that already exists?

How does that work?

More accurately it would be "the existence of contingent things is caused (ultimately) by a being which not only exists, but IS existence." (IE a necessary being)

 

[Simon_Templar]

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:

1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
2. Having the attribute "exists" is greater than not having the attribute.
3. 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.

This is just a game of term manipulation. The reality is that to say "X exists" tells you something meaningful about BOTH X and "the World".

In the phrase "the world includes x" "the world" must be the set of things which actually exist. We can play this game with literally any attribute/predicate.

I can just as easily say that saying "X is blue" really means that "the set of all things that are blue includes X" and therefore "X is blue" is not describing X, but rather it is describing the set of things that are blue.

To even say the set of things which meet the standard of X, means that X must be an attribute that can be applied to things. Even if we simply break down the phrase "the world includes X" without changing any of the terms, it is undeniably telling something about X, namely that it is included in the world. X either must be, or not be, included in the world. When we are told that it is or it isn't, we are told something about X.

 

[variant]

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:

1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
2. Having the attribute "exists" is greater than not having the attribute.
3. 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 it is. X falls into the set of things that exist, defines X. All definitions are attributes.

When we define something as existing we are drawing a distinction between that and something that does not in fact exist, like say a dragon.

From a certain perspective you can say you are describing the world, but you could say that about any attempted truth statement.

The argument is nonsense for a lot of other reasons though.

 

[variant]

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

You mean as indefinite as possible, because the greatest actually existent being is free to not be a God (for any of the various definitions of great).

There is no premise in the argument stating that all conceivable beings have to exist. We, in fact, know this to be untrue because we can conceive of all sorts of fictitious beings.

So, if you define great as you do in premise #2 as existence being greater than non existence, you could have either invalidated premise 1 if God doesn't exist, or you may have have defined the actually existent greatest conceivable being that actually exists quite wrongly as a God.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about modal realism, the concept that all possible worlds exist?

 

[quatona]

What about modal realism, the concept that all possible worlds exist?

Sounds like modal logic trying to throw itself out of the window. (Not that I´d shed a tear...)

 

[The Cadet]

I can just as easily say that saying "X is blue" really means that "the set of all things that are blue includes X" and therefore "X is blue" is not describing X, but rather it is describing the set of things that are blue.

...But of course, for my description of "the set of things that are blue" to be accurate, X must still exist. If X doesn't exist, it cannot possibly be an element in the set of all things that are blue.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What about modal realism, the concept that all possible worlds exist?

I have a strong distaste for modal arguments. The closer I look, the more they just seem like sleight of hand.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ahermit]

...What distinction are you trying to draw between "being" and "what Is"? An entity can't be distinguished from what Is if that entity is all that Is....

As before, I said
God/Truth encompasses everything that is real/exist, including a being.
that God/Truth does not point to a "being", but what "Is".

In other words, Truth is like an ocean and the entity/being is a raindrop of water. Once the drop enters the ocean it no longer is a drop, but an ocean. That is, the Ocean does not point to a raindrop, but to itself.
God "Is" all encompassing, including a being, like the ocean includes the raindrop.

It is only our time-space referencing that separates 'being' from God and therefore an entity. But God is the underlying energy, called uncreated light, that what we call existence to exist in our time-space referencing. Existence as such is a deception and not the Truth. The Truth in this regard is the uncreated light.

Like I said elsewhere, if a rock was the truth, and we made it into a brick, what seems to exist is a brick. But the truth is, it is a rock deceived to look like a brick. In this regard, the Truth is the rock, and the brick is seen as existence.

What we call existence is a deception, an illusion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is just a game of term manipulation. The reality is that to say "X exists" tells you something meaningful about BOTH X and "the World".

In the phrase "the world includes x" "the world" must be the set of things which actually exist. We can play this game with literally any attribute/predicate.

I can just as easily say that saying "X is blue" really means that "the set of all things that are blue includes X" and therefore "X is blue" is not describing X, but rather it is describing the set of things that are blue.

To even say the set of things which meet the standard of X, means that X must be an attribute that can be applied to things. Even if we simply break down the phrase "the world includes X" without changing any of the terms, it is undeniably telling something about X, namely that it is included in the world. X either must be, or not be, included in the world. When we are told that it is or it isn't, we are told something about X.

Problems seem to arise when one defines X as existing; that is, one defines existence as an essential attribute of X. Simply saying that something exists isn't the problem.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Like I said elsewhere, if a rock was the truth, and we made it into a brick, what seems to exist is a brick. But the truth is, it is a rock deceived to look like a brick. In this regard, the Truth is the rock, and the brick is seen as existence.

I don't know what it means to say "the rock is the truth." Statements about the rock (e.g., that it weights 6 kilograms) may be true or false, but statements like "the rock is the truth" seem unintelligible to me.

 

[com7fy8]

Existence is caused by a being that already exists?

How does that work?

I think God exists; He did not cause Himself to come into existence; He simply has always existed. And I find it to be a marvelous wonder how there is anything, at all, in existence . . . versus there being nothing. And I do experience God and His love.

If you are suggesting that God is merely the property of existence, I'll just suggest that this may run into philosophical problems.

I would say that God simply exists, and I might not concern myself with if His existence is a property or not; but it is a reality, in any case . . . a fact, whether you call "it" a quality or property or not . . . whatever words you use. Oh . . . by "you", I don't mean you, Eudaemonist, but you people, in general . . . anybody

More accurately it would be "the existence of contingent things is caused (ultimately) by a being which not only exists, but IS existence." (IE a necessary being)

I think it is an interesting issue, if God has brought anything into existence. Did God bring things and conscious beings into existence, from "nothing"? Or did God "use" substances already self-existent, to make all He has created? You can create with what already exists. But such substances other than God would be inferior to the being of God.

In any case, Paul says God is the One "who gives life to all things", in 1 Timothy 6:13.

And the Bible says "God is light", in 1 John 1:5; and we see how sunlight gives life to natural beings on this earth . . . possibly as a natural representation of how God, really, is the One "who gives life to all things". And we see how, in the dark, ultraviolet light can in a way bring things to life, to be seen, experienced. Possibly, God then does not bring things into existence, but He has formed them and given them light to cause them to have conscious experience and be experienced.

But when light "hits" something, each thing responds according to its nature.

If we are in God's love, then, we benefit the most from His light. But if we are selfish and light comes, we can make a stink and suffer . . . because of our own nature. A healthy plant will grow in light, and in that same loving sunshine a plant with unhealthy roots will dry out and harden.

So, I consider that God may not actually bring things into existence, but into having conscious experience.

 

[quatona]

As before, I said
God/Truth encompasses everything that is real/exist, including a being.
that God/Truth does not point to a "being", but what "Is".

In other words, Truth is like an ocean and the entity/being is a raindrop of water. Once the drop enters the ocean it no longer is a drop, but an ocean. That is, the Ocean does not point to a raindrop, but to itself.
God "Is" all encompassing, including a being, like the ocean includes the raindrop.

It is only our time-space referencing that separates 'being' from God and therefore an entity. But God is the underlying energy, called uncreated light, that what we call existence to exist in our time-space referencing. Existence as such is a deception and not the Truth. The Truth in this regard is the uncreated light.

Like I said elsewhere, if a rock was the truth, and we made it into a brick, what seems to exist is a brick. But the truth is, it is a rock deceived to look like a brick. In this regard, the Truth is the rock, and the brick is seen as existence.

What we call existence is a deception, an illusion.