Existence as an Attribute

[grasping the after wind]

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.

Logical coherence under one set of universal principles might well be logical incoherence in a universe based upon a completely different set of universal principles

 

[Ahermit]

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.

I never said "the rock is the truth"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I never said "the rock is the truth"

What you said was along those lines though. I'm sorry, I couldn't make much sense of it to begin with.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Including worlds where modal logic is formulated in a way which disproves modal realism?

 

[Ahermit]

"If we have not been able to understand the counsel of our companions, who will be able to comprehend divinity or the heavenly divinities? If we scarcely find things on earth, who will search for heavenly things?" - Paul

Theology is about truth, where philosophy is about facts. For a philosophical thread to misquote a person twice is not much credence for being factual, let alone truthful. So I am out of this thread.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"If we have not been able to understand the counsel of our companions, who will be able to comprehend divinity or the heavenly divinities? If we scarcely find things on earth, who will search for heavenly things?" - Paul

Theology is about truth, where philosophy is about facts. For a philosophical thread to misquote a person twice is not much credence for being factual, let alone truthful. So I am out of this thread.

Or you could clarify what you meant so that others don't also misconstrue your position?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Truth is like an ocean and the entity/being is a raindrop of water.

That only makes "Truth" an enormous entity/being. An ocean is merely a very big drop 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.

That makes God a being, merely an "all encompassing" one.

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.

Cloaking mysticism in physics language doesn't impress me. It doesn't get your ideas any more truthiness.

And you've come no closer to establishing that "existence" is a deception. A drop isn't a deception. It is just as much water as the ocean.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Theology is about truth, where philosophy is about facts.

Truth and facts are a distinction without a difference.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

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.

It seems as plain as the nose on my face that existence is an attribute. "Exist" is a verb, as "run" is a verb. They both describe what something does. "X exists" describes something about "X" just as "X runs" describes something about "X".

And hopefully someone can answer this: is there an example of anything which does not exist which is greater than that which does exist? (This includes ideas of course.)

 

[The Cadet]

It seems as plain as the nose on my face that existence is an attribute. "Exist" is a verb, as "run" is a verb. They both describe what something does. "X exists" describes something about "X" just as "X runs" describes something about "X".

Perhaps, then, you can explain to me the difference between a red apple and a red existing apple?

 

[Chesterton]

Perhaps, then, you can explain to me the difference between a red apple and a red existing apple?

If they both exist I might have to taste them to tell you. If only the second one exists then you've already stated the difference.

 

[The Cadet]

If only the second one exists then you've already stated the difference.

...But how could it possibly be red if it doesn't exist?

 

[Chesterton]

...But how could it possibly be red if it doesn't exist?

You didn't specify that it didn't exist. It can't be red if it doesn't exist.

 

[The Cadet]

You didn't specify that it didn't exist. It can't be red if it doesn't exist.

But that's the point. I'm asking what the difference is when we specify existence as an attribute. It appears that there really isn't one. Can an apple that doesn't exist be red?

 

[Chesterton]

But that's the point. I'm asking what the difference is when we specify existence as an attribute. It appears that there really isn't one. Can an apple that doesn't exist be red?

No, it can't be red. Light can move through a vacuum but it can't reflect off of things which don't exist. The only attribute that a non-existent thing [sic] can possess is the attribute of non-existence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The only attribute that a non-existent thing [sic] can possess is the attribute of non-existence.

Hold on... how can there be an attribute of non-existence? Entities have attributes. A non-entity isn't something that can have attributes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

Hold on... how can there be an attribute of non-existence? Entities have attributes. A non-entity isn't something that can have attributes.

That's why I put [sic] after "non-existent thing" as kind of a joke. There's no such thing as a non-existent thing, and that's why it can't be red, can't have attributes.

 

[The Cadet]

No, it can't be red. Light can move through a vacuum but it can't reflect off of things which don't exist. The only attribute that a non-existent thing [sic] can possess is the attribute of non-existence.

Okay... But then how could you possibly argue the existence of something from its other properties? Something that does not exist does not have any properties. Ergo, even if we define a "greatest conceivable being", until we establish that that being actually exists, we cannot possibly make any claims based on properties it might have if it existed.

 

[Chesterton]

Okay... But then how could you possibly argue the existence of something from its other properties? Something that does not exist does not have any properties. Ergo, even if we define a "greatest conceivable being", until we establish that that being actually exists, we cannot possibly make any claims based on properties it might have if it existed.

We can make claims based on properties of things which do exist. We can say a man is greater than a worm (or vice versa, I don't think it matters), then say that the greatest being would be greater than that.

 

[The Cadet]

We can make claims based on properties of things which do exist. We can say a man is greater than a worm (or vice versa, I don't think it matters), then say that the greatest being would be greater than that.

Okay, but for things whose existence we are unsure of? Can we possibly make any claims based on attributes they may or may not have?