Rational Definition of Existence

[James_S_Saint]

I would propose that if we accept the following definition for existence, the arguments concerning God’s existence might go a lot easier and more progressive, besides it seems silly to argue over what might exist if we do not have a clear understanding of what it really means to exist;

Existence == That which has effect. That which has the ability to affect.

There are 4 reasons to accept this definition.

1. Rational relevance - If something has truly no effect on anything whatsoever, we really don’t care if it exists anyway. We can propose trillions of things that might exist but don’t have effect. What would be the point? It would be a waste of mind time.
2. Detectable Empiricism - We decide that something exists only when we detect that something is having effect. All of our senses function based on the effect that something else has upon them. We use equipment to increase our sensory ability, but still if nothing effects the equipment in any way, we declare that nothing was there.
3. Common Usage - In reality, people are already using the word “exist” to mean this definition. They often never think about it, but in every case of which I am aware, the person really means that something existing means that it has the potential to affect something even if not already affecting something.
4. Support from Science - Science concluded long ago that in reality all things have at least some minuscule affect on all other things. Often this is more of a chain effect than a direct effect.

In the God existence debates, this definition does not favor either direction. Without accepting that God actually has effect, what would be the point in claiming that God existed?

Also in the PSR arguments, any “possible world” that contains things that have no effect can be dismissed as being irrelevant.

Any rational argument?

 

[Eucharisted]

Existence is reality, life, presence, or the totality of all existence things. A god is a perfect being. If only one god exists, than that god must be perfectly perfect. God must be reality and life itself, an unchanging ever-present presence, and have in Himself the totality of all goodness; however, this is a bit different from saying He is the totally of all existent things, because He is not creation nor is creation divine (pantheism is a heresy). Saying He is the totality of all goodness just means He is power, mercy, love, wisdom, etc.

Existence, as reality, is self-existent. God, being existence itself, is self-existent. Existence is the source of all existent things, as well as the summit of all existent things since it takes infinite power to create something without using anything with which to create it (i.e., out of nothing). God, thus, is the Source and Summit of all existent and good things. I make a distinction between existent things and good things because the former includes created things while the latter includes uncreated things, the former being without God and the latter being within God, and the former being influenced by the latter while the latter is uninfluenced by the former (most people think of God as made in man’s image, but the opposite is actually the truth, and that is what most people can’t accept).

Since God is perfect, He must be self-sufficent, and if self-sufficent, than nothing could account for His existence, which means He must be existence itself.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Good, so you agree.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I would propose that if we accept the following definition for existence, the arguments concerning God’s existence might go a lot easier and more progressive, besides it seems silly to argue over what might exist if we do not have a clear understanding of what it really means to exist;

Existence is that which is most real. But there is also that which participates in actuality, as in that which is caused or generated by existence and is sustained by it.

Do you get me?

 

[James_S_Saint]

But there is also that which participates in actuality, as in that which is caused or generated by existence and is sustained by it.

So you are saying that part doesn’t exist?

 

[fhansen]

In the God existence debates, this definition does not favor either direction. Without accepting that God actually has effect, what would be the point in claiming that God existed?

Aren’t the arguments that postulate a necessary first cause claiming that God has effect?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Aren’t the arguments that postulate a necessary first cause claiming that God has effect?

I would hope so.

As I said, this definition doesn’t favor either side of the arguments. It merely adds relevance to the idea of what it means to exist.

 

[MindOverMatter]

So you are saying that part doesn’t exist?

First of all, existence has no parts. Secondly, a being that begins to exist does not do so by its own power or principled nature. It is caused in to being and sustained by that which is existence. A tree doesn’t remain a tree by its own nature of being a tree; it doesn’t exist according to “treeness”. It exists as such because something has made it actual and is sustaining the nature or principle of a tree in reality. The tree is not reality itself. For if the tree was reality by definition, it would simply exist irrespective of change or potentiality. It would not begin to exist or cease to exist. I am saying that there is that which is existence by definition; is reality in itself. And things pass in and out of existence according to the principles that existence has given them.

 

[James_S_Saint]

First of all, existence has no parts. Secondly, a being that begins to exist does not do so by its own power or principled nature. It is caused in to being and sustained by that which is existence. A tree doesn’t remain a tree by its own nature of being a tree; it doesn’t exist according to “treeness”. It exists as such because something has made it actual and is sustaining the nature or principle of a tree in reality. The tree is not reality itself. For if the tree was reality by definition, it would simply exist irrespective of change or potentiality. It would not begin to exist or cease to exist. I am saying that there is that which is existence by definition; is reality in itself. And things pass in and out of existence according to the principles that existence has given them.

So how does all of that relate to the definition in question??

What exists yet has no effect? What has no effect, yet exists?

 

[geometer]

Any rational argument?

The word rational is being overused.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The word rational is being overused.

To me it has a relevant and specific meaning.

What is rational is what leads to greater benefit. It is the logical path to a specific chosen goal.

A “rational question” is one that has a goal, an answer, that logic would lead to.

Too often “irrational questions” are asked that do no more than create more confusion or distraction (which at times really is the goal of the questioner).

 

[geometer]

To me it has a relevant and specific meaning.

What is rational is what leads to greater benefit. It is the logical path to a specific chosen goal.

A “rational question” is one that has a goal, an answer, that logic would lead to.

Too often “irrational questions” are asked that do no more than create more confusion or distraction (which at times really is the goal of the questioner).

Usually a definition does not have to employ mathematics or logic to get the definition accross.

A good definition is usually called a conscise definition regardless of what jargon is used.

In psychology rational is simply one of the many attributes of consciousness. If one can do the mathematics that one actually knows one is considered rational, but that does not gaurauntee infalibility.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Establishing a new definition founded on its rationality as opposed to its common usage, requires that the rationality and logic be pointed out.

Those are not the definition itself. The definition is very simple. But explanation as to why it should be accepted requires far more explanation.

 

[sillyfrog]

That means the universe will exist forever, I think.http://www.photosnag.com/img/4713/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif

 

[James_S_Saint]

Oreo,

As I stated, you seek for things to object to rather than things to agree to, so I’m sure you won’t like this one either.

The fact that people argue for thousands of years about something is irrelevant to the truth of it. People argue until they agree. With people inspired to only disagree (you and the atheist crew, the Magog), they will continue to argue until the media tells them to stop.

 

[Oreoracle]

I would propose that if we accept the following definition for existence, the arguments concerning God’s existence might go a lot easier and more progressive, besides it seems silly to argue over what might exist if we do not have a clear understanding of what it really means to exist;

The best way to prove something’s existence has been and always will be to provide evidence. That’s the easiest way to prove God’s existence, if it could only be done.

Existence == That which has effect. That which has the ability to affect.

This definition is extremely useful, there’s no doubting that. However, like all similar definitions of “existence,” it’s also circular, though the circularity is subtle and will certainly not be seen by someone who is stubborn. Before I explain the circularity, let me talk about what it means to define something.

The whole purpose of defining entities is to enable us to identify particular entities. Any decent definition should allow us to separate all entities into at least two classes. For example, “even number,” as it is defined, is a useful term because it allows us to separate numbers into two classes: the class of even numbers and the class of not-even numbers, a.k.a. odd numbers. The definition of “number” allows us to separate the class of numbers from the class of not-numbers. In short, for any given X, we’re shooting for a definition that segregates X from ~X. The definition of “existence” is a notoriously difficult project for this reason: ALL THINGS EXIST. There is no “~X” to separate X from. You can’t identify anything else but existence because nonexistence (pardon the phrasing) doesn’t exist. Even those who argue that coherence is an element of existence and that contradictory things don’t exist for this reason confess that they don’t call contradictory things “things” in the first place.

In short, unless your definition can allow us to identify nonexistent things–in your case, “things without effect or the ability to affect”–then it has failed to do its job on the grounds that it doesn’t aid our ability to distinguish things. And since no such things can be identified (by definition), I’d say your position is a bleak one.

To be continued tomorrow…

 

[James_S_Saint]

The best way to prove something’s existence has been and always will be to provide evidence. That’s the easiest way to prove God’s existence, if it could only be done.

Oh really? Care to prove that?

You cannot even gather evidence without first having a defined idea of what evidence actually is nor could you qualify it without having a standard by which you gauge good verses bad evidence. How do you evidentially derive good evidence form bad?

However, like all similar definitions of “existence,” it’s also circular, though the circularity is subtle and will certainly not be seen by someone who is stubborn. Before I explain the circularity, let me talk about what it means to define something.

You never explained that circularity. It isn’t there.

The whole purpose of defining entities is to enable us to identify particular entities. Any decent definition should allow us to separate all entities into at least two classes. For example, “even number,” as it is defined, is a useful term because it allows us to separate numbers into two classes: the class of even numbers and the class of not-even numbers, a.k.a. odd numbers. The definition of “number” allows us to separate the class of numbers from the class of not-numbers. In short, for any given X, we’re shooting for a definition that segregates X from ~X. The definition of “existence” is a notoriously difficult project for this reason: ALL THINGS EXIST. There is no “~X” to separate X from. You can’t identify anything else but existence because nonexistence (pardon the phrasing) doesn’t exist. Even those who argue that coherence is an element of existence and that contradictory things don’t exist for this reason confess that they don’t call contradictory things “things” in the first place.

The antecedent of existence by this definition, as you pointed out, is “what doesn’t have effect”. An example would be a unicorn. We accept that the unicorn does not exist (although could be wrong) because we believe that no such creature actually has any real effect on anything at all, anywhere. If we thought that such a creature was really affecting something, then we could not deny its existence. We accept that the idea of a unicorn exists, but only as an idea and that idea has affect.

In short, unless your definition can allow us to identify nonexistent things–in your case, “things without effect or the ability to affect”–then it has failed to do its job on the grounds that it doesn’t aid our ability to distinguish things. And since no such things can be identified (by definition), I’d say your position is a bleak one.

To be continued tomorrow…

Something does NOT have to exist to have a definition. I am amazed at how many people got that idea stuck into their mind. A case for non-existence was provided above and as well explained in the OP.

 

[Oreoracle]

Oh really? Care to prove that?

You cannot even gather evidence without first having a defined idea of what evidence actually is nor could you qualify it without having a standard by which you gauge good verses bad evidence. How do you evidentially derive good evidence form bad?

It’s people like you who make others hate philosophy. Do I care to prove that providing evidence is the best way to prove the existence of something? Psshh… You simply aren’t willing to admit that your deity hasn’t a shred of evidence supporting him.

You never explained that circularity.

What part of “To be continued tomorrow…” don’t you understand?

The antecedent of existence by this definition, as you pointed out, is “what doesn’t have effect”. An example would be a unicorn. We accept that the unicorn does not exist (although could be wrong) because we believe that no such creature actually has any real effect on anything at all, anywhere.

Actually most philosophers would concede that the unicorn exists conceptually. The unicorn has effect, though the effect doesn’t take place in the material world. Consider a hypothetical pink elephant for example. With the pink elephant, we could make the following argument:

1. All mammals are animals.
2. All pink elephants are mammals.
   C. Therefore, all pink elephants are animals.

I daresay that if the concept of a pink elephant can become the subject of a premise, interact with another premise, and be used to form an inference such as this, it certainly has influence on a conceptual level. And according to you, the ability to affect, or influence, is the defining characteristic of existence. If you were only referring to the material world, perhaps you should have been more specific. I certainly don’t have the time to guess at what you mean, and neither will most others.

If we thought that such a creature was really affecting something, then we could not deny its existence. We accept that the idea of a unicorn exists, but only as an idea and that idea has affect.

And I’m sure you’d say the same of pink elephants, but based on my usage of it in my argument, I need not refer to it as an idea. If a pink elephant existed, it would be an animal. The existence is still only conceptual, of course.

Looking at your response to my first post, I won’t go through the effort of making a huge post concerning the circularity of your definition. To make a long story short, the whole idea of “influence,” “change,” or what have you assumes interaction, and interaction assumes the existence of multiple entities. “Affecting” assumes a thing to be affected, which assumes its existence and, according to your definition, its own ability to affect another entity that is also assumed to exist, and so on. Your definition forms an indefinite chain due to circularity.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It’s people like you who make others hate philosophy. Do I care to prove that providing evidence is the best way to prove the existence of something? Psshh… You simply aren’t willing to admit that your deity hasn’t a shred of evidence supporting him.

What does “my deity” have to do with anything??

What part of “To be continued tomorrow…” don’t you understand?

I see that you still have that problem of not thinking before you post. I was expecting to wait until tomorrow to see any reply. I guess the question is what didn’t YOU understand about your statement.

What is the issue?

Actually most philosophers would concede that the unicorn exists conceptually. The unicorn has effect, though the effect doesn’t take place in the material world.

There you go with the “I am we” thing. Your presumption of what “most philosophers think” is sophomoric at minimum.

I certainly don’t have the time to guess at what you mean, and neither will most others.

As I have explained on several threads, perhaps not this one, reality comes in “realms of existence”. Each realm is a realm of mutual affectance. The physical realm is the set of all physical affecters. The Divine realm is the realm of all concepts and principles, the “supernatural” realm, said to govern “above” (super) the physical (natural). The “law” of gravity would be an example.

Your pink elephant belongs in the realm of the conceptual entities and only affects other concepts.

Looking at your response to my first post, I won’t go through the effort of making a huge post concerning the circularity of your definition. To make a long story short, the whole idea of “influence,” “change,” or what have you assumes interaction, and interaction assumes the existence of multiple entities. “Affecting” assumes a thing to be affected, which assumes its existence and, according to your definition, its own ability to affect another entity that is also assumed to exist, and so on. Your definition forms an indefinite chain due to circularity.

No “circularity” at all. Learn what that word means.

Yes, the definition REQUIRES that more than one thing exist before anything can be said to exist. Science agrees. For a positive to exist, there must be a relative negative. That is why each realm is of “mutual affectance”.

The bottom line is that for something to be said to exist, it must have affect. That leads to the natural situation that more than one thing must exist for anything to be said to exist. You cannot have a mere singularity and nothing else and call it existence. At minimum, you would have to have the void surrounding the singularity, but such is logically impossible anyway. The natural mind can conceive a picture of such a thing just as it can with a unicorn. That has nothing to do with actual physical existence.

Dreams can constitute a realm of existence in that each item of the dream affects each other item in the dream, but only in the realm of the dream. The memory of the dream can effect physical life.

 

[James_S_Saint]

What exists, yet has no effect? What has no effect, yet exists?