The Existence Thread

[crowonsnow]

" VociMike:

But the exact same thing can be said (in fact, must be said) for the “atheist universe”. No atheist can account for existence.

Well, I guess I’d ask you to show me some “existence," because to me that’s just a word that has communicative value. In other words, I can show you a “universe” - parts of it anyway - but you can’t show me any “existence.”

So I’m not attempting to be cute or argumentative, just trying to make the point that people can be confused by language.

To put it differently, I would ask you to tell me the difference between the universe, and the universe’s “existence.”

So what is the difference between the universe and the universe’s existence? I received no response in the original thread.

I’m mainly interested to hear from people who think gods are real, but all responses are obviously welcome.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So what is the difference between the universe and the universe’s existence? I received no response in the original thread.

I’m mainly interested to hear from people who think gods are real, but all responses are obviously welcome.

The universe you described (that you said you can show parts of) is the physical realm (obviously within the purview of our senses to observe it).

Existence entails anything that is. Matter, love, intellect, dreams…and God, angels, truth…anything that exists.

 

[crowonsnow]

The universe you described (that you said you can show parts of) is the physical realm (obviously within the purview of our senses to observe it).

Existence entails anything that is. Matter, love, intellect, dreams…and God, angels, truth…anything that exists.

So then what is the difference between an apple and an apple’s existence?

My original statement was that “existence” is just a word, not something real. To be succinct we could say that an apple exists but existence does not. Therefore someone who is atheistic about creator gods does not need to explain “existence.”

I know presuppers like to make the claim that “existence exists,” and then go on to claim that without the existence of existence nothing would have the ability to exist, and therefore could not. I’m saying you could remove this word from our usage and nothing of our understanding about the universe would change.

So what is the difference between an apple and an apple’s existence? What does the word ”existence” give to an apple that it does not already have?

 

[ateista]

We should be more precise. There are two types of existence we are familiar with:

1. physical, actual existence, which can be directly experienced by our senses, or their “extensions”. (Extensions mean something like a microscope…) An apple exists as a physical object and also exists as a concept - the reflection of a physical object in our mind.
2. conceptual existence, which is the realm of our thoughts, whether they have actual, physical existence or not. (Hamlet is an imaginary figure.) These entities only exist in our minds, but not as physical objects.

Believers say that there is third “type” of existence, that of purely immaterial beings, (God, angels, demons, devils…) who somehow, in some unspecified way are able to interact with the physical realm, but cannot be affected by the physical realm. This type of “existence” is not something we are familiar with.

It would behoove the believers of this type of existence to show that it is somehow “real”, that it is somehow different from conceptual existence. And it simply does not and cannot happen. It cannot happen, because this type of existence is unveryfiable - in principle.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So then what is the difference between an apple and an apple’s existence?

An apple is a thing that exists as an apple. “Apple” is the nature of its essence. Because it has essence, it exists. If you think it’s all a semantic exercise, that’s ok with me…we probably won’t go anywhere.

 

[mike7795]

An apple is a thing that exists as an apple. “Apple” is the nature of its essence. Because it has essence, it exists. If you think it’s all a semantic exercise, that’s ok with me…we probably won’t go anywhere.

An apple exists only in the senses, but something tells me you know this already. Does a rainbow “exist” to the blind?

It’s all relative. Ask the person who is without senses what an apple is, and you’ll find it does not exist.

Mike

 

[MarcoPolo]

An apple exists only in the senses, but something tells me you know this already. Does a rainbow “exist” to the blind?

It’s all relative. Ask the person who is without senses what an apple is, and you’ll find it does not exist.

Mike

Truth is not relative. Things that are real exist whether they are perceived by one of 5 human senses or not…

 

[mike7795]

Truth is not relative. Things that are real exist whether they are perceived by one of 5 human senses or not…

Thank you for helping me to prove my point, my friend.

Regards,
Mike

 

[Allen537]

An apple exists only in the senses, but something tells me you know this already. Does a rainbow “exist” to the blind?

It’s all relative. Ask the person who is without senses what an apple is, and you’ll find it does not exist.

Mike

Something cannot be and not be at the same time, this is known in metaphysics as the “principle of non-contradiction”.

If we use the example of the apple, one person with senses is able to know its existence by use of their senses; and the other who has no senses and is unable to know the apples physical existence by use of his/her senses.

Here we have a situation where one person is able to know the existence of an apple, and another person is unable to know the existence of the very same apple. One person says it exists, and the other says it does not. But this cannot be. The apple either exists or it doesn’t.

Since we are receiving two different answers. we must now look at what is causing this split decision. The first person, as has been stated above, has the full use of his senses and is capable of knowing the outside world. The second person is living in a state of sensual privation, so he is unable to know the outside world.

The fact that one person is able to know that the apple exists and the other person is unable does not mean that the apple’s existence is relative to the individual, rather it is simply that one person has the faculties to know the existence of the apple and the other person does not.

 

[fhansen]

I think a better way to put it might be, “Why do apples exist rather than not exist?”
Also, the example of the difference between people who can sense an apples’ existence vs those who can’t could be compared to those who perceive Gods’ existence vs those who can’t. Apples exist whether one can perceive them or not.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thank you for helping me to prove my point, my friend.

If your point is that truth isn’t relative, you are on the money.

 

[cpayne]

I think perhaps the original question confuses *quod quid est *(the essence of something) with esse (that thing’s “act of being”). Every act of being is different from every other act of being; however, the essence or genus of some things is the same. For example, the word “apple” in itself is a genus or an essence; when you start talking about particular apples, you can then talk about the apple’s “existence.” The first thing that enters one’s consciousness is material identity (“Here is something, an apple”). Only after that can one reason, “This particular apple must exist, must possess its own unitary existence.”

Of course, you can go the Nominalist route, which is what I think the OP is heading toward, and say, “Only particular things exist.” In that case, yes, you can scrap “existence” as a meaningful word. Also love, beauty, truth, human being, dog, fish, goodness, etc. Pretty high price to pay just to get out of having to explain why the universe possesses existence.

Only in God are the “essence” and the “act of being” identical (which, by the way, is the philosophical underpinning of all “ontological arguments” for God’s existence–once you know what God is you know why God exists); therefore, only God cannot be located in a genus. Or, to put it a different way, if God is in a genus, God is the only possible member of that genus, and thus God’s “genus” is not really a genus as such at all. You can’t really have a genus with only one possible Member.

 

[geekborj]

We should be more precise. There are two types of existence we are familiar with:

1. physical, actual existence, which can be directly experienced by our senses, or their “extensions”. (Extensions mean something like a microscope…) An apple exists as a physical object and also exists as a concept - the reflection of a physical object in our mind.
2. conceptual existence, which is the realm of our thoughts, whether they have actual, physical existence or not. (Hamlet is an imaginary figure.) These entities only exist in our minds, but not as physical objects.

Believers say that there is third “type” of existence, that of purely immaterial beings, (God, angels, demons, devils…) who somehow, in some unspecified way are able to interact with the physical realm, but cannot be affected by the physical realm. This type of “existence” is not something we are familiar with.

It would behoove the believers of this type of existence to show that it is somehow “real”, that it is somehow different from conceptual existence. And it simply does not and cannot happen. It cannot happen, because this type of existence is unveryfiable - in principle.

I would agree with “physical existence” without the word “actual” because it assumes an idea of reality when in fact just due to our senses and perception.

As for the “third” type; as a believer, i argue that we believe in God to exists in all types of existence we can think of. He is even beyond the human grasp of existence. Humans can only “approximate” and not good at that, it seems.

 

[ateista]

I would agree with “physical existence” without the word “actual” because it assumes an idea of reality when in fact just due to our senses and perception.

I am curious: are you a solipsist? Or do you accept the Platonian view of “shades” on the wall in a cave?