If nothing is a paradox which is impossible then anything which doesn't exist is nonexistent, right?

I mean to talk about something like a dream which had to exist in the mind, or an idea you get while you're thinking, to be able to talk about anything ambiguous, or concrete, it has to exist in being remembered, right?

To talk about something means it exists as either a thought, physical object, quality about something or perception, etc. Everything exists (which includes things we don't know about) since it is a paradox to say that something doesn't exist.

So I wonder what other people think about "everything exists" as being a given (not needing to be said about anything whether ambiguous or not).

I was going to make extreme fun of you then I went back and read an old discussion and have to agree with you. Ok, so it is a tautology that "every thing exists" but that does not mean that everything is real or ontologically existant.

We did have a thread where there was much talk about the difference between "real" and "exist" although I don't think that anybody expressed an idea related to language not being able to express thoughts about something that does not exist. I am sure you will be enlightened if you check out this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-1460.htm...Real+exist

Ok admittedly much of it is just us goofing around but there is some good stuff in there starting with Arcanus' question.

Cheers,
Rhizo

(January 1, 2010 at 8:10 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote: If nothing is a paradox which is impossible then anything which doesn't exist is nonexistent, right?

I mean to talk about something like a dream which had to exist in the mind, or an idea you get while you're thinking, to be able to talk about anything ambiguous, or concrete, it has to exist in being remembered, right?

To talk about something means it exists as either a thought, physical object, quality about something or perception, etc. Everything exists (which includes things we don't know about) since it is a paradox to say that something doesn't exist.

So I wonder what other people think about "everything exists" as being a given (not needing to be said about anything whether ambiguous or not).

Nothing is a paradox, true. But if there is no Martian 2 feet in front of me: it is not to state that there is nothing in front of me. Essentially: everything can exist, but something always does.

(January 1, 2010 at 9:17 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I was going to make extreme fun of you then I went back and read an old discussion and have to agree with you. Ok, so it is a tautology that "every thing exists" but that does not mean that everything is real or ontologically existant.

My understanding of imagined reality:
Real in relation as experienced by the person, is real in that persons subjective experience. Like they say about a person's reality: "that reality is as real to them as reality can be"; this, of course, doesn't mean that reality has any influence over others who have different views of reality.

(January 1, 2010 at 9:17 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: We did have a thread where there was much talk about the difference between "real" and "exist" although I don't think that anybody expressed an idea related to language not being able to express thoughts about something that does not exist. I am sure you will be enlightened if you check out this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-1460.htm...Real+exist

This is the main issue which you dodged well (you didn't crash into). What you noticed was the fact that there are ambiguous and concrete (for any word) "realities". A thought exists, though it isn't tangible, a cloud exists and consists (obviously) of tangible particles.

(January 1, 2010 at 9:17 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Ok admittedly much of it is just us goofing around but there is some good stuff in there starting with Arcanus' question.

Cheers,
Rhizo

No worries, I sort of addressed the issues on 'every thing exists' in another thread called "god exists" <why is this a relevant argument?; My point is that the statement must be true to the ambiguous sense only and actually, by implication (I think) is stating "god (exists) exists". Never mind that for now though, I'm just glad that someone got the idea "everything exists".

---

(January 2, 2010 at 12:11 am)Saerules Wrote: Nothing is a paradox, true. But if there is no Martian 2 feet in front of me: it is not to state that there is nothing in front of me. Essentially: everything can exist, but something always does.

Thanks Saerules, I'm trying to get that right myself. Saying that nothing's there already implies that there is a there so there's a place with no objects? exactly there's is something there!
Conversely, saying there's a martian 2 feet in front of you, does exist as an idea that you have.

Thanks for the replies

OK, so God exists at the very least as an intangible thought?

Quote:Thanks Saerules, I'm trying to get that right myself. Saying that nothing's there already implies that there is a there so there's a place with no objects? exactly there's is something there!
Conversely, saying there's a martian 2 feet in front of you, does exist as an idea that you have.

Thanks for the replies

Even though it's just stating the obvious... i get a giggle every time I read something this sort of thing ^_^

Quote:OK, so God exists at the very least as an intangible thought?

Of course The question of "God's" existence is not a matter of 'does' he/she/it/whatever exist... it is a question of where, when, and in what form "God" exists.

The questions of why "God" is there, then, or that; how "God" is there, then, or that; if "God" were instead somewhere else, sometime else, or something else: can follow once the base of knowing where "God" is, when "God" is, and what "God" is has been established by all relevant parties.

let me get back from my weekend and we'll carry on that subject.. oh and happy new year everyone.

(January 2, 2010 at 7:12 am)Saerules Wrote:

Quote:OK, so God exists at the very least as an intangible thought?

Of course The question of "God's" existence is not a matter of 'does' he/she/it/whatever exist... it is a question of where, when, and in what form "God" exists.

The questions of why "God" is there, then, or that; how "God" is there, then, or that; if "God" were instead somewhere else, sometime else, or something else: can follow once the base of knowing where "God" is, when "God" is, and what "God" is has been established by all relevant parties.

My point exactly. When theists state "god exists", they are meaning as more than an idea, they're staking a claim that "god" is amongst everything which exists and as an independent entity.

My thoughts are that the proposition "god exists" is actually a contadiction, or a double assertion in that the need to say something exists in actuality, is an incorrect assertion.

What I mean: "god (exists is a given) exists".
I had thought this double assertion should cancel the two out but Adrian enlightened me that it still counts as an assertion in english.
I wonder about logic. Doesn't a proposition have to assert some type of relationship is occuring or the two are connected?
So shouldn't that relationship hinge on some type of interconnection, or interrelationship between the two?

I suppose the question is:
What relationship does "everything" share, with the quality of "existing"?

---

@ the OP have thought about this many times before and still do every now and then from time to time. And I agree with the premise in a sense.

Indeed everything exists, even God(/s) and Goblins and demons and faeries in some form. But if those things exist simply because they 'exist' in your imagination then that is clearly not the same as them existing in external reality too of course.

Yes everything can exist as a concept I guess... but in 'reality' (meaning external reality apart from the mind (assuming we're not solipsists here)), no I don't think so.

Because if something doesn't exist then it isn't something it's nothing so everything exists (in a sense) sorta, yes, I guess... lol.

EvF

Perfectly right EvF! Perfectly

It all depends on what is meant in exist.
It can be concrete/abstract; both, objective, etc - doesn't matter.
Abstract like a thought which is all god can count as. Just an idea which people have formed opinions of, written rules for, projected ideologies into, fought wars over, etc, etc. But "god" is still just an idea, too bad about the idiots who've formed impressions, and subordinate themselves into those subscriptions.