Does a God exist?

[pocaracas]

A thing with matter or energy is defined as existing. it's matter or energy properties imply existence, it seems. [1] So... existence is a "conditional property"(?) [2]

1) Yup. This is hardly surprising when it comes from metaphysical naturalism. In other words, if only 'material' reality exists, then the most fundamental 'kind' of matter is equivalent with existence itself.

Metaphysical Naturalism [straight from wiki]: Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy which maintains that nature encompasses all that exists throughout spacetime. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements or natural processes that reduce to natural elements, whose fundamental building blocks are spatiotemporal physical substance—mass–energy LINK

You might find that intellectually satisfying. I don't: What is matter? Are there more fundamental conditions which must exist for matter to exist? For energy? If yes, then matter/energy does not = existence. If no, then matter/energy = existence. The fact that two things are being considered (i.e. matter and energy) is a big clue that we haven't discovered the fundamental condition for reality. But that is just me.

That's you forgetting Einstein: E = mc^2
Energy is mass.
Energy (or mass) equals existence...
Enter the Higgs Boson and quantum fluctuations as mechanisms by which these things are generated... by which things come into existence.

2) Call it whatever you want, as long as you realize that it is a property which describes an action.

Our language does give it away.... "to exist". Doesn't exactly carry the same ring as "to energize", or "to mass" (whatever this is)

Are you saying that a "conceptual electron" is the same as a "real electron"?

No. I am saying that they differ in the most fundamental respect: the real electron is doing something that the conceptual electron is not, i.e. the real electron is being. It is doing what electrons do.

You know... the conceptual electron is also doing what electron do... just not in real space... in theoretical/modeled space.

You say that existence is a property like charge and mass, etc. I am saying that even if existence were a property, it is a radically different sort of property compared to charge and mass. Take away the existence property and nothing is there. Take away the charge property and something is there (a charge-less thing with the mass of an electron), but it is not an electron. The existence property governs the ENTIRE thing, while the charge property seems only to govern the KIND of thing. It is therefore inadequate to describe existence as a property like charge and mass. It is more adequate to describe existence as an act, the most fundamental or 'primary' act of everything.

Come now...
Take away the existence property and nothing is there. yes.
Take away the charge property and no charge is to be found on that particle. Like you said, a chargeless thing with the mass of an electron. Why would absence of charge make the particle non-existent?
Take away the mass property and no mass is to be found on that particle. A massless thing with the charge of an electron...
I don't think any of these two things have been observed, though... that seems to be a forbidden (or rare) state of affairs.

All other properties are the same so we can still call it an electron, but there's a difference between the two, wouldn't you say?

Ya... one is existing, the other is not existing. If you won't budge on the property thing, fine. A thing has the property of existence IF it is existing (which is an action).

One can turn that around, you know?
A thing "is existing" if it has the property of existence. Which came first, the egg or the chicken?
I can't tell.