Everything exists

[Kyrill]

You could take this all the way down the other way to I think therefore I am or life is but a shadow in a cave - it says more about the limitations of human perception than reality

[TruthWorthy]

. . . or the limitations of language.

[LukeMC]

Hate to post in an old thread but I'm struggling to find anything under 4 pages long to reply to. Please put a cap on the amount of members here xD

So the argument between thinkers and followers is about what sort of existence "god" has.

Do you think this is a logical proposition to make (regardless of which sort of existence is claimed):

"God exists".

By implication god must exist, so to say it again straight after without defining the sort is pointless. Even then, if that were defined thereafter - the claim of existing would have been stated twice.

What do you think? Is "god exists" a logical proposition?

I think I'm catching your drift here and would say that the proposition is entirely implicit in nature. While it reads "God (who exists) exists" and gives no indication as to the type of existence, what it is really trying to say is "God (who exists) does so indepently from our thoughts and feelings, as his own being". You find these kinds of statements throughout language, where the meaning is obvious yet the proposition doesn't allude to it explicitly.

In terms of the word "exists", I understand the proposition and would treat it as legitimate in a debate. I don't think anybody would contend the point merely to clarify that the existence is external. On another note, I'd reject the statement completely because of the word "god" being ill-defined, and I'd wait for clarification on what they're talking about before pursuing the case further.

Your criticism of the proposition is valid but would be considered little more than pedantic by most. Unless your debating rival cannot make the implicit jump from "god exists" to "god exists independtly of my mind", I'd not worry too much about the semantics.

[Violet]

I think I'm catching your drift here and would say that the proposition is entirely implicit in nature. While it reads "God (who exists) exists" and gives no indication as to the type of existence, what it is really trying to say is "God (who exists) does so indepently from our thoughts and feelings, as his own being". You find these kinds of statements throughout language, where the meaning is obvious yet the proposition doesn't allude to it explicitly.

And yet... how can we know (which requires thoughts) such a thing exists separately from our own thoughts and feelings? In fact.... how can we know anything exists that is not within our thoughts as a concept? We have no concept of its existence outside of our thoughts, hence we cannot know it exists without it first being a concept. A god that exists separate from our thoughts is still a concept... hence we can consider it. We have no grounds to believe that anything exists beyond our perceptions... it could as validly be that I generate all of the reality I "perceive" around me... and that there is in fact nothing without me.

If things can exist without us having concepts for them... then existence precedes what essence the net existence is subjectively thought to have. Of course... even if we generate our own reality... it remains that we create the existence either at the same time as, or prior to, the essence (at the least, for a thing could not have essence, let alone be a thing, if it did not first exist).

In this way... it could be said of all things that they exist. By their very being a thing, it has already been posited that they exist. In this way... all things exist. Perhaps further still: Everything exists. Wouldn't it be weird if everything didn't exist?


This is where most of the "existence precedes essence" argument should be based (the other primary argument I know of being that individuals precede groups... though not to suggest this is the only other one, nor to suggest there are not arguments for essence preceding existence or occurring at the same time as essence).