Theli

First off... wicked!
:notworthy

Can an incomprehensible thing be said to exist?

The question originally showed it's ugly face in the "existence of god(s)" forum, but I wanted to make a general question of it.

Infinity Lover

Erm... even if it were 100% incomprehensible, you'd still comprehend that you don't comprehend, so it wouldn't be 100% and erm....

...next question please. :banghead:

tk

I don't see why not. The idea of static electricity is probably incomprehensible to primitive tribes. Yet it exists (either as a physical object or otherwise).

If you mean something that's guaranteed to be incomprehensible for the entire stretch of the future (the "God is incomprehensible" sort), then that's a tougher question, as it involves extrapolating infinitely into the future.

frostymama

You obviously haven't spent any time in the basement here. There are some posters who are incomprehensible every time they post. Since those posts exist... and they are completely incomprehensible....

Theli

tk...

But they cannot say it exists, as the word electricity has no meaning for them.
For something to be comprehensible it must be applied set attributes. And if something does not have set attributes it does not exist.


frostymama...
If they actually are posts, then they must be comprehensible in that sense. Although if the words are not comprehensible then they do not exist.

The AntiChris

Clearly, from the replies you've received so far, you're gonna have to define what you mean by "incomprehensible.

Chris

excreationist

I don't think we can fully comprehend every individual particle in the universe throughout its history but I think the universe exists (at some level, even if it is inside the Matrix or whatever).
So I think certain incomprehensible things can exist.

Thomas Ash

I think if someone claims that a particular entity - for example, 'God' - exists, but doesn't offer up any coherent description of that identity, it's meaningless for them to claim that it exists. For example, I could claim that there is a "blerghquxl", but if I don't have any idea of the attributes that a "blerghquxl" has, and don't have any concept of it in my imagination, the word doesn't really have any content.
I think when some people (not most) claim they believe God exists, they're saying exactly this - God for them is just defined as a "Higher" ( ) noncorporeal being. This would be fine if they offered any description of how a being would go about being "Higher", or what content there is to the phrase "noncorporeal being", but they don't...
NB: I realize that not everyone would say "noncorporeal being" is contentless - you could say you can imagine a being without a body. But coming from an empiricist perspective, my whole concept of a "being" is tied up with having a distinct physical presence.

Theli

excreationist...

But, then you do comprehend the universe enough to call it "universe". You know there are stars and galaxies in it. The same goes with a pen, I can rightfully call it a pen even if I don't know excacly what it is made of, becase I comprehended enough.

But to refer to something as a "thing" you must give it set attributes, and since it is incomprehensible you don't have any. weird.

Theli

Thomas Ash...

And in many cases, "god" is similar to a common swearword that a person adds to a claim to give it more "force". Not a word that is related to a thing.

That's also the question about abstract concepts, they have attributes just as actual things. The only difference is that the observations they are based on is not (from our perspective) drawn from the same external thing. So, if someone were to find an actual thing with the same attributes as the concept would they be equal?

I think it's important to remember that things and concepts exists only in the mind.