Theophage

Coming from more of a mathematical background, I look at it this way:

Every number x can be multiplied by 1/x to get 1. Every number, that is, except 0. there are serveral mathematical generalities that apply to all numbers with the added caveat "except when x=0". In otherwords, even though zero is a number like the others, it has some special exceptions.

Similarily, I see no problem with calling existance a property, but with the caveat that existance is a property that cannot be arbitrarily asssigned or defined into something. Existance is a property of things which must be discovered or determined a posteriori rather then assumed or defined a priori. (I hope I'm using those correctly :^)

Anyway, that's how I see it.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

NialScorva

Actually, I was thinking about set theory, with existence being the membership operator. All elements are members of some set, but you can't have a set of elements that aren't members of sets. Thus the universal set consists solely of items that exist in some set, and universal existence is absolute. However, that doesn't mean that the empirical or "reality" set is the universal set.

Sorta mixed terms in there, but I hope you catch my drift.

Theophage

Yes, actually, I did :^)

pug846

Nial said:

It looks like you are agreeing with Bill and I on this – you are just saying something “exists linguistically” instead of calling it a “concept.” So, I think both statements are just as “accurate.”

I don’t understand set theory at all – Do you have any good intro links to set theory?

NialScorva

No sorry, I ended up getting a book on it

But yes, for the most part, I agree with you, just have to say it a different way because... well because I'm pedantic like that.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]</p>

Theophage

Some links to Set Theory I snagged from Google:

<a href="http://www.humboldt.edu/~mef2/logicsites.html" target="_blank">http://www.humboldt.edu/~mef2/logicsites.html</a>

<a href="http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Beginnings_of_set_theory.html" target="_blank">http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Beginnings_of_set_theory.html</a>

<a href="http://www.azstarnet.com/~solo/setheory.htm" target="_blank">http://www.azstarnet.com/~solo/setheory.htm</a>


The part I was most interested in (which got me reading about set theory in the first place) was Cantor's transfinite numbers.

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

NialScorva

Yeah, I love the fact that my set theory book went over transfinite cardinals and degrees of infinite sets long before it got to the proof that 1+1=2.

xoc

Existence is an attribute but it may be a "dependent" attribute depending on what frame of reference is used. The fact that it could be dependent on other attributes does not less it's "existence" as an attribute. (Eg. the attribute of being a "man" is dependent on the attributes of being male and human, the attribute of a ball being red is dependent on the attribute of visibility) Curiously though we usually think of things(objects) as having the attribute of existence only when these things do not have a dependence on the "thinker/creator." "Existence" generally is the term that distinguishes between what exists in "thought" and what exists in deed(really what indeed exists). Thus we have an attribute like any other attribute that can be falsely or correctly applied. "The car is black" (really the car is Navy blue), "Santa Clause exists" (although there is no direct correlation between the "idea" of Santa and a real person).

Not only is "existence" an attribute of things, it is also an attribute of attributes. Attributes must first accept the attribute of existence before they can be applied to like existent objects. If this is not done then the attributes or descriptions are meaningless. The ball is red, yes, but the ball is also fizzlewuzzely-fuddelypopped. That means it's nexy-flexy-biddley-bopped. Attributes without the attribute of existence must be meaningless by definition. Perfect is not a meaningless attribute. If attributes which lack the attribute of existence are "meaningless", than (he he) meaningful attributes must be existent, as an attribute is defined by it's meaning, and objects are defined by their attributes.

So-
1. Every attribute with meaning also has existence as an attribute(2 attributes for the simplest attributes)
2. Existent attributes must at least describe one existing object to have meaning, otherwise the "observer"(us) could not have a conception of that, since objects are the carriers of attributes "to us-ward"
3. Perfection is a meaningful, therefore existent attribute.
4. Since every existent attribute must describe at least one object with existence, there must be an object/being with perfection as an attribute.
5. AKA God

Basically point 1. depends on the assumption that we are talking about simple attributes rather than complex attributes(like a complex attribute of having 79 toes which doesn't need existence to be meaningful) Basically this is a "revision" of Descartes' ontological arg which Kant was criticizing(as I recall)

Theophage

(1) Is certainly false, even with your interesting bit of special pleading there about the 79 toes to dodge that with. Either every meaningful attribute must exist or not, and your 79 toes examples shows clearly that all meaningful attributes certainly do not exist. Sorry please try again...

(2) is simply an explanation in support of (1), and therefore not a separate postulate. Unfortunately, it is also false. We can have conceptions of meaningful but non-existant attributes by simply comparing and contrasting other known existant attributes. 79 toes is one example, but a better example can be found when we examine (3)

(3) is also false simply because "perfection" is a vague qualifier used here without something to qualify. Saying that "X is perfect" is like saying "X is very". Perfect how? Very what?

"Perfect" itself means without flaw, but you need the context to know what kind of flaw the perfect thing is without. If I said that today is a perfet day, I may be talking about the weather,or I may be talking about the fact that nothing bad happeened to me today. Context is necesary here, and to say that "God is perfect" with no other context is meaningless.

In the case of God's perfection, then, one example with context is that God cannot make a mistake or cause any unintentional result. This makes sense, but it also provides another example why (2) is false.

Do you agree that no human being is perfect in such a way? Then how could we ever concieve of such a perfection without that perfectinbeing embodied in someone (i.e. God)? Sinmple, in order to concieve of such a perfection, we only need to extrapolate from humann actions.

We have all performed actions such that the result was what we intended, right? Of course. And we have all performed actions that resulted in unintentional effects, right? Well how hard is it to contrast the first case with the second and imagine a being such that they never make mistakes (the second result)? Quite easily actually, just like it's easy to imagine a foot with 79 toes based on comparison and contrast of existant attributes.

One bad premis produces a false argument, but three of them? There is a reason why the smart theists don't use the Ontological argument anymore...

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Kharakov

The only existence that you can prove is your own existence- and you can only prove that to yourself. When you get down to percieving that a ball exists, and is red- you are actually percieving the mental image/thought that the ball exists and is red. You cannot prove that the ball exists in a reality besides your own mind.

If you think of a Unicorn or a God in your mind- it exists if you define existence as something that you are thinking of or percieving. Either what you imagine and percieve exists, or it doesn't, and they are just uncontrolable thoughts that are running through your mind (and thoughts exist).

If you are trying to say something exists outside of your perception of it existing- you are doing that based upon faith because you cannot prove something exists outside of your own perception of it existing. Anyone who thinks they can prove that something exists beyond their own thoughts and perceptions of the things existence is either lying or wrong.

It comes down to this- if you can think of something and imagine it in your mind it exists- although you can lie to yourself and say that it has no existence in reality (which is another imaginary thing- a dream we are stuck in).