eh

When we say that attempt to say that an entity does not exist, it is often worded as, "There is no entity A". But the word "there" seems to indicate a place or space, and full meaning of the statement would be "there is a place where said entity is absent from". It seems that space is so hardwired into our brains, that we cannot define an absence without first refering to a place for it to be absent from.

Or can we? What I'm looking for here, is some other viewpoints on how to define an absence, or nonexistence of a thing. Additionally, what is the origin of "there is?" Does it really have a spatial meaning?

DRFseven

Well, plenty of people say "I don't believe God exists" or something to that effect. This lacks referral to a place.

To understand the origin of the "there is", turn the sentence around: "There is no God = God is not there. Or There is a God = A God is there.

King's Indian

Hello, Eh.
One of the approches that Derrida uses is that philosophy often defines "absence" as "modified presence": ie the difference between two presences. If you go into a room containing a clock, and then return to find it gone, then you may say, "the clock is absent". In this sense our "space" is modified by "time". Time appears to be crucial. Even if we go into a room for the first time and say,"There is no clock here", In this case, a "presence" is modified by reference to a putative, imagined "presence". If we compare the real present taking place right now to an imagined one, we are in effect saying the latter is not taking place right now. So, again, we seem to be using time again as a way of judging absence. (DRFSeven's example is an interesting case in point. By saying "God is not there", we compare his absence to an imagined state of affairs where God's direct physical influence over the environment is observed. The reason why some people take the opposite view, is that they imagine this influence as somehow having nothing to do with evolution, or culture and so on).
Derrida's approach, by the way, is to do with the privileging of presence over absence by philosophy, in such oppositions as speech/writing, which are not really relevant to your question.
You do have a good point. If I say, "There is some truth in your statement", I do seem to be using a concept of physical space. I think the question is that if two things relate in any way, the idea of "space" is necessary to show that they are similar, but not identitical. Time might be an analogous and no less necessary way of separating two objects, whether they be mental, physical etc. After all, we are physical entities that move about in time. How else could we distinguish more than one object?
I don't know if this helps, but you do raise an interesting question.
Take care,
KI.
PS. Of course, general and special relativity show that time and space are not to be thought of as two separate entities, but I'll use the concepts in their everyday sense for the sake of (some) clarity.

John Galt, Jr.

This is a joke, isn't it?

John Galt, Jr.

DRFseven

Not for people who groove on language.

King's Indian

If you think this is a bit much, try dipping into Wittgenstein's "Tractatus"; or if you have an inclination to freebase your philosophy, Heidegger's "Being and Time".
Take care,
KI

Keith Russell

Saying ''God' does not exist' does not refer to a place or space from which the supposed 'God' is absent.

Keith.

King's Indian

Hello, Keith.

Leaving aside the waffle for a bit, I thought when we say that "God does not exist", we at least mean that God does not exist in the real world we all live in, and therefore he's absent from our common-sense reality. Looking around me, he's certainly not here in Croydon.
Can you elucidate, so I can catch up with you?

Ta.
KI

eh

Well I would agree that when we say beings with magic powers don't exist, we're not trying to say they are absent from our known space-time. If we did, we'd be accused of creating a strawman, since theists will claim God is "outside" of space and time. whatever the hell that means.

But it does seem that our perception of space is so hardwired into our brains, that our language prevents us from describing an absence without it.

Bob Stewart

There is no prime number that is divisible by two.

There is no correct answer to the question of when the fetus becomes a person.

There is no way to trisect an angle using only a compass and a straight edge.

There is no way to understand what it truly means to believe that there is a God unless you believe that there is a God.

Others can supply other examples, I am sure.

The "there" in each of these sentences doesn't indicate place or space, does it?
Maybe I don't understand the beginning post (Won't be the first time)

Bob Stewart