Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Ooo... that's a whole other argument.
Of course.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are There Things that Don't Exist?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
Of course.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Took a couple of days to respond. ;0)
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Oh, just thought about it again. There are things that don't exist, like an answer to the question for instance...
...No, wait! That is an answer!
Dang it...
Oh, just thought about it again. There are things that don't exist, like an answer to the question for instance...
...No, wait! That is an answer!
Dang it...
I am just not sure that everything that can exist, will exist.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
On top of that you have things that did exist but don't know, and things that will exist in the future but not right now.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Square Circles.
Paradox22
I'm only Hume ian
This is a good question. The status of non-existent entities has been addressed by many(or at least several) philosophers including Hume, who seems to have had a lot to say about everything. Classic examples are Sherlock Holmes, a square circle, and the 'current king of England'.
There is debate about what sort of status non-existent entities or objects can have. It could be argued that Sherlock Holmes actually exists as a figure in fiction, but what of a square circle? A square circle can be conceived but it is an impossibility by definition. But that does not mean that it is meaningless. Could it exist in another sort of reality? Certainly it never did exist in the past. Then there is the 'Current king of England.' One could say that it has a conditional existence because at some time in the past there was a 'current king of England' though the entity would not exist now. Finally, we can talk about the non-existence of meaningless 'things' such as the gworkmar. Everyone can agree that gworkmar is meaningless. Does that mean it doesn't exist or does it have to have meaning for the question to be applicable? Interesting questions for debate.
Last edited:
Woodrow LI
IB Ambassador
Non-existent things exist only as long as we remain unaware of them. If we become aware of them they are no longer non-existent.