RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. Most abstractions are of this sort. They are linguistic conveniences.
let me give an analogy.
Does the game of chess 'exist'? Sure. In a certain sense, we can say that it does. But, it might require no actual pieces and could be played completely in the minds of the players (with communication).
So, in what sense does it exist? Certainly not in the sense that a chair or an elephant does. And that is the appropriate definition when talking about the external world.
Now, if you want to claim that 'God' is an abstraction, similar to the number 2, I might even be able to go along with that. It is a placeholder for our desires and fears and hopes. But it doesn't exist in the 'real world'.
How can we be certain that a chair exists, independently of our ability to perceive it? Because we can sit on it, because we can see it, or both? How does the reality of a chair differ then, from that of a word? We can see a word on the page, we can hear it spoken, and we can put it to use. Can we really say more of a chair?