RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
So do leprechauns and unicorns exist? The *ideas* certainly exist, but do those ideas refer to some things that actually exist?
Most people would answer no, they do not.
Now the question is why not? What is it that separates ideas that refer to something that exists and those that do not?
The obvious answer is that no unicorns or leprechauns have actually been detected. And, in the absence of such detection, their non-existence is far more likely than their existence.
Now, in what way is the idea of God different than that of a leprechaun? I would argue that there is no difference in any way that is relevant to actual existence. God is certainly given more properties, and often quite bizarre properties. But that makes God *less* likely to actually exist, not more so.
Arguing about 'timeless existence' is irrelevant unless you can *independently* justify the existence of such timelessness. Otherwise is becomes simply another prop to an already doubtful existence claim. And that prop, because it is not known to exist, makes the existence of God less likely again. Any time you explain away an argument by claiming God has another unusual property, without showing that the property actually manifests in the real world, only makes the existence of God *less* reasonable.
Do you think numbers and words have qualities only in the sense that Leprechauns and Unicorns do? Or do some of those things which manifest exclusively in human consciousness, have more substance than others? Which is closer to reality, closer to actually being a thing in itself; Schrodinger’s equation, or an Hibernian sprite?