JamBar85
Master Designer
What would you say he/she/it is?
-
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!
Prove you Exist.
- Thread starter sandy whitelinger
- Start date
What would you say he/she/it is?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
It varies. "God" is presented and thought about as a "thing" by many people, despite Scott's apparent objections.
If it is a noun, then "God" is a thing.
Is there a way to think of "God" as a "nouned" verb (a verb that has been grammatically transformed into a noun)?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I agree. If you say something "exists," you are necessarily referring to a noun with attributes, i.e. a thing. That's grammatically inescapable.
JamBar85
Master Designer
doppelgänger;1081468 said:
I think that goes for everything that people think exists. Whether it be themselves or anything else. It still exists one way or another.
I personally don't think theres not much juice left in this thread. After all it's about proving you exist. Even if we can't prove it the way someone wants, we know something exists for this to be happening.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Grammar itself presupposes static identities of things - i.e. "existence". A person who really wasn't operating off the assumption that things "exist" as they appear to exist would probably not even be able to use language.
But it is still valuable to engage such exercises because they liberate creativity from the generally useful illusion of static "reality."
But it is still valuable to engage such exercises because they liberate creativity from the generally useful illusion of static "reality."
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
doppelgänger;1081484 said:
And grammar itself is not static! :slap:
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
It depends.
Fluffy
A fool
sandy said:
If its impossible to apply any attribute to a term without also implying its existence then it is impossible to come up with a syllogism that proves existence since, as you say, it will be circular. However:
P1 If the existence of an attribute of a term is indubitable then the term's existence must also be indubitable (Inference from the above)
P2 The existence of the thoughts attributed to me is indubitable
C My existence is indubitable
This does not prove I exist but it does prove that whether or not I exist, doubting my existence (and my thoughts) is logically impossible (meaningless). Therefore, it removes a need for a proof of my existence because you can't meaningfully say anything less than "I exist".
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
doppelgänger;1081689 said:It depends.
... on what the meaning of "is" is.
muwhahahahaha
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Precisely . . . :flirt:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
doppelgänger;1081958 said:
One wonders if he was full of crap before the lawyers got aholt of eem.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Of course . . . before I went to law school I studied Philosophy.One wonders if he was full of crap before the lawyers got aholt of eem.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
More importantly, prove the Christian bible is anything but a work of fiction.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Prove it to whom?
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
The starter of this thread, the intent of which was I believe that the existence of a supposed Jesus could not be disproven.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I think sandy already considers it proven to his satisfaction that Jesus is not solely a work of fiction.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
doppelgänger;1082202 said:
This sounds more like a matter of faith.