An entity X can be said to exist in some manner if it has to be deployed in the course of the best explanation for a set of events or phenomena experienced in the world.
-
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!
What is the meaning of existence?
- Thread starter Polymath257
- Start date
Abstract concepts are the duty and responsibility of the people who use them. Concrete existence is not.
It occupies a span of time during which it is capable of interacting with other existents.
By detecting an effect caused by it.
By the absence of expected evidence for its existence. If no evidence is expected, we cannot show that it does not exist, the so-called proving of a negative.
The chair occupies a series of consecutive moments and can be interacted with even if that interaction is only light from its surfaces entering our eyes. To say that Sherlock Holmes and Santa are nonexistent is to say that they cannot be interacted with. We assume that that has always been true when we call them fictional characters.
We can, however, talk about the idea of these two, which do exist, and which came into being when somebody first created their stories. The way we interact with ideas, which exist only in minds capable of apprehending them, is different from the way we interact with entities that reside outside of the mind.
Consider Russell's teapot. It exists or existed (or will exist) if there is a time when it can in principle be experienced.
No. The undetectable even in principle and the nonexistent and are indistinguishable, and can be thought of and treated the same.
Hard questions.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oh oh......now you went and said it.....
Don't we want to make a distinction between The Flying Spaghetti Monster pbuh and the idea of Him? One can exist without the other existing.
A very important question that is discussed not nearly often enough. I always find others' manner of declaring something "exists" and then somehow does "not exist" to be very strange, personally. I don't find it useful to ask "does such and such exist." It is always better to ask "in what way do I experience and relate to this thing?" That gets at meaning, impact, and what actually matters.
You don't. I've observed hubris is hallmark of the human species, however, and most of them proclaim to know otherwise.
You don't. I've observed hubris is hallmark of the human species, however, and most of them proclaim to know otherwise.
No, people acknowledge God as real. Does that prove God is real? No, but God exists as real.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists pbuh as long as people acknowledge he exists. The same as a fear of heights, fear of heights exists as long as people acknowledge it.
If someone acknowledges the FSM exists for real as a non-fictional character then the FSM does exist as a non-fictional character. Are you that person?
The only modification I might add is that there may be several different 'best explanations' and I would require the existence to be the case in all such.
I don't consider existence to be determined by 'acknowledgement'. So, your acknowledgement of Santa Claus does NOT mean Santa Claus actually exists.
And acknowledgement that something exists 'as real' (whatever that means) does not make it real.
The 'fear of heights' only exists as a personal issue. It is not objective. That doesn't mean that heights are always to be feared. Acknowledgement does not imply existence, except in the mind.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Existential reality works on something similar to a sliding scale of probability. Fictional characters *exist* within the minds of the readers and are clearly defined as being fictional. Your chair is something you can get me to sit down on, or anyone can sit down on, so we would all agree the chair is "real". You cannot sit on a chair that Sherlock Holmes sits in because it is a fictional chair. No one can show you the pipe Holmes smoked though everyone can imagine it. We suspend disbelief to make the tale work. In effect, we give it a reality to entertain us with a well crafted tale of intrigue.
As to non-existence. There is no way to show that something does not exist though you can use that lack of evidence to determine the level of probability. Fairies, wood nymphs, unicorns and intelligent design fall into this category. There is simply no meaningful evidence that any of these things have existence outside of our imaginations. That lack of evidence does not mean they do not exist. It just means we cannot ascertain through any direct means as to whether they do have an existential reality.
Regolith Based Lifeforms
Early Earth Was Not Sterile
How many things have been detected in the last fifty years that were "undetectable" before they were discovered?
I agree.
We exist as invisible information that is used to form images in our individual created minds.
I take it to me I am able to prove to someone else it's existence.
Test for its non-existence by whatever means possible. As long as it exists under all plausible scenarios, it's usually safe to accept its existence.
Set up a plausible scenario where its existence should be detectable and find this to not be the case.
Holmes, Claus exist only as fictional characters. Otherwise it should be easy to detect their non-fictional existence in a plausible scenario like going to their house for dinner and saying "Hi".
No, even fictional characters, you can detect their existence by reading about them. Something you can't detect gets into the realm of the supernatural. No reason to believe in its actual existence.
The Christian God exists as a fictional character. You can read about God in the Bible. Since you can't detect God as a non-fictional entity there's no reason to believe in God as such.
Which is why I asked about 'undetectable even in theory'.
Consciousness is integral to existence. What it means to say that something 'exists' is to express a conscious awareness, with the connotation of reality or concreteness.
We literally do not, it's just a literary tool. There is no demonstration of existence. We can but demonstrate 'things.'
There is a long and distinguished line of philosophers, including David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Bertrand Russell, who followed Aristotle in denying that existence is a property of individuals, even as they rejected other aspects of Aristotle's views. Hume argued (in A Treatise of Human Nature 1.2.6) that there is no impression of existence distinct from the impression of an object, which is ultimately on Hume's view a bundle of qualities. As all of our contentful ideas derive from impressions, Hume concluded that existence is not a separate property of an object.
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Non-existence is, again, a literary tool.
That said, where existence is taken as synonymous with other things, such as properties or values, there is some room for demonstrating those properties or values.
The non-existence of Sherlock Holmes and Santa Claus is one of those instances where existence is taken to mean specific properties of reality and believability. The existence of your chair, not so much.
It is not meaningful to say that something exists that has never been conceived.
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
I talked about this in another thread regarding divine will, I will be back with a revised version. In short, I think that existence carries its own integrated meaning. Life and it's meaning exist interdependent with each other. We have existence because of its underlying meaning, but that meaning cannot exist without existence, thus there is a meaning to existence.