Does X exist?

[altonhare]

A series of articles pointing out that the operative word in any claim/debate of "X exists" is the exist, not X. The example used to demonstrate this point, because it is widely known, is X=God. The author points out shortcomings on both the atheistic and theistic sides because both focus on "God" rather than "exist". This is the reason this same old tired debate has raged on for millennia with no resolution and no end in sight.

[url2=http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-God-Doesn ... id=2803991]Existence does not depend on belief.[/url2]

[url2=http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-God-Exis ... id=3141969]Existence does not depend on proof.[/url2]

[url2=http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-God-Doesn ... id=3075433]Existence does not depend on life or consciousness.[/url2]

[url2=http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-God-Doesn ... id=2944516]Exist must be used consistently.[/url2]

[url2=http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-God-Exis ... id=3181922]Can exist be used consistently to refer to concepts.[/url2]

Let's try to stay on topic and, at least for our 1st/2nd responses, actually reference the articles specifically to reflect our thoughts.

[Joe Keenan]

Existence is not dependent on belief, this is correct, it is also not dependent on empirical proof. The Black Swan is an example of this, every swan ever observed is white, does this mean all swans are white?

That because, I've never seen a black swan they don't exist?

Sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.

Before black swans were discovered, the world, if it cared enough, could of been divided into three camps, you could of been "agnostic" regarding them (don't know if they exist or not), or, you could believe they exist based on "faith" or, you could be an "atheist," believe black swans don't exist because, you have never experienced them. The "atheist" (black swan doesn't exist) could in retrospect (post black swan discovery) be seen as the reactionary, anti-intellectual. Pre discovery it could have been presented as avaunt guarde, cold dispassionate reasoning, post discovery, well..................

[Joe Keenan]

The Descartes criticism is a bit off for my taste, the proof was for "A Rational Proof For the Existence of Man" not car. Inanimate objects need no rational proof here, the discussion is about the observer of the car. If he doesn't exist what care for the car? Descartes got it backwards though, You are, therefore you can think.

[Joe Keenan]

God = All Encompassing Being of all Space Time and Dimension, to borrow Steve Martin's definition. He is the first cause, the unmoved mover. Applying mundane assumptions/terms to the aforesaid is a no go also.

[Joe Keenan]

Image refers to spiritual, not physical. Hence the two creation stories, one all, Let there be....and the other more detailed and personal, God creates man out of clay, man is Gods personal creation, He then breathes life into him and by doing so bestows upon him a special dignity and place among His creation.

Bill, this is not the best you can do is it?

Fixation on terms, IMHO, leads to labyrinth of confusion, debating what the meaning of is, is. General semantics leads one to ground ones ship upon fog enshrouded shores.

[Sovereign]

Fixation on terms, IMHO, leads to labyrinth of confusion

Wanting to clearly define terms so we can communicate with each other makes things more confusing? I think you have it a bit backwards.

[Joe Keenan]

Endless argumentation and equivocating over the meaning of words doesn't advance understanding, it leads to a debate over the meaning of words. It leads to infinite regress, endless defining of terms, proving proofs, instead of the advancing of ideas. Falsify assertions, don't argue definitions.

[Sovereign]

Endless argumentation and equivocating over the meaning of words doesn't advance understanding, it leads to a debate over the meaning of words. It leads to infinite regress, endless defining of terms, proving proofs, instead of the advancing of ideas. Falsify assertions, don't argue definitions.

It is not necessary to define every word, that would be ludicrous. However, there can be no scientific communication unless words are defined clearly, how else would I understand what the presenter was talking about?

I think leaving words undefined hampers understanding.

[Joe Keenan]

There exists an already agreed upon meaning of terms, i see arguments over terms as either pedantic, or, disingenuous. Most oftenly someone uses arguments over terms/meaning to avoid real discussion on a germane issue. In very few instances is there really a need to define terms. There may be a need to compel integrity, as Crothers is trying to do regarding Schwarchilds formula, but, can there really be a misunderstanding of terms that needs to be ironed out?.

I don't think so.








http://www.e-water.net/viewflash.php?fl ... lessing_en

[victus1]

altonhare,

So how do you use this definition of exists (object + location) to conclude whether:

1) God exists
2) black swans exist
3) big foot exists
4) megalodon shrarks exists (they are "thought" to be extinct)

How can we use it for the above examples?

[altonhare]

altonhare,

So how do you use this definition of exists (object + location) to conclude whether:

1) God exists
2) black swans exist
3) big foot exists
4) megalodon shrarks exists (they are "thought" to be extinct)

How can we use it for the above examples?

You don't "conclude X exists" That's one of the many fallacious traps people fall into, and that causes all this mess about exist. I won't treat each of your examples individually because the definition applies to all of them exactly the same way. First, define the word exist. Now each of those things either exists or not *by definition*. It doesn't matter if the Pope "concludes God exists" or I conclude that God doesn't. Our opinions are simply irrelevant. Your string of characters refers to that which exists if it refers to that which is physically present (shape+location), with no appeal to opinions or "conclusions".