| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sphere" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2006 08:09:58 PM |
| Object: |
Proposed Definition of Exist. |
Exist: Produces or has effects.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 12:38:58 AM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
I thought you were going to say: "Something which has no effects does not
exist."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 04:59:15 AM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
I thought you were going to say: "Something which has no effects does not
exist."
A subtle difference.
I propose a definition whereby if there is an
effect then something exists. The qualities
may be unlike any claimed qualities.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BORG" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 11:27:38 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
---
But if something does not exist it is not there - how can it have any
effect?
Count the number of things that do not exist for us and tell us how many
there are.
I bet you will not find ONE because they do not exist so where would you
look to find them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 08:02:28 AM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
The problem with that is that something that doesn't exist can have effects.
For instance, Greeks did a lot of things in the name of Zeus. But Zeus
doesn't exist. By your definition, Zeus exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 06:28:01 PM |
|
|
gibbs wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
The problem with that is that something that doesn't exist can have effects.
For instance, Greeks did a lot of things in the name of Zeus. But Zeus
doesn't exist. By your definition, Zeus exists.
That is his intent.
However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus.
I dont think he can get around that.
He can *ignore* it - but not defeat it.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 07:46:37 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
gibbs wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
The problem with that is that something that doesn't exist can have effects.
For instance, Greeks did a lot of things in the name of Zeus. But Zeus
doesn't exist. By your definition, Zeus exists.
That is his intent.
However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus.
I dont think he can get around that.
He can *ignore* it - but not defeat it.
Show me anything other than the idea which is Zeus.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
15 Oct 2006 08:47:34 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
Richo wrote:
gibbs wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
The problem with that is that something that doesn't exist can have effects.
For instance, Greeks did a lot of things in the name of Zeus. But Zeus
doesn't exist. By your definition, Zeus exists.
That is his intent.
However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus.
I dont think he can get around that.
He can *ignore* it - but not defeat it.
Show me anything other than the idea which is Zeus.
I cannot.
That is, of course, the point.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
16 Oct 2006 05:55:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Richo wrote:
gibbs wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
The problem with that is that something that doesn't exist can have effects.
For instance, Greeks did a lot of things in the name of Zeus. But Zeus
doesn't exist. By your definition, Zeus exists.
That is his intent.
However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus.
I dont think he can get around that.
He can *ignore* it - but not defeat it.
Show me anything other than the idea which is Zeus.
I cannot.
In that case the idea must be Zeus.
Clearly there is something which is
Zeus, and the only thing we both can
point to is the idea.
That is, of course, the point.
What point?
Mark.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
16 Oct 2006 08:26:09 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Richo wrote:
gibbs wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
The problem with that is that something that doesn't exist can have effects.
For instance, Greeks did a lot of things in the name of Zeus. But Zeus
doesn't exist. By your definition, Zeus exists.
That is his intent.
However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus.
I dont think he can get around that.
He can *ignore* it - but not defeat it.
Show me anything other than the idea which is Zeus.
I cannot.
In that case the idea must be Zeus.
That doesn't follow.
Clearly there is something which is
Zeus,
It's not clear to me.
and the only thing we both can
point to is the idea.
That is, of course, the point.
What point?
" However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus. "
Chers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
16 Oct 2006 08:57:50 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
Sphere wrote:
m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Richo wrote:
gibbs wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
The problem with that is that something that doesn't exist can have effects.
For instance, Greeks did a lot of things in the name of Zeus. But Zeus
doesn't exist. By your definition, Zeus exists.
That is his intent.
However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus.
I dont think he can get around that.
He can *ignore* it - but not defeat it.
Show me anything other than the idea which is Zeus.
I cannot.
In that case the idea must be Zeus.
That doesn't follow.
Clearly there is something which is
Zeus,
It's not clear to me.
and the only thing we both can
point to is the idea.
That is, of course, the point.
What point?
" However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus. "
I'm willing to accept that it is the idea
which is having effects, but then what is
this Zeus if not the idea?
I guess I'm back to my question: Does the
little green men who do not exist exist?
Something's broken. We can decide it is
the notion of existence, or we could pick
some other idea.
Chers, Mark.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
17 Oct 2006 07:15:02 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
I guess I'm back to my question: Does the
little green men who do not exist exist?
No. Nothing can have the property of being nonexistent. No definite
description of the form "the nonexistent ..." possibly refers to an
existent thing/existent things.
#PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
17 Oct 2006 09:46:55 AM |
|
|
On 17 Oct 2006 05:15:02 -0700, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachDELETETHENAME@freenet.de> wrote:
I guess I'm back to my question: Does the
little green men who do not exist exist?
No. Nothing can have the property of being nonexistent. No definite
description of the form "the nonexistent ..." possibly refers to an
existent thing/existent things.
The "nonexistent" has no substance. It has no essence that is
consistent with Being. It is a fantasy, a creation of the idealist
subjective epistemological world, not the realist objective
ontological world.
In fact, it is not even a possibility because it results in
ontological contradictions.
This discussion would not be happening if people would adopt a true
understanding of Being.
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
17 Oct 2006 11:33:02 AM |
|
|
Citizen Bob wrote:
The "nonexistent" has no substance. It has no essence that is
consistent with Being. It is a fantasy, a creation of the idealist
subjective epistemological world, not the realist objective
ontological world.
Nonexistent objects, which are merely intentional objects of thought,
are indeed insubstantial.
#PH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
16 Oct 2006 09:38:50 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
Richo wrote:
Sphere wrote:
m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Richo wrote:
gibbs wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
The problem with that is that something that doesn't exist can have effects.
For instance, Greeks did a lot of things in the name of Zeus. But Zeus
doesn't exist. By your definition, Zeus exists.
That is his intent.
However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus.
I dont think he can get around that.
He can *ignore* it - but not defeat it.
Show me anything other than the idea which is Zeus.
I cannot.
In that case the idea must be Zeus.
That doesn't follow.
Clearly there is something which is
Zeus,
It's not clear to me.
and the only thing we both can
point to is the idea.
That is, of course, the point.
What point?
" However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus. "
I'm willing to accept that it is the idea
which is having effects, but then what is
this Zeus if not the idea?
I dont think there is anything apart from the idea - a sincere believer
in Zeus would think there is.
Same for God.
What about the Emperor Augustus?
There is both the idea and the thing - or there is in my worldview.
I guess I'm back to my question: Does the
little green men who do not exist exist?
I dont think it matters.
Something's broken. We can decide it is
the notion of existence, or we could pick
some other idea.
I think there is something wrong with some of your basic assumptions -
but I cannot convince you of that.
And vica versa of course.
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
16 Oct 2006 08:47:56 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Richo wrote:
gibbs wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
The problem with that is that something that doesn't exist can have effects.
For instance, Greeks did a lot of things in the name of Zeus. But Zeus
doesn't exist. By your definition, Zeus exists.
That is his intent.
However I could say that the *idea* of Zeus is the thing which is
having effects not Zeus.
I dont think he can get around that.
He can *ignore* it - but not defeat it.
Show me anything other than the idea which is Zeus.
I cannot.
In that case the idea must be Zeus.
Clearly there is something which is
Zeus, and the only thing we both can
point to is the idea.
We have mutually antagonistic worldviews - I believe in a reality that
is seperate from my thoughts about reality.
You don't distinguish between the idea "dog" and a living furry thing
that can lick your face.
I am not going to give up on that distinction.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
11 Oct 2006 09:45:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
sphere1952@gmail.com says...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
And by that definition leprechauns "exist" because there are stories
about them and those stories have "effects" (i.e. selling lucky charms
cereal).
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
14 Oct 2006 08:12:38 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
sphere1952@gmail.com says...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
And by that definition leprechauns "exist" because there are stories
about them and those stories have "effects" (i.e. selling lucky charms
cereal).
If only the stories affect any existents, then all one can conclude is
that the stories exist.
(And, yes, that's the same for stories about 'God,' too.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
14 Oct 2006 05:50:19 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
sphere1952@gmail.com says...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
And by that definition leprechauns "exist" because there are stories
about them and those stories have "effects" (i.e. selling lucky charms
cereal).
If only the stories affect any existents, then all one can conclude is
that the stories exist.
(And, yes, that's the same for stories about 'God,' too.)
Please show me something other than
the stories which you could be talking
about.
I could agree that only the stories exist,
but then only the story of me exists, and
I don't.
I don't really care which way you go, as long
as you are consistent. Either I exist because
the story of me exists or I don't exist, as my
only existence is as a story. (Just like
this evil God.)
If you don't believe my only existence is as
a story then why not just believe in this evil
God? It's the same form of belief.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
15 Oct 2006 08:46:39 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
George Dance wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
sphere1952@gmail.com says...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
And by that definition leprechauns "exist" because there are stories
about them and those stories have "effects" (i.e. selling lucky charms
cereal).
If only the stories affect any existents, then all one can conclude is
that the stories exist.
(And, yes, that's the same for stories about 'God,' too.)
Please show me something other than
the stories which you could be talking
about.
??? If I read you right, you're asking me to:
Prove, without assuming that anything exists besides stories, that
something exists besides stories.
That's a tall order, and I'm not going to try it if it's not what you
mean.
I could agree that only the stories exist,
but then only the story of me exists, and
I don't.
Then you couldn't agree. <g> In order to agree, you'd have to be
someone-or-something-that-agrees, and you couldn't be that without
being. "To be something is to be." And a story can't 'agree' with
anything (except accidentally, which isn't the meaning of 'agree' being
used here, is it?). So I'd disagree that 'only' the story of you
exists.
I don't really care which way you go, as long
as you are consistent. Either I exist because
the story of me exists or I don't exist, as my
only existence is as a story. (Just like
this evil God.)
Well, you don't exist *because* a story about you exists, because a
story about any x could exist without x existing. I can show that just
by writing a story about the elephant that ate my computer (which
doesn't exist, as my computer has not been eaten).
If you don't believe my only existence is as
a story then why not just believe in this evil
God? It's the same form of belief.
Not at all. I can believe that I and my computer exist in a way that
the computer-eating elephant does not (ie, as more than a story, since
the elephant is merely a story). And I can then believe in you and
your computer by analogy. OTOH, as I've got nothing but stories for
'evil God', it's not reasonable to believe that he has any more
existence than the elephant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
15 Oct 2006 09:13:48 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Sphere wrote:
George Dance wrote:
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
sphere1952@gmail.com says...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
And by that definition leprechauns "exist" because there are stories
about them and those stories have "effects" (i.e. selling lucky charms
cereal).
If only the stories affect any existents, then all one can conclude is
that the stories exist.
(And, yes, that's the same for stories about 'God,' too.)
Please show me something other than
the stories which you could be talking
about.
??? If I read you right, you're asking me to:
Prove, without assuming that anything exists besides stories, that
something exists besides stories.
I say there is only action.
The question of this thread is the meaning of existence,
for which I proposed a definition.
That's a tall order, and I'm not going to try it if it's not what you
mean.
I could agree that only the stories exist,
but then only the story of me exists, and
I don't.
Then you couldn't agree. <g> In order to agree, you'd have to be
someone-or-something-that-agrees, and you couldn't be that without
being. "To be something is to be." And a story can't 'agree' with
anything (except accidentally, which isn't the meaning of 'agree' being
used here, is it?). So I'd disagree that 'only' the story of you
exists.
Then what else exists? What am I other
than the arisen result of the interaction
of cells? (We can ignore for the moment
what cells are.)
I don't have to be anything in order to
agree or disagree. That is your
supposition, not mine. If you do in
fact assert that I have to be something
in oder to agree or disagree then it is
your responsibility to demonstrate this --
not mine. I am not making a positive
assertion here, but only rejecting a
usually assumed one.
I don't really care which way you go, as long
as you are consistent. Either I exist because
the story of me exists or I don't exist, as my
only existence is as a story. (Just like
this evil God.)
Well, you don't exist *because* a story about you exists, because a
story about any x could exist without x existing. I can show that just
by writing a story about the elephant that ate my computer (which
doesn't exist, as my computer has not been eaten).
I don't see a point here.
If you don't believe my only existence is as
a story then why not just believe in this evil
God? It's the same form of belief.
Not at all. I can believe that I and my computer exist in a way that
the computer-eating elephant does not (ie, as more than a story, since
the elephant is merely a story). And I can then believe in you and
your computer by analogy. OTOH, as I've got nothing but stories for
'evil God', it's not reasonable to believe that he has any more
existence than the elephant.
How about a major war in the Middle East?
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 04:51:29 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
sphere1952@gmail.com says...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
And by that definition leprechauns "exist" because there are stories
about them and those stories have "effects" (i.e. selling lucky charms
cereal).
:)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 12:10:48 PM |
|
|
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160646689.077011.201230@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
sphere1952@gmail.com says...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
And by that definition leprechauns "exist" because there are stories
about them and those stories have "effects" (i.e. selling lucky charms
cereal).
yeah that's exactly what he's saying
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 06:04:02 PM |
|
|
GoDrex wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160646689.077011.201230@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quibbler wrote:
In article <1160615398.359176.274660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
sphere1952@gmail.com says...
Exist: Produces or has effects.
And by that definition leprechauns "exist" because there are stories
about them and those stories have "effects" (i.e. selling lucky charms
cereal).
yeah that's exactly what he's saying
Well... Not necessarily. We could just
agree that the notion of existence is
non-functional (i.e. broken) and stop
using it.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
11 Oct 2006 11:45:10 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 18:09:58 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Exist: Produces or has effects.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
Perhaps, but that something that does not exist has just caused you to
quantify its non-effectiveness as being zero. You then compare
non-zero effectiveness somethings with your baseline measure of
non-effectiveness to base an entire definition of existance on. That
has a quirky kind of existancyableness to it.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
No bananas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 04:56:34 AM |
|
|
William Wingstedt wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 18:09:58 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Exist: Produces or has effects.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
Perhaps, but that something that does not exist has just caused you to
quantify its non-effectiveness as being zero. You then compare
non-zero effectiveness somethings with your baseline measure of
non-effectiveness to base an entire definition of existance on. That
has a quirky kind of existancyableness to it.
Does the little green men who do not exist
who live under my bed exist?
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
No bananas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 01:21:05 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2006 02:56:34 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
William Wingstedt wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 18:09:58 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Exist: Produces or has effects.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
Perhaps, but that something that does not exist has just caused you to
quantify its non-effectiveness as being zero. You then compare
non-zero effectiveness somethings with your baseline measure of
non-effectiveness to base an entire definition of existance on. That
has a quirky kind of existancyableness to it.
Does the little green men who do not exist
who live under my bed exist?
Only when they keep you up at night. Are you losing much sleep over
it?
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
No bananas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 05:54:51 PM |
|
|
William Wingstedt wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 02:56:34 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
William Wingstedt wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 18:09:58 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote:
Exist: Produces or has effects.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
Perhaps, but that something that does not exist has just caused you to
quantify its non-effectiveness as being zero. You then compare
non-zero effectiveness somethings with your baseline measure of
non-effectiveness to base an entire definition of existance on. That
has a quirky kind of existancyableness to it.
Does the little green men who do not exist
who live under my bed exist?
Only when they keep you up at night. Are you losing much sleep over
it?
Not the little green men who don't exist. They
don't exist by definition. But that little green
men who don't exist that does exist keeps on
staring at me -- I can't help talking about it. It
seems to be having an effect upon me. It's
sort of a god or something.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
11 Oct 2006 09:42:19 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
Exist: Produces or has effects.
Interacts with stuff in some way.
Yeah - that's not bad.
Now of course something may be interacting with some other stuff on the
far reaches of universe and you or I will never know of it - but thats
a seperate aspect.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
Sounds good.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
12 Oct 2006 12:32:37 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
Exist: Produces or has effects.
That is, something which does not exist
cannot have any effect.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Does zero exist. Is zero not effective? How about nothing? Nothing is
an effective concept!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Proposed Definition of Exist. |
14 Oct 2006 10:12:44 AM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2006 10:32:37 -0700, "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does zero exist. Is zero not effective? How about nothing? Nothing is
an effective concept!
That is correct epistemologically but it is not correct ontologically.
Nothing is an ontological absurdity because it generates ontological
contradictions.
--
Govt is an insult to human dignity. With or without govt,
you would have good people doing good things and evil
people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes govt. Govt is the root of all evil.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
