What is the meaning of existence?

[Polymath257]

I am not asking what the *purpose* of existence is or whether it has a purpose.

I am asking what it means to say that something 'exists'.

How do we show something exists?

How do we show something does NOT exist?

How does the existence of a chair in my room relate to the non-existence of Sherlock Holmes or Santa Claus?

Is it meaningful to say that something exists if there is no way to detect it, even in theory?

Discuss.

 

[Kemosloby]

This sounds like a job for Webster's.

Anything, which can be acknowledged in the present, exists.

We know that sherlock holmes and Santa clause are fictional characters, therefore they do not exist except as fictional characters.

 

[Thief]

evidence?

no doubt you will call for it

and what line do you think you have drawn?......so far

 

[Thief]

This sounds like a job for Webster's.

Anything, which can be acknowledged in the present, exists.

We know that sherlock holmes and Santa clause are fictional characters, therefore they do not exist except as fictional characters.

and the items that make the proclamation on their own?
(see Cowardly Lion of Oz)

 

[Polymath257]

This sounds like a job for Webster's.

Anything, which can be acknowledged in the present, exists.

We know that sherlock holmes and Santa clause are fictional characters, therefore they do not exist except as fictional characters.

So Sherlock Holmes is not 'acknowledged in the present'? What does that even mean?

So, *how* do we know these characters are fictional as opposed to, say, allegorical, mythological, or even existing on a different plane?

 

[Thief]

So Sherlock Holmes is not 'acknowledged in the present'? What does that even mean?

So, *how* do we know these characters are fictional as opposed to, say, allegorical, mythological, or even existing on a different plane?

open minded?......are we now?

 

[Kemosloby]

So Sherlock Holmes is not 'acknowledged in the present'? What does that even mean?

So, *how* do we know these characters are fictional as opposed to, say, allegorical, mythological, or even existing on a different plane?

Look on wikipedia i guess.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it meaningful to say that something exists if there is no way to detect it, even in theory?

No, it does not.

However, many things exist as abstract concepts.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This sounds like a job for Webster's.

Anything, which can be acknowledged in the present, exists.

We know that sherlock holmes and Santa clause are fictional characters, therefore they do not exist except as fictional characters.

You realize that your explanation here causes some problems for your theological positions, yes?

 

[Kemosloby]

You realize that your explanation here causes some problems for your theological positions, yes?

No, since I acknowledge God is real and in the present, for me God exists. For you God might not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it does not.

However, many things exist as abstract concepts.

And what does it mean for an 'abstract concept' to exist? How does that type of existence differ from the existence of, say, a chair? Or an electron?

 

[Polymath257]

No, since I acknowledge God is real and in the present, for me God exists. For you God might not exist.

So existence depends on the person? It isn't objective?

If someone acknowledges the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that mean the FSM exists?

/E: What if someone acknowledges Santa Claus?

 

[BSM1]

I am not asking what the *purpose* of existence is or whether it has a purpose.

I am asking what it means to say that something 'exists'.

How do we show something exists?

How do we show something does NOT exist?

How does the existence of a chair in my room relate to the non-existence of Sherlock Holmes or Santa Claus?

Is it meaningful to say that something exists if there is no way to detect it, even in theory?

Discuss.

Short answer: Yes, no, and maybe.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No, since I acknowledge God is real and in the present, for me God exists. For you God might not exist.

Good try. But that does nothing to answer the objective requirement of existence...

Rocks, for example, don't "exist for you" and "not exist for me".
Subjective existence is no existence at all.

 

[Kemosloby]

So existence depends on the person? It isn't objective?

If someone acknowledges the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that mean the FSM exists?

Yes of course. When someone first dreamed up the FSM it began its existence as a fictional character. Unless you are acknowledging the FSM is a non-fictional character?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes of course. When someone first dreamed up the FSM it began its existence as a fictional character. Unless you are acknowledging the FSM is a non-fictional character?

What if someone does? Does that mean the FSM exists?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes of course. When someone first dreamed up the FSM it began its existence as a fictional character. Unless you are acknowledging the FSM is a non-fictional character?

So, god is a fictional character?

 

[Kemosloby]

Good try. But that does nothing to answer the objective requirement of existence...

Rocks, for example, don't "exist for you" and "not exist for me".
Subjective existence is no existence at all.

If you have a fear of heights that fear exists for you but not me.

exist - Dictionary Definition

 

[Kemosloby]

What if someone does? Does that mean the FSM exists?

for that person the FSM exists, if only in their mind, or as a lie meant to deceive others.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So Sherlock Holmes is not 'acknowledged in the present'? What does that even mean?

So, *how* do we know these characters are fictional as opposed to, say, allegorical, mythological, or even existing on a different plane?

Isn't that like saying, Binajah Zinji could actually exist on a allegorical, mythological, or different plane once I think it onto paper (or screen) outside of my noggin'?

Does an existence of a fictional character or anyone by definition is invisible need to be taken into consideration because it is no longer in my head but on paper, screen, or by word instead?

At what point does Santa Claus be so distinct to motivate a person to examine his actual existence compared to the countless threads asking for evidence of god?

What's the difference between the two other than the number of followers and history?