5000 years ago, in the past or future, or 5000 galaxies away from us right now, a tree with a yellow trunk and blue leaves, exists. This tree is called ‘God’.
Now you may claim that god does not exist, because you have no knowledge nor evidence of god. But that doesn’t matter.
Because lack of knowledge and evidence, does not negate existence.
Most people around here commit the “Temporal Fallacy”. They believe that if they have no knowledge nor evidence of something, then it must not exist. This is false, because existence doesn’t revolve around human knowledge. To claim that existence does revolve around human knowledge, would be to claim that the universe does not exist, outside of human consciousness. Before humans were alive, before humans evolved, or after all humans go extinct, then the rest of the universe disappears? Existence revolves around you, and what you know?
No, existence does not revolve around you. And to think, imply, believe, or claim that it does, is the Temporal Fallacy.
Things exist, whether you know about them or not, whether you have evidence for them or not. Existence does not revolve around human knowledge or opinion.
I’m not gonna get into a religious debate here, but I will say that it’s refreshing to see someone recognize something that’s philosophical and related to a subject like epistemology in a way that relates to the conversations people have here. Thanks man.
Every myth and fantasy represents something real. For example a Gryphon is a mythical, ideal creature, created from the real objects of an eagle combined with a lion.
I challenge everybody to think of one idea, just one, that has absolutely no reference to reality. Think of something that doesn’t exist.
Better yet, extra credit, think of something that cannot exist.
What people conceive of existence, exists between their ideals and reality. Ideas change reality. But ideas do not change existence. To claim that ideas do not exist, must imply that reality does not exist, because ideas are derived from reality.
Perfection is preference. In fact, the idea of perfection is what truly identifies the essence/soul/spirit/uniqueness/individuality of a person. Because perfection is what a person conceives of absolute willpower, the ability to change the universe according to subjective, personal desires.
Hmmm… still waiting on that clue. You asked for somethings that I could think of that cannot exist.
Ideals and ideas are different things. But I didn’t declare that either cannot exist.
And do remember that thoughts or efforts to think of concepts, affect physical reality. The concept being thought about is a different issue.
Perhaps if you give us your qualifier for “that which exists”… ?
To claim that something does not exist is to essentially make this claim for all timespace. Because existence is eternal and endless, infinite. For example, let’s claim that leprechauns do not exist. Well they don’t exist according to my knowledge and evidence. But as the temporal fallacy indicates, knowledge and evidence does not constitute proof of existence. Because existence does not revolve around humanity. If people want to go ahead and claim existence revolves around humanity, they can, but, it is easy to show how ridiculous this is. Does a disagreement between two people on the existence of the sun, make the sun disappear if one claims not? No.
Instead people need to understand the limits of knowledge and evidence.
Here I define existence as greater than human knowledge and evidence. Because existence includes 1000000 years into the past or future. Existence includes 1000000 lightyears away. Existence includes all.
I’m not disagreeing with any of that, but it does seem a bit vacuous. You tell of the errors of human thought and I don’t disagree. You say that “everything exists”, which is like saying “all tall things are not small”. It really isn’t saying anything.
What is it that qualifies something to be called “existent”? If there is nothing outside that category, then the word “existence” has no relevant meaning.
I know, for my own reasons, that a perfect square cannot physically exist, ever, anywhere in any universe, period. But that is because I define “existence” as “that which has affect”. And a perfect square has no affect upon anything, nor can it ever. But the idea of a perfect square can affect things and thus can exist. The perfect square itself cannot (in our universe).
So then perfection is reconciliation between the ideal and the real.
I don’t think perfection necessarily cancels out existence. But even if I don’t know whether perfect things can exist, wouldn’t rule their possibility out of existence. That’s the point.
Typically. But one could be referring to two concepts or two objects.
Well, neither would I. I mentioned merely a few that could not exist. I never said that nothing perfect can exist. The reason a perfect square can’t exist is because of two things; an infinitely perfect corner (discontinuity) cannot physically exist and a perfect straight line cannot physically exist. A square depends on both of those.
Pretty much any simply yet exactly defined concept will not be able to be physically real. Physicality is not simple.
