... the distinction of 'what exists' and 'what is' has to be discerned. — Wayfarer

Here's where I depart from philosophical convention (tradition): anachronistic "what is" (or "to be") is merely a sentence fragment – placeholder – that does not say anything. I find Epicurus' void (or even Spinoza's substance) a more intelligible concept than "being" and that atoms (or modes, respectively) correspond to "beings" (i.e. things, events, facts) which exist in particular.

Is existence something that has properties? It is clear that things that exist have properties, but existence is not something that exists. — Fooloso4

Existence, as I am using the term, is not a verb nor is it a property. It is the eternal positive, as opposed to nothingness, that is. It is what is there before 'creation'. See below-

In philosophical theology, this is the rationale behind for example Paul Tililch's insistence that God does not exist - that while God is, God is not 'an existent' which reduces God to a being, one being among others. — Wayfarer

Different philosophers use 'being' and 'existence' interchangably which is woefully confusing. I see existence as the eternal positive. I see being as developed existence: something that is closer to life and activity, consciousness.

Assume X has the property 'existence'. In this respect we see X and existence as distinct entities. Now ask 'Does X exist?

1. X exists. This makes existence as a property of X superfluous whence X is existence.

2. X does not exist. It is incoherent to say as non existent X has properties. Whence existence has properties but is not a property of anything.

This is an example of how being and existence can be confused. I see existence as a primordial, eternal, positive. An analogy is a lump of lead representing existence; it is simply there. The lead can be reformed into the shape of a horse or an eagle; it becomes. The lead is existence, the horse is being, it is what is created.

In my opinion, this is not a convincing argument for the existence of God.

My argument is that if God exists, existence is God. Now this brings up the question; How/Why did existence become being/life/consciousness/creativity? Does this seem like an intelligent process?

Assume X has the property 'existence'. In this respect we see X and existence as distinct entities. Now ask 'Does X exist? — EnPassant

That leaves aside a whole class such as numbers, conventions, principles, universals, and related. the question as to the sense in which number exists is an entire topic in philosophy. What about possibilities? There is a 'realm of possibility' - what might happen - and while none of its inhabitants exist, they are real possibilities (as distinct from things which could never happen). Similarly there are logical possibilities which might never exist, but which are real in some sense.

You're venturing into fundamental metaphysics, but I don't know if trying to re-create it from scratch will be a fruitful undertaking.

There are journal papers which differentiate being, reality and existence. Also an Oxford University external studies course of the same name.

Clearly existence (the uncreated void) contains possibilities since existence became many things: tables, chairs, elephants, stars, planets...
These things exist because they are properties of existence. A horse made of silver IS the silver that makes it. Created things exist because they are made from existence. All this is possible.

Clearly existence (the uncreated void) — EnPassant

'The existent' and 'the uncreated' are different domains in classical metaphysics.

Lawrence Krauss published a book 10 years ago, A Universe from Nothing, which proposed to account for how fluctuations in quantum fields give rise to the Universe (hence the title!) It was subject to some pretty savage review, see here and here, which give some insight into the difficult metaphysics of these questions.

It is really just semantic. I hope my use of the word existence is clear. As for quantum fluctuations; nothingness is profoundly 'empty'. It is the pink elephant that is NOT standing on your kitchen table. It is utterly absent. There cannot be fluctuations in something that is not there. Nothingness is not even an 'it' because if it was 'it' would be something.

I don't follow any of this. Maybe incomprehension – misreading – goes both ways.

There is something rather than nothingness. This eternal something is existence. Either we have something or nothingness. Clearly there is something there. But the things we see are, for the most part, temporal. They have been created. What was there before all created/contingent things? There was existence. This eternal something, from which all things came, is eternal and IS existence.

I cover this same ground on my TPF profile but conclude everything is self-organizing, evolving, dissipating and not "created".

What was there before all created/contingent things? There was existence. This eternal something, from which all things came, is eternal and IS existence. — EnPassant

To argue there is an entity without fom or attribute, but who has the power to create, is to define a non-physical, propertyless powerful creator.

How isn't this theism?

EnPassant's description suggests acosmism even more than theism.

To argue there is an entity without form or attribute, but who has the power to create, is to define a non-physical, propertyless powerful creator.

How isn't this theism? — Hanover

Well, it is theism. Does existence/God have attributes even before creation comes into being? I don't know.

EnPassant's description suggests acosmism even more than theism. — 180 Proof

Yes, properties of existence (contingent/created things) inherit their existence from existence/God. They are made out of existence.

I cover this same ground on my TPF profile but conclude everything is self-organizing, evolving, dissipating and not "created". — 180 Proof

i. "Why is there anything at all?" Because
(A) 'absence of any possibility of anything at all' – nothing-ness – is impossible.
(B) the only ultimate why-answer that does not beg the question is There Is No Ultimate Why-Question.

There is something because there is nothing to prevent it???

ii. existence in its entirety is the ultimate, unbounded brute fact; therefore, every existent (facts events things persons) is necessarily contingent.

Existence/God contains all possibilities. The real is what has been made real from this potential of possibilities.

iii. the real (e.g. existence) encompasses reasoning (e.g. naturalism); therefore, reasoning cannot encompass (i.e. causally explain) the real.

The power of reason in our minds is God. All mind is ultimately God's Mind.

The power of reason in our minds is God. All mind is ultimately God's Mind. — EnPassant

That's the claim, what's the evidence? Which make of god are you referring to, if any?

Mind is necessary for anything to evolve beyond a primitive level of complexity. Thought comes before all else that is created. Thought is more real than matter.

That does not demonstrate god/s, nor can you establish what you say about thought to be true. Do you have anything more?

I'm not trying to prove anything, just provide food for thought.

Ok. I guess we can make all sorts of claims about gods being the necessary grounding for reason or morality or whatever it might be (these arguments are common in Muslim and Christian presuppositional apologetics), but unless it can be demonstrated, it is just a claim amongst the many made by some believers.

There is something because there is nothing to prevent it??? — EnPassant

... and because "nothing" causes it to be.

Existence/God contains all possibilities.

Actuality consists of every possible way the world could have been and can be described. Actuality is the immanent, unbounded space of possibilities within which each instantiation of a possibility (i.e. each possible version of the world) is necessarily contingent. Actuality is necessary contingency.

The power of reason in our minds is God. All mind is ultimately God's Mind.

Mind-ing is what human brains do. Some mind-ing also reasons, occasionally exhibiting sufficient power to create knowledge. However, some mind-ing unreasons instead, dreaming "God creates human brains." (Buridan's Ass?)

I guess we can make all sorts of claims about gods... — Tom Storm

:up:

I guess we can make all sorts of claims about gods — Tom Storm

And devils.

When my son was young he used to blame "the little Santa".

I love it.

Sure, Anecdotal is a type of evidence but it is weak evidence when trying to convince someone else. I can just say "Cool story, bro" and not think twice about it.

Sure, Anecdotal is a type of evidence but it is weak evidence when trying to convince someone else. I can just say "Cool story, bro" and not think twice about it. — GTTRPNK

I agree that it would be weak evidence in court, but at some level I find it convincing. Whether or not I take it as evidence for God, I do recognize it as something important that rationalism, or materialism, or whatever you call it misses.

Perhaps you have low standards of evidence or aren't very skeptical. Personal experience on its own isn't good enough to believe something is true.

:up:

Perhaps you have low standards of evidence or aren't very skeptical. Personal experience on its own isn't good enough to believe something is true. — GTTRPNK

You ignored my comment and just repeated what you wrote in your previous one. You're also commenting on a post I made a month ago. Let's just leave it at that.

Alright buddy