• Londoner
    54
    (1) God exists in the understanding, but not in reality.

    Or

    (1) A being than which none greater can be imagined exists in the understanding, but not in reality.
    — Agustino

    I'd say both sentences use the same word; 'exist', but the word has a different meaning.

    I can say 'dreams exist', or 'this concept exists' etc. or 'Harry Potter exists' and we understand the meaning of 'exist' by what it refers to. That meaning is different to 'London exists'. If there is a confusion over what is meant, we can ask. 'You say Harry Potter exists?' and get the reply 'I meant he is a fictional character'.

    So I do not say why the idea that something 'exists in the understanding' is connected to the quite different claim that something 'exists in reality'.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    So I do not say why the idea that something 'exists in the understanding' is connected to the quite different claim that something 'exists in reality'.Londoner

    In other word's the thread is as valid were you to call it "Ontological Argument Proving Harry Potter's Existence"
  • 1x0
    1
    In proportion to Nothing (the starting phase of the Universe), a thought or a basic sense like "the will of existence" would be Everything.

    Such a simple consciousness could be called God.

    Everything is relative to the space and time of the observation.
1678910Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.