Can God "be" anything other than what God is? If not, God is a singularity with which we can compare anything else, be it a construct or something tangible and measurable. The comparison can only have meaning to something that exists. This means necessarily that God is commensurable. If God is commensurable, God exists. If God is commensurable, then that to which we compare God also must also exist.


I don't follow your reasoning that existence is a substance. I see it as a state of being, but of being commensurable. If nothing truly exists, it is incommensurable and therefore meaningless.

Kant criticized Anslem's ontological argument for God's existence on the basis that existence is not a property. — EnPassant

Actually the expression is usually that ‘existence is not a predicate’.

The other very difficult and subtle point about this argument - probably too difficult, but never mind - has to do with the sense in which God can be said to ‘exist’. According to Bishop Pierre Whalon:

’Existence’ requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation.

Similarly, the theologian Paul Tillich was famous [or notorious] for likewise insisting that the term ‘existence’ was incorrect in respect of God:

Existence refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. Within the finite realm issues of conflict between, for example, autonomy (Greek: 'autos' - self, 'nomos' - law) and heteronomy (Greek: 'heteros' - other, 'nomos' - law) abound (there are also conflicts between the formal/emotional and static/dynamic). Resolution of these conflicts lies in the essential realm (the Ground of Meaning/the Ground of Being) which humans are cut off from yet also dependent upon. i

In traditional cultures - including Anselm’s - this was understood through an implicit understanding of the ‘uncreated’. It was understood that everything ‘here below’ - that is, created being - existed in a relation of dependency on ‘the uncreated’. The problem is there is absolutely no metaphor in contemporary culture or philosophy for ‘the uncreated’; that whole way of understanding has been forgotten. But it is implied in the notion of the transcendent as ‘beyond’.

The second point is that the whole idea of the ontological argument has a heritage that goes back to ancient philosophy. This is the understanding that being is an inherent good. Again the idea is dependent on there being a fertile ground of creation, which gives rise to everything that exists through a gratuitous act; that all of existence is a gift and that whatever is real is bound to exist, because its existence is a good. [This is the original idea behind the ‘cornucopia’ or the Horn of Plenty that was depicted as being carried by the Goddess Fortuna. ] So in that understanding, the simple fact of something being is a virtue, and non-being or non-existence is a privation or a lack. This is symbolised in ancient philosophy by the idea of the ‘pleroma’ [wikipedia entry here.] So in this worldview, whatever is real, is also good, and good because it’s real. Again this is something which is utterly alien to the modern sensibility which is apparently surrounded by a cornucopia of whatever it could want, but has not the least sense of what any of it means.

I see two types of existence

1. Existence through creation. Tolkien imagined middle earth and all the creatures in it. He, well, created the world of the Lord of the Rings. In such acts of creation, the creator has full freedom to define the properties of what he invents. For instance a dwarf is short, gruff and bearded, etc. In such a world, existence is a predicate. It is a property that is defined onto objects of creation.

2. Existence in the real world. In the real world, we perceive or know of or become cognizant of existence through the properties of objects. In short, first the objects must have properties and only then can we say that a given object exists. Look at the way we define objects in the real world. Isn't it through properties? I.E. existence comes after we become aware of properties of objects. Is it red? Is it light? Is it smooth? Etc. In the real world, existence is NOT a predicate. We can't define objects into existence. Can we? I'm intrigued...

Part of the problem with existence, in philosophy, is that existence is seen as a verb or a process. Existence, in itself, is a noun, a substance. If X has properties X is not brought into existence by its properties. If that was the case reality would be just a set of properties with no supporting substance, which is absurd. It is worth showing why existence cannot be a property, or a result of properties, to see the thing more clearly.

Existence cannot be a property:

Assume X has the property 'existence'. In this respect we consider X and existence to be distinct entities (otherwise X is equivalent to existence and there is nothing to prove). We now ask the question; Does X exist (as a distinct entity)? There are two answers;

1. X exists.
If this is the case existence, as a property of X, is superfluous since X exists anyhow. Therefore X is equivalent to existence.

2. X does not exist.

It is incoherent to say a non existent X has properties, let alone the property existence.

Clearly, if X is to have properties, it must exist 'first' in which case its existence cannot be conferred upon it by its properties.

'X exists' is incoherent if by that it is meant that X is in some kind of process.
'Existence has property X' is correct.

For all X, X is existence or a property of existence. Existence is the substance of all properties.

Consider an amorphous lump of bronze (existence). The bronze can be shaped into a horse. The horse is a property of the bronze. Likewise with existence and its properties.

Existence, as a noun, evolves by way of aquiring properties (star, dolphin, city etc) and becomes active. One only needs to understand that existence is a substance. It is what is, before anything else.

I see it as a state of being, but of being commensurable. If nothing truly exists, it is incommensurable and therefore meaningless. — gloaming

Being is active. The properties of existence enable it to become active. Existence in itself, 'before' its properties is a noun, a substance. It is the only substance.

Existence’ requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation. — Bishop Whalon

The bishop is confusing existence in action (being) with existence as the substance that is. Existence is a substance that is God.

Existence refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. — Tillich

Existence is that which eternally is. Being is existence in action.

In traditional cultures - including Anselm’s - this was understood through an implicit understanding of the ‘uncreated’. It was understood that everything ‘here below’ - that is, created being - existed in a relation of dependency on ‘the uncreated’ — Wayfarer

This is exactly correct. The 'uncreated' is the substance that is existence. 'Created being' is existence in action.

In short, first the objects must have properties and only then can we say that a given object exists. Look at the way we define objects in the real world. Isn't it through properties? — TheMadFool

I think it is the other way around; Properties are the 'face' of existence. Existence is the essential 'thereness' of a thing. Properties make it tangible. Existence cannot be produced by its properties because, it order to have properties, it must first exist!

Anselm's argument that God's existence is essentially more God-like than his non-existence, does not seem the counter the argument that a God who can simultaneously both exist and non exist.. ie defy reason, would seem to be higher than the existence/non-existence argument.

Such a counter argument would simply accomplish the relatively simple step of putting God beyond human reason, at in a nice place where he she or it has every right to simply 'be and not-be' at the same time. Hopefully having a laugh and enjoying a cold beer.

Human reason has not done very well at organizing things to date, it is a bit unfair to God that we should insist that he be reasonable.

There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that he has little if any interest in the laws of reason.

M

Part of the problem with existence, in philosophy, is that existence is seen as a verb or a process. Existence, in itself, is a noun, a substance. If X has properties X is not brought into existence by its properties. If that was the case reality would be just a set of properties with no supporting substance, which is absurd. It is worth showing why existence cannot be a property, or a result of properties, to see the thing more clearly.

Existence cannot be a property:

Assume X has the property 'existence'. In this respect we consider X and existence to be distinct entities (otherwise X is equivalent to existence and there is nothing to prove). We now ask the question; Does X exist (as a distinct entity)? There are two answers;

1. X exists.
If this is the case existence, as a property of X, is superfluous since X exists anyhow. Therefore X is equivalent to existence.

2. X does not exist.

It is incoherent to say a non existent X has properties, let alone the property existence.

Clearly, if X is to have properties, it must exist 'first' in which case its existence cannot be conferred upon it by its properties.

'X exists' is incoherent if by that it is meant that X is in some kind of process.
'Existence has property X' is correct.

For all X, X is existence or a property of existence. Existence is the substance of all properties.

Consider an amorphous lump of bronze (existence). The bronze can be shaped into a horse. The horse is a property of the bronze. Likewise with existence and its properties.

Existence, as a noun, evolves by way of aquiring properties (star, dolphin, city etc) and becomes active. One only needs to understand that existence is a substance. It is what is, before anything else. — EnPassant

I guess you're making the point ''existence is not a predicate''. I'm familiar with this idea only in the context of the ontological proof of God.

In that (ontological proof) context what is important to note is that God issue sits between the two world's of imaginary and real. The ontological proof would like to move God from the only imaginary into the real world using ''existence'' as a predicate. It looks like we have to differentiate two kinds of ''existence'' here:
1. Existence1 in the imaginary world
2. Existence2 in the real world

Existence1 would be claims like ''Elves exist'' or ''Dragons exist'' which need to be qualified with ''in Lord of the Rings''. Existence1 can be used as a predicate in the imaginary world. To say ''Dragons exist'' adds to the concept of Dragons and so can be used as a property of objects in an imaginary world. Then we build up on that. We say dragons have scales, wings, claws and breathes fire. In other words, in an imaginary world existence is prior to properties.

Existence2 is different. In the real world, saying ''Elves exist'' doesn't cause them to exist. We need proof.

And what amounts to proof?

Properties of objects right? An elf has to be seen, heard, touched, photographed, etc. Existence2 is dependent on properties exhibited by an object (an elf). Without properties perceivable we can't claim an object exists. So for existence2 properties (except existence itself) are prior to the claim of existence.

So for existence2 properties (except existence itself) are prior to the claim of existence. — TheMadFool

Yes, but that does not tell us what existence actually is. It cannot be simply a collection of properties. If you examine any property you will see that it requires some substance to actualise it. (see the example of the coin, below).

I find the word 'property' easier to understand and probably more apt. than the word predicate.

The essential argument I am making is that properties are not substantial and need a supporting substance to actualise them. Suppose you have a silver coin with the property 'circular'. Silver is the substance of the property, circular.

But properties are not true existences. They can vanish. If you melt down the silver coin in the hope of separating it from its property 'circular' it won't work; the property 'circular' will vanish. But something that can seem to be and then vanish, is not a real existence (existence is eternal or not at all).

It is the same with all properties. If you examine any property you can see that it needs some underlying substance to actualise it. Properties themselves are ephemeral 'nothings'.

But you can't have a universe made of 'nothings'. That is absurd.

The confusion in the philosophy of being results from a failure to distinguish existence from being. Existence, as I am using the word, is the uncreated void, the 'no-thing' that is not absolute nothingness.

The void evolves by acquiring properties and becomes being and life. Being is evolved existence.

We say dragons have scales, wings, claws and breathes fire. In other words, in an imaginary world existence is prior to properties. — TheMadFool

If you examine any physical property you will see that it needs some supporting substance. In the example of the silver coin the silver is the supporting substance of its property 'circular'.

You can therefore work in the simple principle: substance supports and actualises properties.

If you examine the silver of the coin you will see that it is also a property because it is a piece of matter and matter is a property of energy. It is made out of energy because matter is a pattern of energy. From this we see that the silver is only a relative, rather than absolute, substance.

The question now is; Is energy the ultimate substance of all material properties?
Maybe it is or maybe energy is also a pattern that is supported by a deeper substance, in which case energy is only a relative supporting substance.

But we cannot work back through the chain of properties endlessly. It cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. We must come to some entity that is not a property of anything. In which case it is a substance. This substance is existence. It is the true supporting substance of all properties and there can be no properties without it.

We cannot say, of such a thing, that 'It exists' because there seems to be two things there; 'It' and 'exists'. We should simply say 'Existence is'. It is existence that actualises properties and without it, there would be nothing.

And what amounts to proof?

Properties of objects right? An elf has to be seen, heard, touched, photographed, etc. Existence2 is dependent on properties exhibited by an object (an elf). — TheMadFool

If you examine any physical property you will see that it needs some supporting substance. In the example of the silver coin the silver is the supporting substance of its property 'circular'.

You can therefore work in the simple principle: substance supports and actualises properties.

If you examine the silver of the coin you will see that it is also a property because it is a piece of matter and matter is a property of energy. It is made out of energy because matter is a pattern of energy. From this we see that the silver is only a relative, rather than absolute, substance.

The question now is; Is energy the ultimate substance of all material properties?
Maybe it is or maybe energy is also a pattern that is supported by a deeper substance, in which case energy is only a relative supporting substance.

But we cannot work back through the chain of properties endlessly. It cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. We must come to some entity that is not a property of anything. In which case it is a substance. This substance is existence. It is the true supporting substance of all properties and there can be no properties without it.

We cannot say, of such a thing, that 'It exists' because there seems to be two things there; 'It' and 'exists'. We should simply say 'Existence is'.

The problem is also of the determination of existance...in history the conflict of the objective past that is there to be discovered in which the discoverer is an independent agent and the past as creation of the discoverer. Something may "exist" indepndently of any efforts to describe it. I have always felt that the ontogical argument proves the existance of God as defined something than which...but doesn't say much about the nature or qualities of that God. It is not a neat back up for faith which arguably transcends rational proof. Similarly berkeleys God as sustainer of existance pacs knox will fail to satisfy sceptic and believer alike.

Clearly, the perfections of an imaginary God are nothing if such a god does not exist. — EnPassant

It has been said that only things, objects, elements of metaphysics "exist". It has been said that God isn't any of those things, and isn't a thing at all.

...unless you're a Fundamentalist.

What then is existence if it is not a property of anything but has properties?

Good question. "Existence" isn't metaphysically-defined.

It is the potential to actualise properties.

...to make properties actual? What does "actual" mean?

The definition that I've found some agreement on is:

"A physical part of, or consisting of, this physical universe."

In this respect existence must be a substance. An eternal substance that contains all possible properties and sustains all actual properties.

That just has arbitrarily-made-up sound. An unnecessary multiplication of entities, making for a crowded, assumption-heavy metaphysics.

Better to just say we don't have a definition of "exist".

Michael Ossipoff

we cannot work back through the chain of properties endlessly. It cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. We must come to some entity that is not a property of anything. In which case it is a substance. This substance is existence. It is the true supporting substance of all properties and there can be no properties without it.

We cannot say, of such a thing, that 'It exists' because there seems to be two things there; 'It' and 'exists'. We should simply say 'Existence is'. It is existence that actualises properties and without it, there would be nothing. — EnPassant

That's not 'existence' - it is 'being', 'esse' is the Latin term. 'Existence' is a compound word derived from 'ex-' apart from and 'ist', to stand. So I would argue that something that 'exists' is by definition compound and temporal, whereas if you are speaking of 'being as such', nearer in meaning to 'esse' or 'ouisia' (which is the Greek term from which 'substance' was derived), then this is something that transcends existence (as per the references in my post above.)

Yes, but that does not tell us what existence actually is. It cannot be simply a collection of properties. If you examine any property you will see that it requires some substance to actualise it. (see the example of the coin, below). — EnPassant

I think you've the cart before the horse. Existence requires fulfilling of some criteria which can be summed up as tangible properties by which I mean perceptible through the senses. Your ''substance'' is real insofar as it is perceptible to our senses or through instruments. We can't talk of ''substance'' without properties, right? Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. It's the way the world is. I don't like it but that's how it is.

Your ''substance'' is real insofar as it is perceptible to our senses or through instruments. We can't talk of ''substance'' without properties, right? Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. — TheMadFool

Yes, but properties cannot be without substance. By 'actualized' properties I mean real properties. A circle cannot be a real property of a coin unless it has a substance that supports it or actualizes it. The silver of the coin is the substance of the property 'circular'. You can do a simple thought experiment with this; think of any real, actualized property like 'hot' etc. You will always find that it cannot be real unless it is supported by some kind of substance; 'hot cheese' or 'hot metal'. Now, of you examine the supporting substance you will probably find that it too is a property and requires a deeper substance to keep it in being. Clearly, this process cannot go on for ever. You must ultimately come to some substance that is not a property and is therefore a substance. This ultimate substance must exist if properties are to exist. To say that properties can create existence is like saying 'hot' can create the metal that actualizes (makes real) the property 'hot'.

Substance holds properties in being, not vise versa. Can you think of a property that is not supported by a substance that keeps it in being?

...to make properties actual? What does "actual" mean? — Michael Ossipoff

Properties are ephemeral. They cannot be real unless there is some underlying substance that keeps them in being, or actualizes them. 'Circle' is only imaginary unless it is actualized by a substance, a coin, for example.

That just has arbitrarily-made-up sound. An unnecessary multiplication of entities, making for a crowded, assumption-heavy metaphysics.

No, it is necessary to prevent an infinite regression. It cannot be properties all way down; properties supporting properties supporting properties forever. Properties require substance. If that substance is also a property it too requires a deeper substance, etc, until we meet something that is not a property.

1. Identify a real property.
2. Identify its supporting substance.
3. Is this substance also a property? Yes/No
4. Yes: identify its supporting substance. No: You have reached a substance that is not a property. This is why existence is not a property.

That's not 'existence' - it is 'being', 'esse' is the Latin term. 'Existence' is a compound word derived from 'ex-' apart from and 'ist', to stand. So I would argue that something that 'exists' is by definition compound and temporal, whereas if you are speaking of 'being as such', nearer in meaning to 'esse' or 'ouisia' (which is the Greek term from which 'substance' was derived), then this is something that transcends existence (as per the references in my post above.) — Wayfarer

Well that is very semantic. 'Being' is usually concerned with life and consciousness. It usually refers to a very evolved existence concerning soul, self or psyche. But we say a rock exists. Existence is more primitive. There is no clear distinction between the two, so I am obliged to use 'existence' in the primitive sense and use 'being' in the evolved sense. My argument is that existence is a primordial substance and being is evolved existence.


When you work back through the chain of properties you must come to a substance that is not a property, otherwise there is an infinite regression of properties. When we get to this ultimate substance we ask 'Does it exist?' It is incoherent to say it doesn't. So it does exist. But since it is not a property of anything it must be existence itself. Existence is a fecund substance that has the power to evolve properties. Otherwise, how do properties come to be?

You can say 'Existence is evolved being' or 'Being is evolved existence' but my essential argument holds; there is a primordial substance that is a necessary existence and is not a property. This substance evolves by acquiring properties and the highest point of this evolution is, apparently, conscious life.

I don't see how there can be a set of properties unless they are held together by an inner substance. This substance is ultimately the primordial substance that is.

The history of science suggests this. It was once thought that the classical universe was a set of properties that held within itself the explanation of its own existence. But quantum physicists discovered that to explain the physical universe it is necessary to go outside the classical domain and they discovered that energy is the substance of which the classical universe is an emergent set of physical properties.

The question now is; is energy the primordial substance or is it too a property of some deeper substance?

This ultimate substance must exist if properties are to exist. To say that properties can create existence is like saying 'hot' can create the metal that actualizes (makes real) the property 'hot'. — EnPassant

But without the property ''hot'' or ''cold'' or whatever we couldn't say that metal or any other thing exists.

I do think you have a point but to talk of your ''substance'' without properties is extremely difficult if not impossible.

I think I have an analogy. Your friend is in New York and you're in Washington. His existence can only be known to you through a phone for example. The phone is your senses and detects the properties, the only evidence of existence, of your friend's ''substance''.

Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. It's the way the world is.I don't like it but that's how it is. — TheMadFool

Hahaha, funny! Do you wish you had an essential substance that didn't rely on properties?

Hahaha, funny! Do you wish you had an essential substance that didn't rely on properties? — Marchesk

:grin:

I do think you have a point but to talk of your ''substance'' without properties is extremely difficult if not impossible. — TheMadFool

Yes, some call it 'the void'. But from what I can see it must exist because otherwise there would be properties without substance. Try to think of a property without some substance to hold it in being.

I think I have an analogy. Your friend is in New York and you're in Washington. His existence can only be known to you through a phone for example. The phone is your senses and detects the properties, the only evidence of existence, of your friend's ''substance''.

Yes, I agree entirely. But my point is that what can be known is not enough. I think we must infer an ultimate substance.

Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. It's the way the world is.I don't like it but that's how it is. — TheMadFool

Yes, it is incomprehensible. It is the 'no-thing' (no nameable thing but not absolute nothingness.)

The closest I can get to it is space; there is 'no-thing' in space but space is something; an actual substance.

But without the property ''hot'' or ''cold'' or whatever we couldn't say that metal or any other thing exists. — TheMadFool

Yes, but that is only the world of appearances. As far as the physical universe is concerned you will find that the substance of a property is only a 'relative substance' because it too is a property. Matter is a property of energy. So it comes down to this question; Is energy a property? If it is what is its supporting substance? But you cannot work back indefinitely, you must come to something that is not a property.

How do we discuss this unnameable substance?

How do we discuss this unnameable substance? — TheMadFool

Plotinus talks about unknowable 'first things' in God/the void.

How do you discuss empty space with no-thing in it?

Remarkably there are some things we can say about this primordial existence or void.

1. It is. It is a necessary existence.
2. It has vast creative potential because it evolved by acquiring properties and became a universe.
3. It has the potential for life and consciousness because it has evolved into these too.

Plotinus talks about unknowable 'first things' in God/the void. — EnPassant

There's another situation which is similar to trying to understand the unanameable -that of a baboon trying to understand calculus. Are you saying we're like the baboon?

There's another situation which is similar to trying to understand the unanameable -that of a baboon trying to understand calculus. Are you saying we're like the baboon? — TheMadFool

Not at all. I'm trying to argue that we can infer a substance that is the underpinning of all properties.

If you work on the principle that all properties must be supported by substance and work your way back you must, logically, come to something that is not a property. Properties are states and you cannot have a state unless something is in that state. It doesn't seem coherent to posit the existence of a universe that is made of properties only.

Existence, I think can bed quantified. It is a thing, tangible or intangible, which has an effect on environment.

There's definitely something to that idea. Funnily enough I've just been reading Herbert Spencer's First Principles, which has a wonderful first few chapters on the topic of where, if anywhere, religion and science coincide.

And if they coincide anywhere, it's on this essentially mysterious fact of existence as such. Science gives us the timings and predictability (what used to be called "properties") of existence, but not its nature; religion at first pretended that knowing the nature of existence was easy (spirits much like us, with motivations much like us, etc.), and the timings and predictability mysterious (capricious, like us, so needing propitiation). The one seems to be giving way to the other, and yet both seem to be converging on us not really knowing what the hell is going on, apart from that we have a better handle on the timings and predictability of things.

What this (gesturing around) actually is, nobody is any the wiser after thousands of years of profound thought, ultimately, it completely escapes the boundaries of reason. Yet we are it, and we know it in a non-verbal sort of way.