X exists = There is something with the properties associated with X.

X does not exist = There is not something with the properties that would be associated with X

Technically though, things that don't exist don't have anything. They don't exist. How can something that does not exist have properties of any sort (unless one is willing to say that "not existing" is a property in itself, but then I suppose one would be left asking what the properties of not existing are....)

So I wonder if the unicorn example might have to have the caveat of "as far as we know" attached to it, as it would only take the discovery of a single unicorn, no matter how implausible that might be, for the statement "unicorns do not exist" to come tumbling down.

I feel my grip slipping . . . .

It seems like you are saying here that all things exist because they exist.
Am I missing something?

I might have put this question into the language section, but since possibly the most central question in metaphysics is that of existence, I decided to put it there. So, when we assert that X (whatever it may be) exists (or that X does not exist) what are we asserting? (Example: elephants exist, but mermaids do not).

From my understanding, saying that something exists is to say that it has a causal relationship with the universe.

From my understanding, saying that something exists is to say that it has a causal relationship with the universe.

Deism is the view that God has absolutely no causal relation with the universe beyond having created it. Would that mean you have defined a Deistic god out of existence?
No one means by elephants exist that elephants have a causal relation with the universe. What they mean is that something is a pachyderm and a mammal, has large ears and a trunk, and is indigenous to Africa and Asia. After all, you need to say what it is that exists, don't you?

Deism is the view that God has absolutely no causal relation with the universe beyond having created it. Would that mean you have defined a Deistic god out of existence?
No one means by elephants exist that elephants have a causal relation with the universe. What they mean is that something is a pachyderm and a mammal, has large ears and a trunk, and is indigenous to Africa and Asia. After all, you need to say what it is that exists, don't you?

Elephants don't have a causal relationship with the universe ?! Elephants are a part of the same causal chain that we are a part of, and that chain is causally related to the universe.

...kennethamy, you are definitely a very stubborn fellah...keep on !

He never said elephants don't have a causal relationship with the universe.

Note that he said, "No one means by elephants exist that..." since this discussion is about what someone means when they say X exists.

Well that's what I mean when I say that elephants exist; that they have causal relationship to the universe. He seemed to imply that elephants don't have a causal relationship with the universe.

Well that's what I mean when I say that elephants exist; that they have a causal relationship to the universe. He seemed to imply that elephants don't have a causal relationship with the universe.

He never said elephants don't have a causal relationship with the universe.

Note that he said, "No one means by elephants exist that..." since this discussion is about what someone means when they say X exists.

When I say that my chair exists, I am not saying anything about the causal relationship it may have with the universe. Why do you think I am?



I don't understand what he's being stubborn about, and you haven't addressed me from the last page.

Well, my intellect isn't as "solid", so could you please elaborate on what he's being stubborn concerning?

Really? When you say elephants exist you mean that they have a causal relationship with the universe? If I say elephants existed, I would mean that there is X creature with Y properties (like a long snout, floppy ears, etc.). What relationship they have with the universe is an entirely different discussion and could be researched, at least from a habitat perspective, through biological (ecology).

What do you mean when you say ideas or songs exist?

Let's genuinally try to reach a consensus if it is at all possible, because I believe that this can be easily clarified.

You say that there is X creature with Y properties. I agree with that definition, but I believe that it is too narrow. Existence is a broad concept, and so when we say that something is in existence, or that something exists, we should take notice of what that something is existing within or what it's related to. The universe is that broader something that everything exists within and is a part of, hence the name (united-verse).

Ideas are merely abstract concepts that are the result of abstract thought, and so that should be clarified. Songs exist as waves in space that are translated into what we call sound by our brains, but the concepts, ideas, and opinions expressed in songs don't actually exist.