On 12/09/2007, Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The no-justification argues that it doesn't make sense to introduce > 'existence' as a property, or expressed in another way, that it is not > possible to meaningfully separate (imaginable) things that have the > (hypothetic) property that they 'exist' from (imaginable) things > without that property. This leaves us with two options if we still > want to use the concept of existence given by the everyday theory: > that the ensemble of (imaginable) things is empty or that every > (imaginable) thing has the property that it exists. The property is > degenerate, it does not separate some (imaginable) things from others. > Since, in our everyday theory, we say that things surrounding us > exist, we must consequently take the second option: that every > (imaginable) thing has the property that it exists. This is the > Everything ensemble.
Are you aware that "existence is not a property" was Immanuel Kant's answer to the ontological argument for the existence of God? Kant, however, did not derive modal realism from this. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/existenceisnotapredicate.html -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
