Does Everything Exist?

Something that I heard recently was the argument that "everything exists." From what I've observed elsewhere this is another version of the ontological argument. That is, we can say that what we can perceive certainly exists, but also that what we can conceive also exists, for the simple reason that the conception itself exists.

But I wonder if that is in fact the case. Is it not more likely to be true that the conception and the reality are two different things? I can, for example, conceive of a bank account with my name, branch and account number on it, which contains an amount in the 7 or 8 figures. Does such an account exist? Does my conception of it exist outside of my own conceptual capabilities?

So what, then, can it mean to say that "everything exists?"

Ninah wrote:

So what, then, can it mean to say that "everything exists?"

What was the context for that assertion? As it stands, sounds like a tautology : "everything in existence exists".

I think there are two kinds of "existence" : physical reality (the realm of matter) and metaphysical ideality (the realm of mind). As Panendeists, when we say that we believe G*D exists, we certainly don't mean that G*D has a physical presence in this temporal universe.

In the eternal/infinite realm of G*D, by definition, all "things" are possible. But most of those possibilities will never be actualized. Their potential existence can be confidently asserted because "Enfernity" is inherently omnipotent, by virtue of encompassing all potential possibilities. Yet the actual existence of any thing is dependent on the "Will" of G*D to transform a possible idea into an actual object. (in this context Will is simply exercised Potential)

So it would be safe to say that everything possible exists as a Platonic Form, but only a few things exist in material form. Our imperfect little world happens to be the only one, out of all possible worlds, that we know anything about. To summarize, Real existence is a tiny subset of the Ideal set of all unlimited possibilities (the category of all categories), otherwise known as G*D.

Hello. Sorry for getting back so late. The context of the discussion was in relation to Plato's notion of 'forms' and the nature of existence.

Thank you for your responce. I would argue that possiblity and reality are not the same thing. Therefore only things that exist in material form truly exist.

Ninah wrote:

Something that I heard recently was the argument that "everything exists." From what I've observed elsewhere this is another version of the ontological argument. That is, we can say that what we can perceive certainly exists, but also that what we can conceive also exists, for the simple reason that the conception itself exists.

But I wonder if that is in fact the case. Is it not more likely to be true that the conception and the reality are two different things? I can, for example, conceive of a bank account with my name, branch and account number on it, which contains an amount in the 7 or 8 figures. Does such an account exist? Does my conception of it exist outside of my own conceptual capabilities?

So what, then, can it mean to say that "everything exists?"

From an Integral perspective both material "things" and "things" that are conceived exist. They just exist in different realms of reality. They often interact with one another to help create new "things". The fact that they interact with one another can be argued as proof of each other's existence.

Gnomon wrote:

Ninah wrote:

So what, then, can it mean to say that "everything exists?"

What was the context for that assertion? As it stands, sounds like a tautology : "everything in existence exists".

I think there are two kinds of "existence" : physical reality (the realm of matter) and metaphysical ideality (the realm of mind). As Panendeists, when we say that we believe G*D exists, we certainly don't mean that G*D has a physical presence in this temporal universe...

In my god model, god is everything, therefore physical existence is a part of god's being too.

Aaron wrote:

In my god model, god is everything, therefore physical existence is a part of god's being too.

Same here. What I meant was that God doesn't have an individual physical existence, as in the myth of Jesus as God incarnate. However, in a general sense, even a grain of sand on the beach could be called a "god-particle"

well existence is everything.

michael1111 wrote:

well existence is everything.

But everything is not all there is to existence.

yes it is. even if it's in your imagination. you can't possibly conceive nonexistance because then suddenly you wouldn't be.

are you saying you're a ghost?

michael1111 wrote:

yes it is. even if it's in your imagination. you can't possibly conceive nonexistance because then suddenly you wouldn't be.

are you saying you're a ghost?

No. I am saying that there is more to existence than things.

Here's an example - time is not a thing but it is part of existence. Another one - history is not a thing but it is part of existence. Know what I'm saying?

no. because those are things...you just can't hold them. and in an abstract way you kinda can.

I sort of agree with you both.

In Process Philosophy terms, things like time and history are examples of manifestations. But existence encompasses more than just "the manifest", it also includes the formless unmanifest ground of existence.

Of course I can't prove the existence of "the unmanfest" but then it can't be unproven either.

michael1111 wrote:

no. because those are things...you just can't hold them. and in an abstract way you kinda can.

I mean they are not things in the material sense. Yes they are things but they are not material things.

Ninah wrote:

michael1111 wrote:

no. because those are things...you just can't hold them. and in an abstract way you kinda can.

I mean they are not things in the material sense. Yes they are things but they are not material things.

and yet like everything else that is real, they are composed of the smallest materials.

michael1111 wrote:

Ninah wrote:

michael1111 wrote:

no. because those are things...you just can't hold them. and in an abstract way you kinda can.

I mean they are not things in the material sense. Yes they are things but they are not material things.

and yet like everything else that is real, they are composed of the smallest materials.

What do you mean?

dreams must take up space somehow. they exist in a way. existence is material if it fills space.

anyhow...only everything exists.