But no attribute is common to everything. We attribute predicates in order to distinguish one thing from another. If you add "and moreover it exists" you have added an empty predicate.philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 13th, 2021, 7:26 amSo you say it's not an attribute, and your reason for this is that it's common to everything. First of all, IF it's common to every thing, then it's an attribute that's common to every thing. You do not reason that shape-ness is not an attribute just because being a shape is common to every shape. Yet, this seems to be your approach with regards to the attribute of existing or existence (which is meaningfully/semantically inconsistent or contradictory on your part).Belindi wrote: ↑June 13th, 2021, 5:09 amYes. Existence, unlike three-sideness, is not an attribute.This is because existence, unlike shape, is common to everything.Atla wrote: ↑June 13th, 2021, 4:00 amThe OP shows that if we define existence as necessarily perfect and as God, then existence is by definition necessarily perfect and God. Surprising revelation isn't it?philosopher19 wrote: ↑June 13th, 2021, 12:46 am
The OP highlights that just as one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that three-sidedness is true of triangles, one cannot meaningfully/semantically deny that existence is only absolutely true of God. Any given theory, belief, or statement that is semantically/meaningfully contradictory (such as triangles having four sides, and God not absolutely existing), is wrong by definition. The OP shows that rejection of God's absolute existence is wrong by definition. It is irrational/unreasonable/contradictory to hold meaningfully contradictory beliefs. Thus, God's absolute existence cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected (just as a triangle's three-sidedness cannot be rationally or meaningfully rejected).
Second of all, if existence is not an attribute, then the following is true: Nothing has the property of existing or existence, or there is no thing with the property of existing or existence. We meaningfully say x exists, or x does not exist, or x is an existing thing, or x is not an existing thing. Rejection of this is clearly contradictory, therefore, rejection of existing or existence as being a property is clearly contradicotry.
Finally, when we take a non-absolute approach, it clearly the case that we can meaningfully distinguish between perfect and imperfect triangles in an objective manner. We can also meaningfully distinguish between perfect and imperfect beings/existents in an objective manner. Perfect triangles are necessarily triangular, though they are not necessarily existing. The perfect being/existent is not triangular, but it is necessarily existing.
Philosopher19 wrote "We meaningfully say x exists, or x does not exist, or x is an existing thing, or x is not an existing thing." I can quite imagine someone saying of any phenomenon "And moreover it exists" . The claim would indicate the speaker's state of mind not something attributable to the object of thought, and would refer to a phenomenon or theory with no possible objective evidence for it or no possiblility for falsification.