How can God exist if every thing that exists is finite? If an entity is infinite does that not conclude that it does not exist? My question is, have I even scratched the surface at disproving the existence of God? Descartes said that an infinite essence created all living things, but if this is the case, how can nothingness create existence? A comment would be much obliged. This is driving me crazy. Any opinions?

What is the reasoning behind the existentialist claim that existence precedes essence?

Do ideas exist independently, out there in the ether, waiting to be discovered. For instance did the idea of the motor car exist say 1000 years ago before any human ever thought of it? Steve B.

I was shown a paper that my brother had gotten off of a website and it was about Taoism. Now, I am not to educated in the subject at all, but took a look at one of the questions posed and gave my opinion as to what I thought the answer was: If nothing has potential to be something is it really nothing? I started to think of it like this: 0 = nothing (in mathematical terms) 0 has potential of being any number but let's keep it simple and say that 0 has the potential of being 1. 0 is still 0 and always will be 0 until the moment 1 is added to it. If we rephrase the question using this logic it seems to answer itself: If 0 has potential to be 1 is it really 0? Of course it is still zero. Then I started to think of the context they use it in. The "nothing" they question seems to be thought of as a tangible item. Just because we as humans define a space as nothing, does it mean it is in fact a thing- no. An area in space is obviously nothing, so why do we think it could be something just because we...

I have no belief in a god or gods or an afterlife. I often struggle with the question of being. Why are we here, is there a reason or purpose or is it just chance? Tony Ross

Most people would probably think that when we say something is 'real' we mean this in a physical sense (e.g., this table is real) and we contrast it to imaginary things (e.g., unicorns, Elvis being alive). Is it, however, also possible to claim that all things are real in different ways, and that something that might ordinarily be considered 'not real' only 'exists in a different way'?

Is "largest" and "smallest" only a result of comparison, or is there a single largest thing and single smallest thing that actually exist? Sorry in advance if this gets more scientific than philosophic.

Even at the lowest levels of proof does not the existence of something in one's imagination give it at the very least a semblance of actuality?

Does the word "universe" denote a really existing thing, or is it just a kind generic term for all the things that exist? In other words: Is "universe" like the word "team" (because teams do not really exist, but only the individuals that make up a team can be said to really exist)?

Why do many philosophers posit that there are no members in the set of necessary beings? There seem only two explanations if they are correct: 1) Necessary beings are logically possible, but none exist in this world or 2) Necessary beings are logically impossible. Explanation 1 seems untenable since if a necessary being exists in one world (is logically possible), then it must exist in all worlds (and thus this one) by virtue of its necessity. But explanation 2 (which seems likely the more preferred one) seems to do no better, since the set of necessary beings is made a subset of the set of impossible beings. While perhaps this is merely a trivial case, it still seems unsettling, if not contradictory. Is the existence of at least one necessary being necessary? Or is there some other explanation for how none could exist?