There is Something Rather than Nothing?

[surreptitious57]

existence cannot be an entity at all
It is not even a predicate
This is a very serious philosophical contention within the Philosophy Community

The case is always this

X exists as Y
Exists is merely a copula that connect X with Y
Thus what is most critical is to prove and verify X and Y not the copula exists or is

This why God exists is meaningless until one can show
God exists as X or Y or Z and verify the proposition as true with justifications

The observable Universe exists
The observable Universe is part of Existence
Therefore Existence exists and can be demonstrated to exist too

[Veritas Aequitas]

existence cannot be an entity at all
It is not even a predicate
This is a very serious philosophical contention within the Philosophy Community

The case is always this

X exists as Y
Exists is merely a copula that connect X with Y
Thus what is most critical is to prove and verify X and Y not the copula exists or is

This why God exists is meaningless until one can show
God exists as X or Y or Z and verify the proposition as true with justifications

The observable Universe exists
The observable Universe is part of Existence
Therefore Existence exists and can be demonstrated to exist too

Your argument is fallacious,

The observable Universe exists AS WHAT?
Then you have to prove that 'what'.

Note you have not countered my points,
Existence is merely a copula
Existence is not a predicate.

My contention is you are forcing your points through due to subliminal impulses of psychology.
If you deal with this existential psychology element you will resolve these dilemmas.

[surreptitious57]

The observable Universe exists AS WHAT ?
Then you have to prove that what ?

Note you have not countered my points
Existence is merely a copula
Existence is not a predicate

It is only necessary to demonstrate that X exists as an observable object or phenomena and nothing else
The object or phenomena will usually have a name but this is not necessary to simply show that it exists

Anything that is observable and therefore has property or dimension exists regardless of anything else

[Veritas Aequitas]

The observable Universe exists AS WHAT ?
Then you have to prove that what ?

Note you have not countered my points
Existence is merely a copula
Existence is not a predicate

It is only necessary to demonstrate that X exists as an observable object or phenomena and nothing else
The object or phenomena will usually have a name but this is not necessary to simply show that it exists

Anything that is observable and therefore has property or dimension exists regardless of anything else

If you do not demonstrate X exists empirically or empirical-rationally then any one can simply claim and insist X exists.
Thus a schizo can claim X [gnomes] exist because he really spoke and had a discussion with them in his garden. Should we just accept the schizo's claim without proofs?

[Atla]

Fact is, if it is part of the absolute, then, that 'absolute' cannot qualify to be an absolute-proper as defined above which must be;



If any absolute is dependent on any condition, then it is a relative absolute and not an absolute per se.
Note we have absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, and the likes, these are relative and conditional absolutes.

All dependencies, relations are contained within the nondual absolute. Some can be seen as illusory, some as entirely made up.

Whatever subsets [All dependencies, relations, whatever is dual] are contained within a main set [nondual Absolute in this case] is always interrelated, dependent, and conditioned upon that main set.

Sets.. never mind, you simply lack critical depth in thinking.

[surreptitious57]

If you do not demonstrate X exists empirically or empirical rationally then any one can simply claim and insist X exists
Thus a schizo can claim X [ gnomes ] exist because he really spoke and had a discussion with them in his garden
Should we just accept the schizos claim without proofs

I accept the findings of science not the claims of the mentally ill and so
if science says X exists then as far as I am concerned this is good enough

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you do not demonstrate X exists empirically or empirical rationally then any one can simply claim and insist X exists
Thus a schizo can claim X [ gnomes ] exist because he really spoke and had a discussion with them in his garden
Should we just accept the schizos claim without proofs

I accept the findings of science not the claims of the mentally ill and so
if science says X exists then as far as I am concerned this is good enough

The point is what you are doing is the same as the mentally ill. i.e. your

• surreptitious57: It is only necessary to demonstrate that X exists as an observable object or phenomena and nothing else
  The object or phenomena will usually have a name but this is not necessary to simply show that it exists.

[surreptitious57]

It is only necessary to demonstrate [ by the scientific method ] that X exists as an observable object or phenomena and
nothing else . The object or phenomena will usually have a name but this is not necessary to simply show that it exists

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is only necessary to demonstrate [ by the scientific method ] that X exists as an observable object or phenomena and nothing else .
The object or phenomena will usually have a name but this is not necessary to simply show that it exists

I am not too sure of your points above?

I understand proving X exists scientifically as an object or phenomena [directly observable or otherwise*] is simply showing that it exists scientifically.
* note electron, quarks, energy are not directly observable.

You just cannot insist "X exists" without some sort of proofs.

Note this guy once insisted God exists and thought he was also God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
However he had such a belief due to temporal epilepsy.

Thus it is possible if one claim X exists without some sort of proofs, it could be due to some brain aberrations or certain mental activities and not that X really exists.

With such possibilities you cannot insist X exists if you cannot provide some sort of proofs.

I am very certain those who are very confident and insistence in claiming "X exists" without proofs are more likely to be driven by psychological factors than X actually existing objectively.