all it takes for something to exist is...

exist where? in the mind...agree
in reality...disagree

catefrances wrote:

just exist. where is irrelevant.

then i stand by my previous post which addresses a question I'd rather answer

This sounds suspiciously like the old "if a tree falls in teh forest, and there is no-one there to hear, did it really make a noise ?" question.
I always thought this smacked of overwhelming human arrogance. Unless it is witnessed by a human, it fif not happen.
I'm inclined to think that just thinking some thing exists, does not really make it exist.
For example, I just thought about a disastrous house fire started by a careless cigarette solving my little legal problem, but sadly, I can't hear fire engines yet !!
The image was quite vivd though, and very real to me, i can even hera the crackling and burning. The occupnats are already dead from smoke inhalation though, so there are no screams.

catefrances wrote:

...for someone to believe it does. agree/disagree?

...
Disagree.
The two worlds are on completely different planes and are governed by completely different sets of rules... which do not apply in the other's.
Example 1: We believed there were WMDs in Iraq. This belief failed to materialize.
If the belief is based on a lie... the only thing that exists is the lie.
But, if the person telling the lie truely believed there WERE WMDs in Iraq... the lie does not exist, yet, the WMDs still fail to materialize.
Example 2: I believe someone loves me. That does not mean love exists.
Example 3: Someone truely believes in God and/or that Jesus was the Messiah... it exists only in the believer. His belief does not apply to anyone else. He may believe it is real and the truth, but in this physical plane of existance, it is only true to him.

catefrances wrote:

...for someone to believe it does. agree/disagree?

Yes.

Cosmo wrote:

...
Truth, in regards to humans, is relative... not absolute. The absolute truths are found in mathematics.
That being the case... the relative truth that follows the rules of the plane of existance that exists on this planet, at this time and in this space. Like, the person that sets off a bomb in a department store may truely believe he is doing what God commands him. His truth does not apply to the rest of the planet. In his heart and mind... the voice he hears is God. Still, we don't let him off the hook for his relative truth.
And for all we know... he MAY be right and God is, in fact, ordering him to place the bomb to do God's will (you know, working in mysterious ways and all that stuff) and the rest of the world has it wrong. But, it STILL doesn't matter because his actions do not apply to the rules of this level of existance.

You refer to this level of existence. Do you mean the one you can perceive with your five senses, only?

catefrances wrote:

but one plane's set of rules does not negate the other's surely?

who's truth is the correct truth? who's reality are we dealing with here? is it even possible to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt? God only needs to exist within a specific person to be real to that person. it doesn't matter what others believe. afterall isn't it about personal salvation?

Real to a person is not the smae as "exists".

In ll these metapysical discussions, at some point a definition of "reality" would be useful.
Reality needs to have elements of reproducibility, tangibility and to be detectable or appreciated by more than one person or means.

For the exercise, I tried a dictionary


reality, realness, realism -- the state of being actual or real; "the reality of his situation slowly dawned on him"
reality -- the state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be; "businessmen have to face harsh realities"
reality -- the quality possessed by something that is real

I don't think they are great definitions, as the main descriptor used, is "reality", which is a bit circular.

I think using some kind of external reference point is an important part of the definition.

Saying real to me, makes it real is akin to saying "normla for me". chalres MAnson was normla for Charlie, but reference to an external point quickly suggests that is not normal at all.

Cosmo wrote:

...
The physical aspects of this planet within the Universe. The things that occupy a space at this time and create the environment in which we live.
The facts that go along with this physical environment... life and death, gravity, mass, density... that kind of stuff.
Like, gravity will always win in this environment, regardless if you believe you can fly off the roof of the local Holiday Inn. Belief or not, you're getting damaged. And the absolute fact that we all are going to die... you, me, Eddie, Bush, Paris Hilton, my cat, everyone... there is no denying that. What happens after we die? No one knows... no one has ever come back and said, "Hey, guys... here's how it all goes down...". Yeah, "Near death Experiences"... but, how different are near death experiences from alien abductions? Again, relative truths belonging to individuals.
That is the level of existance I'm talking about.

You mentioned math and math is about symbols that represent concepts. It's theoretical. It has practical applications, but so do the ten commandments.

angelica wrote:

You mentioned math and math is about symbols that represent concepts. It's theoretical. It has practical applications, but so do the ten commandments.

...
1 + 1 = 2
There is no arguement that negates that. This is a statement of absolute truth.
The Ten Commandments. What about the not working on the Sabbath? How much truth is applied there?
...
Again, I am not knocking the Ten Commandments. I believe the world would be a better place if we didn't kill or steal (including the killing and stealing that is being done in our name, as our nation). Maybe if we all followed the Golden Rule and followed the Ten Commandments, we all be better off. Still, even if we did... that would not prove there is a God... just as our disregard of the Ten Commandments does not negate His existance.