Intellectual discourse

While looking around some websites concerning ontology, I came upon an interesting question, is existence a quality, or property? Of course their are different positions on this topic, and I found it hard to take one. Let me just define property as a
"quality, attribute, or distinctive feature of anything, esp a characteristic attribute such as the density or strength of a material."
I think one of the reasons this question is so difficult to answer is because it is vague. We must decide if their is something that does not exist, and if this object can be charecterized as a thing. Abstract concepts do not exist in reality, neither does many human inventions such as language. A flower is not truly a flower, a bird is not truly a bird, their is not ACTUAL , objective names for any o these things, we merely give them names. We must decide if these concepts have other traits and qualities, and existence is just one of many. So how should we study this paradoxical question? I will attempt to use logic to answer the question.

Let's take an animal that does not exist in reality that a human decides to invent as a concept, or drawing. Now, this animal obviously does not exist, yet has the potential to exist through evolution by natural selection. This animal could have qualities that exist in reality, but the actual animal does not exist. let's look at another example before moving in-depth into this one.

Before you were born, the chance of you existing was innumerably tiny, one out of millions. The chance of your genetic material being different was huge. Yet you do exist, and millions of other genetically different people lost out on the chance to exist. These people, who have different genetic material then you, but do not exist. From this example, it seems that existence is a property, as other possible people do not exist yet have qualities and properties. But Ayn Rand makes a compelling argument that existence is merely an axiom which is a base for knowledge...

Although I am not sure if Ayn Rand thought existence was a property or not, but she did think that existence was a base for knowledge and a self-evident truth. After all, their is an infinite number of things that do not exist, and since these things do they actually have these traits, these properties? Are these properties not just throughts of a human mind and not objective?

Quality or not, existence is a self-evident truth according to Rand, meaning that existence exists. But why? I will attempt to answer that in my next post.

Just wrote this paragraph, which is actually one senctence. I am warning you that it is not edited, so iti s logically inconsistent, and may have contradictions or tensions.

My philosophy holds that a reality exists independent of consciousness; that we can study this reality using inductive and deductive knowledge, that all humans are born with a “rational” nature allowing them to perform logic and gain knowledge through sensory experience, that no person’s consciousness should hold higher status then others, that man is a part of nature and should attempt to transcend purely animal desires by viewing nobler pleasures, that a life spend without wondering about our existence is surrounded in ignorance, that utilitirarianist ethics are the correct moral path as long as the principle of self-ownership is respected, that the universe is materialistic, that man has no granted freedoms yet we should try to maximize them with society’s needs since no man’s consciousness should be given more worth then others, that modern society often grants higher opportunity to succeed for people higher in “social” class, so we must attempt to offset this, that the only system which supports man’s rights fully is a form of capitalism where education must be given to all and men should only be taxed on necessities of society but not wants of society such as money on science, that a person’s work is due to genetics and a largely deterministic universe which limits many peoples chance to succeed, that capitalism, communism, and socialism all largely fail due to the fact that individualistic rights and societal needs are not maximized, that full social freedom must be granted considering the person/persons are not harming other people, that communism would work in an ideal society yet it ultimately fails since there is not a proper incentive to succeed, that religious indoctrination should be illegalized as it harms the child’s chance to choose his spiritual pathway, that wealth should be redistributed from the top to the lower as they did not truly earn their money, and that the poor must work to receive this extra money,

Libertarianism is the philosophy that pays full respect for both personal and economic rights. Although Libertarianism is a strictly political philosophy, moral philosophies do have huge implications in politics. So what moral philosophy is libertarianism closer to, utilitirianism, which wants people to take actions which maximize the greatest good, or deontology, which tells us that we must obey certain "divine", absolute laws which may often be reconciled with classic Western ideas of purity. At a glance, libertarianism is definitely not consequentalist or utilititarianist, as these tend to emphasize taking actions for the "greatest good". Libertarianism meanwhile tends to emphasize protecting the rights of the individual. So now lets see if deontology can be incorporated into libertarianism. Since deontology tends to stress certain moral absolutes that may or may not protect the individual deontology may appear like a "fit" for libertarianism. Yet most libertarians would not agree with moral absolutes, and in many ethical dilemnas the libertarian may decide to side with the consequentalist view that saving "two lives" is better that one as long

One of my favorite quotes is when Richard Dawkins described how evolution made one "an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Here is the quote.
I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

In fact, I believe that atheism is logically tenable, but it is impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist or theist. Why? Because however many people want to say we have the ultimate answer, we do not. Although you have probably been through this many times if you are familiar to the god debate, I feel a refresher would be nice.

How were we created? Evolution
How did the first life come to exist? Abiogenesis
how did the planet come to exist? Core accretion.
How did the universe come to exist? The big bang
What made the matter in the big bang? It existed eternally, or for infinite time. Sometimes quantum flunctuations are put into this explanation.

But we keep going back, if somebody invoked an idea like the multi-verse that existed eternally, then how could this have existed eternally? Why does it exist in the first place. Does it "just" exist. Furthermore, why are the laws of physics the way they are, why are they not crafted differently. Furthermore, why is their existence at all? If their is nothing, how is existence added, which is an attribute. Quantum Flunctuations is another law that "just exists". If you attempt to explain why Quantum Flunctuations exist in the first place, then you must exist why those laws exist which caused quantum flunctuations, and so on and so on. It may appear that I am making an argument for god, but how could even a god exist for eternity. God is supposedly inttelligent, how did he gain his intelligence? Did he just, have his intelligence which is also an attribute for no reason at all. How is god eternal yet still thinks which requires time? No, god is a fully human explanation that does nothing but add more complexity to these deep questions. Basically, infinite regress takes place in almost all laws of reality, causing reality to become ultimately illogical. In fact, it causes everything to become illogical. One cannot be an intelectually fulfilled atheist, although atheism is more logically tenable then religion. However, we must all take a break from the god debate and remember that neither religion nor science can explain the mystery of reality...yet.