Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Answer

cleaning up some grammar
Source Link
edit approved Apr 24 at 17:20
DanielFBest
edit approved Apr 24 at 17:20
DanielFBest
  • 442
  • 4
  • 16

"If anything exists, everything must exist." This must be true if we look at the alternative, which is that not everything exists, i.e. only a part/parts exist, but. But a part/parts of what? Of everything. Everything must exist for there to be parts of it in the first place. To me, this seems to at least explain the intuitive part about the statement.

"If anything exists, everything must exist." must be true if we look at the alternative, which is that not everything exists i.e. only a part/parts exist, but a part/parts of what? Of everything. Everything must exist for there to be parts of it in the first place. To me this seems to at least explain the intuitive part about the statement.

"If anything exists, everything must exist." This must be true if we look at the alternative, which is that not everything exists, i.e. only a part/parts exist. But a part/parts of what? Of everything. Everything must exist for there to be parts of it in the first place. To me, this seems to at least explain the intuitive part about the statement.

Source Link
Vellan Elessar
Vellan Elessar
  • 11
  • 2

"If anything exists, everything must exist." must be true if we look at the alternative, which is that not everything exists i.e. only a part/parts exist, but a part/parts of what? Of everything. Everything must exist for there to be parts of it in the first place. To me this seems to at least explain the intuitive part about the statement.