Can existence be considered an attribute of something?
ie. Unicorns do not have the attribute of existence, while horses do.
.
.
.
And yes, this is a setup for those of you who see it coming.
does darkness EXIST?
if darkness is the absence of that which does exist, LIGHT.
are we going into semantic word games here?
Dal Timgar
yes
But not a nuclear property, I believe.
No it can’t. Lot’s of things are real without the attribute of existance. Pi for example, the quadratic equation, perfection, DavidB’s faith in creationism.
No, we are going into the question of whether or existence is a property of something. If it is, how does one refute Saint Anselm, Descartes and Thomas Aquinas?
Semantics have nothing to do with this.
Logic does.
If existence is a property, much the way color is considered to be, then one encounters some very interesting logical questions. If it is not a property, then what exactly is it?
Lib’s already refuted Decartes. 
So which of the ontological arguments to you wish to bring up? Anslem? I feel a song coming on. Sing to the tune of “Waltzing Mathilda.”
THE BALLAD OF ST. ANSELM [song of unknown origin]
Once a jolly friar got himself an argument
And couldn’t get it out of his mind.
He thought that he could prove the existence of the Deity
Because of the way that the words are defined.
CHORUS
Thus spake St. Anselm, thus spake St. Anselm,
Thus spake St. Anselm, who now is long dead,
And we’re awed as we read his proof so ontological;
Who can deny a word that he said?
If that than which nothing greater can be conceived
Can be conceived not to exist,
Then ’tis not that than which nothing greater can be conceived:
This is unquestionable, I insist.
For in that case a being greater can be conceived,
Whose major traits we can easily list:
Namely, that than which nothing greater can be conceived
And which cannot be conceived not to exist.
For if that than which nothing greater can be conceived
Has no existence outside of man’s mind,
Then ’tis not that than which nothing greater can be conceived,
Due to the way that the words are defined.
For in that case a greater can be conceived
(This is of course analytically true);
Namely, that than which nothing greater can be conceived
And which exists in reality too!
CHORUS
Thus spake St. Anselm, thus spake St. Anselm,
Thus spake St. Anselm with weighty intent,
And we’re awed as we read his proof so ontological
Would that we could understand what it meant.
But does that preclude existence being a property for something? If not, then what exactly is it?
Indeed could not one say that Pi and the quadratic equation do in fact exist, it is merely that they are not tangible. Existence doesn’t have to be corporeal, does it?
Better question, are numbers, or DavidB’s faith, or whatnot actually things or are they merely properties?
Could you provide me a link to that one? And which argument did he refute? Descartes offered a number of em.
I don’t wish to bring up any ontological arguments. I’m just bringing up one of the premises that they require to work, namely that existence can be predicated.
How cute. Anselm made it into a prayer, and you made it into a song. =]