Anyway, now we have the noumena, out there, containing… something. Or maybe nothing? We do not know. So far this is a wonderful argument for a strong view of agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism) but little else.

Where are you going with this. We’ve established that you are using a noumena/phenomena approach to your philosophy. Now what are you going to do from here?

I didn’t mean I agreed unquestionably at every point. I simply meant I generally agree in noumena and phenomena.

But that is an entirely different and interesting discussion: is existence a property. I think so.

Someone could make the argument that it can’t be a property since if something doesn’t have the “property of existence,” it doesn’t exist; if it doesn’t exist, then it’s nothing, and there’s no such thing as “nothing,” so it’s not a trait but rather, an inevitability.

When I describe it as a property, what I mean is that it’s something that is shared and similar. For example, Biblically you could argue that everything in reality has existence and continuance in God — that he is the “ground of being” (I think that’s from Tillich).

Nevertheless, all I’m suggesting is that if Noumena and Phenomena exist, they, along with anything else that “is,” must share commonality in that they all have existence, and furthermore, that “existence” must be grounded in something more fundamental and “precidental” to the constituents.

I don’t think you can say that you really agree with Kant. Kant didn’t believe that existence was a property. This is why he thought the ontological argument was faulty.