Do I Need To Physically Link Something To An Experience For It To Actually Exist?

---

I've been having this thought where do you need to attach a location to something, either external or internal to actually comprehend something existing.

Would it be accurate to associate that which "exists" to that which is "there"? Well, I'm going to express my thoughts in this post.

It Is THERE so it EXISTS

We know that 'there' and exist are words as they are part of our language and they are "there" on the post you are looking at right now. A banana exists because I can point to banana trees in South America as I can physically see it with my own eyes.

Existence we interpret as observations and there are probably many things that do exist which we don't know about. Space? It exists because it is there *pointing to the empty space between myself and this screen or up at the stars

If we are able to observe something in the physical world then it's safe to say it exists, as it is something we can experience or perceive. I can still point to the sky and say "the universe is there" and it would generally be accepted as sound because it is in fact "there".

So, if I say the Universe exists because it is there, and then point to all that is around me, it would still work since it is something measurable and observable as it is everything that encompasses us right now.

Is It Just All In Our Minds?

If we look and differentiate between objective and subjective existence. An Idea, for instance, is "there," but "there" only exists in our minds, and we even have difficulty pinpointing where exactly "there" is, and that's worsened by the fact that there's still much to learn about the world and that there is so much more for us to uncover which we haven't observed or measured.

One problem with relating existence to observation is that fact that we cannot for certain say God exists as it is something which people do not observe God's existence. Maybe everything around us is God's existence but many may say there is no physical entity that we can claim as God.

If we do consider God to exist around us and that an omnipresent God exists this would change 'there' to become 'everywhere' and it seems almost self-defeating. On top of that, we may not even know what "everywhere" involves.

What Are Your Thoughts?