But the identification of existence must precede the identification of consciousness. Thus if we are to examine the principle of the metaphysical vs. the manmade, we should begin with the study of the law of the metaphysical vs. the manmade. However, the law of the metaphysical vs. the manmade is discovered at the end of our study of the nature of existence, not at the beginning. Thus to properly understand the law of the metaphysical vs. the manmade, one should begin by understanding the nature of the other metaphysical laws. There is no more fundamental law than this, and, because it is implicit in the affirmation of any proposition, it is often taken to be tautologous, and therefore, empty of cognitive significance.
All valid concepts are empirical in nature, and thus dependent upon experience for their existence.
Now if this applies to all valid concepts, it necessarily applies to the concept of existence. Thus the concept of existence has empirical content. Anything which one ever has, is, or will know by means of experience. But existence exists, and only existence exists. Therefore the question is invalid.