Existence vs Non-Existence and God

[idav]

I would like to discuss existence vs non-existence and how this relates to the idea of god.

Simply define, existence is that fact or state of something having objective reality.

I think, hopefully, we can agree that there is existence so it seems like a safe place to start.

The question of existence in relation to god is whether god can be defined as an objective reality. I think if someone is to say "god exists" then it should follow that god is an objective reality.

So how does existence hold up against non-existence? Is non-existence even a thing. My idea of existence is that it is necessarily god when put up against the possibility of non-existence. So to say that existence, when thought about against non-existence, is sort of a miracle in of itself, regardless whether someone prefers to label existence as god or not. Can it be purposed that existence is not some sort of miracle, that existence is just some sort of natural phenomenon?

There are other attributes to this existence that I believe are god-like attributes but for the purposes of the thread I am wondering if existence can be seen as a creation unto itself, a self fulfilling miracle if you will. Where as the theist camp will say, God just exists, in the same token the atheist camp will say, reality just exists without a need for a creator. I tend to be in the middle of those two camps, and believe it is both in a way. I think on one hand monotheists tend to complicate the issue by purposing something else extraordinary to create the reality we know, where as with the atheist camp I can't help but feel, ignores the paradox that is existence vs. non-existence. With the way science describes the universe and time just coming into existence sounds super extraordinary to me and nothing short of a miracle.

All agreements and objections are welcome.

 

[George-ananda]

My thought is that this shows how our thinking about such things just ends in mystery. That is why I so often harp on so-called paranormal phenomena as a way to give us some real world clues as to the nature of the universe. Using just thought just ends in unsolvable mysteries.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems rather problematic to constrain our understanding of the term "existence" to "objective reality." It has some rather awkward implications, such as our personal values not existing because they are ideologies rather than an "objective reality."

 

[idav]

My thought is that this shows how our thinking about such things just ends in mystery. That is why I so often harp on so-called paranormal phenomena as a way to give us some real world clues as to the nature of the universe. Using Somjust thought just ends in unsolvable mysteries.

I feel that physics can go a long way in explaining various natural phenomenon deemed paranormal. Physics finds that the natural world actually goes against general perceptions of logic in which case it is entirely possible that creative aspects exist within nature itself. This would be where intuition would simply need to be dropped at the point of existence actually being. This built in paradox to me is where an attribute of creation can be assigned to reality itself and consequently applies to all of nature, thus everything being god.

edit: this shouldn't be too far from your signature, Brahman alone is real

 

[Skwim]

I would like to discuss existence vs non-existence and how this relates to the idea of god.

Simply define, existence is that fact or state of something having objective reality.

What do you consider objective reality to be? Does it contain thoughts and emotions? How about concepts, such as 2 + 4 = 6?


.

 

[George-ananda]

I feel that physics can go a long way in explaining various natural phenomenon deemed paranormal.

To me, the key thing about the paranormal is not just some not understood physics that may be later better understood, but that these events show importance as to the nature of conscious beings. It shows consciousness is not just matter moving about following natural law. For example, an active entity or spirit that communicates and interacts with the physical world strongly argues that consciousness is not something dependent on matter.

edit: this shouldn't be too far from your signature, Brahman alone is real

Getting closer but not quite. In Advaita Consciousness/God/Brahman is the only fundamental thing and this physical universe is just a play/drama of Brahman. I look at matter/energy as just the props in this play/drama. What you are saying seems to me to be that matter/nature may have some intrinsic creative nature. That is something different but getting closer.

 

[idav]

It seems rather problematic to constrain our understanding of the term "existence" to "objective reality." It has some rather awkward implications, such as our personal values not existing because they are ideologies rather than an "objective reality."

What do you consider objective reality to be? Does it contain thoughts and emotions? How about concepts, such as 2 + 4 = 6?
.

The source of values and emotions certainly still exist in a real sense, else our brain couldn't possible sense the things in the first place. Another way of putting it is, the source for what our brains eventually transcribe into values and emotions exist in an ontological sense. Similarly maths are descriptions of something real, something measured. Our ideas are our inner senses at play, still something physical.

 

[idav]

Getting closer but not quite. In Advaita Consciousness/God/Brahman is the only fundamental thing and this physical universe is just a play/drama of Brahman. I look at matter/energy as just the props in this play/drama. What you are saying seems to me to be that matter/nature may have some intrinsic creative nature. That is something different but getting closer.

There would be a question as to how Brahman exists rather than not exist, in which I'm saying is the nature of all things. To clarify I am not saying there is a creator god but just the fact that Brahman/God exists(isn't non-existence), is the "creative" aspect of reality, which is what would make it appropriate to label existence as god at all.

 

[George-ananda]

There would be a question as to how Brahman exists rather than not exist,

Why Brahman (or anything) exists is beyond our understanding.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would like to discuss existence vs non-existence and how this relates to the idea of god.

Simply define, existence is that fact or state of something having objective reality.

I think, hopefully, we can agree that there is existence so it seems like a safe place to start.

The question of existence in relation to god is whether god can be defined as an objective reality. I think if someone is to say "god exists" then it should follow that god is an objective reality.

So how does existence hold up against non-existence? Is non-existence even a thing. My idea of existence is that it is necessarily god when put up against the possibility of non-existence. So to say that existence, when thought about against non-existence, is sort of a miracle in of itself, regardless whether someone prefers to label existence as god or not. Can it be purposed that existence is not some sort of miracle, that existence is just some sort of natural phenomenon?

There are other attributes to this existence that I believe are god-like attributes but for the purposes of the thread I am wondering if existence can be seen as a creation unto itself, a self fulfilling miracle if you will. Where as the theist camp will say, God just exists, in the same token the atheist camp will say, reality just exists without a need for a creator. I tend to be in the middle of those two camps, and believe it is both in a way. I think on one hand monotheists tend to complicate the issue by purposing something else extraordinary to create the reality we know, where as with the atheist camp I can't help but feel, ignores the paradox that is existence vs. non-existence. With the way science describes the universe and time just coming into existence sounds super extraordinary to me and nothing short of a miracle.

All agreements and objections are welcome.

I think that our viewpoints are so far apart, I wonder if there's any room for common ground.

For me, it isn't so much that I ignore the question of the origins of the universe as it is that I think it's ridiculous to make the main division of possible causes "God" and "everything but God."

IMO, God is an arbitrary, unjustified assumption. Sure, you could hypothesize that it's the cause for the universe, but you could do that with anything:

What do you think caused the universe?
- God.

What makes you think that it was God?
- I don't know.

How do you think God did this?
- I don't know.

Why God and not something else?
- I don't know.

It's a useless hypothesis.

Instead of "God" and "everything but God", use "time travelling flamingos" and "everything but time travelling flamingos" as your categories for potential causes of the universe and it plays out exactly the same way. Or "a magical shade of the colour blue" and "everything but a magical shade of the colour blue."

The origins of the universe are an interesting question and I certainly hope we answer it some day, but I just don't see how hypothesizing deities brings us any closer to answering it. And meanwhile, the only reasons I can see for hypothesizing God (instead of flamingos, magic colours, or any other wild-*** idea that can be bodged to fit what facts we have) have to do with cultural and societal factors, and nothing to do with the merits of God as a hypothesis.

None of this means that atheists are creating a "paradox". An unanswered question is not a paradox.

Think of it like the pyramids: would you say that the people who ignore the cranks claiming that they were built by aliens are necessarily ignoring the question of how they were built?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would like to discuss existence vs non-existence and how this relates to the idea of god.

Simply define, existence is that fact or state of something having objective reality.

I think, hopefully, we can agree that there is existence so it seems like a safe place to start.

The question of existence in relation to god is whether god can be defined as an objective reality. I think if someone is to say "god exists" then it should follow that god is an objective reality.

So how does existence hold up against non-existence? Is non-existence even a thing. My idea of existence is that it is necessarily god when put up against the possibility of non-existence. So to say that existence, when thought about against non-existence, is sort of a miracle in of itself, regardless whether someone prefers to label existence as god or not. Can it be purposed that existence is not some sort of miracle, that existence is just some sort of natural phenomenon?

There are other attributes to this existence that I believe are god-like attributes but for the purposes of the thread I am wondering if existence can be seen as a creation unto itself, a self fulfilling miracle if you will. Where as the theist camp will say, God just exists, in the same token the atheist camp will say, reality just exists without a need for a creator. I tend to be in the middle of those two camps, and believe it is both in a way. I think on one hand monotheists tend to complicate the issue by purposing something else extraordinary to create the reality we know, where as with the atheist camp I can't help but feel, ignores the paradox that is existence vs. non-existence. With the way science describes the universe and time just coming into existence sounds super extraordinary to me and nothing short of a miracle.

All agreements and objections are welcome.

All views are expressed in an objective context.
If something was essentally non existent, how would or could it be even identified? Much less classified as non existent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems rather problematic to constrain our understanding of the term "existence" to "objective reality." It has some rather awkward implications, such as our personal values not existing because they are ideologies rather than an "objective reality."

If you try to use an understanding of "existence" to include concepts, you run into other problems: plenty of atheists acknowledge the existence of gods as concepts, so you would confuse the issues that idav is talking about.

 

[idav]

I think that our viewpoints are so far apart, I wonder if there's any room for common ground.

For me, it isn't so much that I ignore the question of the origins of the universe as it is that I think it's ridiculous to make the main division of possible causes "God" and "everything but God."

IMO, God is an arbitrary, unjustified assumption. Sure, you could hypothesize that it's the cause for the universe, but you could do that with anything:

What do you think caused the universe?
- God.

What makes you think that it was God?
- I don't know.

How do you think God did this?
- I don't know.

Why God and not something else?
- I don't know.

It's a useless hypothesis.

Instead of "God" and "everything but God", use "time travelling flamingos" and "everything but time travelling flamingos" as your categories for potential causes of the universe and it plays out exactly the same way. Or "a magical shade of the colour blue" and "everything but a magical shade of the colour blue."

The origins of the universe are an interesting question and I certainly hope we answer it some day, but I just don't see how hypothesizing deities brings us any closer to answering it. And meanwhile, the only reasons I can see for hypothesizing God (instead of flamingos, magic colours, or any other wild-*** idea that can be bodged to fit what facts we have) have to do with cultural and societal factors, and nothing to do with the merits of God as a hypothesis.

None of this means that atheists are creating a "paradox". An unanswered question is not a paradox.

Think of it like the pyramids: would you say that the people who ignore the cranks claiming that they were built by aliens are necessarily ignoring the question of how they were built?

I'm not saying that atheists are creating a paradox. I'm claiming there is a paradox which is existence vs. non-existence. Monotheists typically argue as your stating that god caused the universe. However my slightly different take is that the universe caused itself therefore has attributes of god that creationists are looking for, because I find the thought of existence coming about naturally pretty remarkable.

What makes me think it was god are attributes of the singularity that would have existed at the point space-time came into existence. Attributes of the singularity would be things like, oneness and omnipresence which leads to an omniscient scenario, and it would still exist today through the unification of space-time which is present all around the entire universe. Science finds the answers to QM and the beginning of space-time to be completely counter-intuitive, and it is this non-intuitive aspect of reality that I feel is ignored when chalking it up to just nature.

Does existence just exist cause thats just default? Science, with the help of general and special relativity show us that its a lot stranger than that. Even time would have been at a stand still at the point of the singularity, which throws in another god-like attribute, timelessness.

 

[idav]

All views are expressed in an objective context.
If something was essentally non existent, how would or could it be even identified? Much less classified as non existent.

I'm not sure non-existence is even a thing but how there is something rather than nothing is still a question, as in the mechanics of such an event. Physicists usually say something along the lines that physics breaks down so we end up with different rules where anything can happen, which sounds like a reality where miracles like something rather than nothing and uncaused causes is a norm.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, the paradox exists, but Brahman is not a God. I do not know if it is 'existence' or 'non-existence', or that it is both. Let us see.

 

[Willamena]

What do you consider objective reality to be? Does it contain thoughts and emotions? How about concepts, such as 2 + 4 = 6?
.

How can it not?

 

[Skwim]

How can it not?

Just checking.


.

 

[idav]

Yes, the paradox exists, but Brahman is not a God. I do not know if it is 'existence' or 'non-existence', or that it is both. Let us see.

Being both existence and non-existence at the same time sounds like quite a trick for a non-god. Thank you for sharing.

 

[buddhist]

IMO existence (samsara) is "God". "God" seeks to transcend itself (nibbana).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Simply define, existence is that fact or state of something having objective reality.

I think most will agree that the universe exists. "God" exists as a religious belief.