Is existence possible without God?

[Fluffy]

Heya Maty,
Thanks very much! The serenity prayer is very beautifully constructed and I love the sentiment that motivated it as well as its meaning,

Although I don't necessarily agree with the student's argument, I do think that if we cannot detect something then its existence is irrelevant to us and debating its existence is meaningless. In the case of the mind, I do reject the existence of the mind unless you define the mind to be the brain because it does not seem like we can detect anything else. Why believe in something that you have not detected?

On the other hand, many theists believe that they have experienced (detected) God and this seems like an infinitely more rational position than, for example, fideism, which argues that belief in God should be completely unmotivated by experience.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

All the argument from first cause does is to show that first causes, including God, are untenable.

Only if you assume "first" means first in a long line of sequential events. (Is the "First Lady" the first of all ladies born?)

 

[eXiled]

Is existence possible without God?

Let me clarify what I mean by “existence.” I don't mean the existence of humans. I mean the system that we live in, AKA the universe.

Lets say, for a second, that the Big Bang is 100% correct. How did the atom get into space and time? And how did space and time come into existence so that the atom would have somewhere to be?

Has space and time and that atom always just been???????


I'm not so sure of any of these questions. What do you think?



Here are my thoughts (As of right this second). If the universe has always just been, then there may not be a God. However, It does not make since for this atom to be static for an infinite amount of time then just randomly explode.

If the universe came into existence at some point in time (if there was a beginning), then there must be a God. I mean nothing can only make nothing.

I didn't take the time to read all thirteen pages, so if this has already been said, then sorry.
Here's what I say: I don't think it really matters. There's no way to prove or disprove anything. Not unlike religion, of course, but things like that, as infinite as the universe, we'll never know. Just like we won't know for sure, not according to many, that we won't know the existence of God until we actually die.
I think I had a better answer than that, but that's all I can remember fright now.

 

[yossarian22]

Have you heard this anecdote?

A teacher said to his students :
- I don't believe in god. I believe only in things that I can see .The things I don't see don't exist.
He then gives examples :
- I see the blackboard so it exists / I see this student there so he exists / but I don't see god so he
doesn't exist /
A student rose his hand to ask a question; turned to his colleagues and asked :
- Do you see the teacher's mind ?
They said : no .
He said :
- Then the teacher's mind doesn't exist .

I heard this once.
I punched the guy in the stomach. It just shows shallowness of thought.

Only if you assume "first" means first in a long line of sequential events. (Is the "First Lady" the first of all ladies born?)

Then how do you mean first?
Terrible analogy by the way

 

[crystalonyx]

Heya Maty,

On the other hand, many theists believe that they have experienced (detected) God and this seems like an infinitely more rational position than, .

So by your rationale, anyone that claims to have to have experienced (detected) unicorns, leprechauns, bigfoot, aliens, ghosts etc. is speaking from a completely rational position.

 

[Magic Man]

So by your rationale, anyone that claims to have to have experienced (detected) unicorns, leprechauns, bigfoot, aliens, ghosts etc. is speaking from a completely rational position.

Yes. Anyone who, to the best of their knowledge, has experienced something would be irrational if they denied its existence. The prospect of these things existing is only irrational to us because we have no hard evidence of them. Things like giant squids and elephants would be just as irrational if we didn't have so much evidence of their existence.

 

[crystalonyx]

Yes. Anyone who, to the best of their knowledge, has experienced something would be irrational if they denied its existence. The prospect of these things existing is only irrational to us because we have no hard evidence of them. Things like giant squids and elephants would be just as irrational if we didn't have so much evidence of their existence.

Not necessariy true, if the experience itself was based upon irrational critieria.

 

[Magic Man]

Not necessariy true, if the experience itself was based upon irrational critieria.

But if you experience something, it's real to you. You can question it, but it's still a rational response to say "I saw a dragon, so a dragon must exist".

 

[Willamena]

Not necessariy true, if the experience itself was based upon irrational critieria.

What does it mean to experience something "based" on something else?

 

[crystalonyx]

What does it mean to experience something "based" on something else?

Simple, I could experience something based upon taking LSD, or being high on METH, or poor eyesight, or a very prejudicial mindset. Experiences don't occur in a vacuum tube, free from outside influences.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes.

Wait....

No.

Wait...

I can't prove it either way, so that makes me right.

 

[Willamena]

Simple, I could experience something based upon taking LSD, or being high on METH, or poor eyesight, or a very prejudicial mindset.

I see. So the "base" or criteria is a context for the "experience" to exist.

I would consider "taking LSD," "having poor eyesight," and "having a prejudicial mindset" to also be experienced.

 

[logician]

I see. So the "base" or criteria is a context for the "experience" to exist.

Correct.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

To answer the original question, the universe probably has always been. I believe that is possible because the whole idea of creation itself may be an illusion. Creation (and destruction) I think, is just change. That is, the fundamental makeup of something never truly ceases to be, it just changes forms. Time is also an illusion if we consider that it is only a substantial concept when we consider memory (of past events) and imagination (of future events).

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I see. So the "base" or criteria is a context for the "experience" to exist.

Correct.

I would consider "taking LSD," "having poor eyesight," and "having a prejudicial mindset" to also be experienced.

I see logician's point: experience and the experienced are not the same, any more than consciousness and content are the same.

 

[Willamena]

I see logician's point: experience and the experienced are not the same, any more than consciousness and content are the same.

The only difference is grammatical, i.e. a difference of perspective.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The only difference is grammatical, i.e. a difference of perspective.

Only from a strictly monistic point of view.

 

[Willamena]

Only from a strictly monistic point of view.

I understood and maintained this long before I even knew what monism was (that is, before I came to RF).