Is God the Ground or Power of Being?

[Sunstone]

According to some thinkers (who are usually following in the footsteps of Paul Tillich), to say that god is a being (or that god has being) poses certain well-known challenges such as:

(1) explaining how something that can be said to have being -- yet not be detectable by any of the usual (sensory or empirical) methods for detecting things that can be said to have being -- can actually have being, and​

(2) explaining how something that can be said to be the source of all being (i.e. the creator) can also be said to have no source itself if indeed it is a being.​

One "solution" is to relegate god to a metaphysical or "otherworldly" realm, but this proves unsatisfying to many people since it more or less amounts to "kicking the problem upstairs", rather than solving it (pun shamelessly intended).

Tillich's solution (as grossly simplified here) was to describe god -- not as a being -- but as the "ground" or "power" of being. That is, god is the ground or power by which all beings have their being. Thus god cannot be said to exist, but neither can god be said to not exist -- because to exist is to be.

Since god neither exists nor does not exist, the question of "If god exists why can we not detect god" is rendered mute.​

Furthermore, since god is not a being, the question of what caused god to exist is likewise rendered mute.​

At least that's what some good folks (more or less following Tillich) think these days.*

So, do you suppose god is the ground or power of being, rather than a being? Why or why not?






*My profound apologies for so inadequate a summary of Tillich and those influenced by him. It's the best I could come up with in a few short paragraphs. By the way, I myself do not follow in the footsteps of Tillich.

 

[George-ananda]

So, do you suppose god is the ground or power of being, rather than a being? Why or why not?

As an Advaita Vedanta follower, I'll answer 'ground'.

Why, is the next question. Because those seers/rishi/gurus that I believe have reached the deepest into the nature of reality tells us the source (Brahman) is infinite undisturbed consciousness. The universe is then a play/drama of Brahman in which Brahman animates finite forms to experience the cosmic drama.

Brahman Alone is Real. From the creative aspect of the Brahman, the temporary finite temporarily emerges. Hence, Brahman is the ground of the universe.

 

[ameyAtmA]

poses certain well-known challenges such as:

(1) explaining how something that can be said to have being -- yet not be detectable by any of the usual (sensory or empirical) methods for detecting things that can be said to have being -- can actually have being, and​

(2) explaining how something that can be said to be the source of all being (i.e. the creator) can also be said to have no source itself if indeed it is a being.​

Tillich's solution (as grossly simplified here) was to describe god -- not as a being -- but as the "ground" or "power" of being. That is, god is the ground or power by which all beings have their being. Thus god cannot be said to exist, but neither can god be said to not exist -- because to exist is to be.

So, do you suppose god is the ground or power of being, rather than a being? Why or why not?

Hello

Readers can decide for themselves from the following :

1. VedAnta (Upanishads) and BhAgvat MahAPurAN say that the Absolute Truth (Brahman') created the universe out of itself just as a spider spins a web out of itself, without any 3rd party raw material. So the potential-web is in the spider in seed form. But what about the spider? Is that metaphor for being or 'a' being?

This is what I think : ParaBrahman = Pure Being


2. From the Bhagvad GeetA :

BG 13.12 I shall explain to you THAT which is worth knowing (best candidate for knowing), and knowing which, one gets the highest bliss.

Translation 1: That eternal beginningless ParaBrahman' (anAdi-mat param-Brahman)
OR
Translation 2: That eternal beginningless vastness which I support, (anAdi matparam Brahman)

can be called neither Sat (existent, real) nor Asat (non-existent, unreal, transient).

[Note the translation changes (to decide what is nAsadAsat) with where you apply the break : anAdimat param brahman or anAdi matparam brahman. 1 is most common, 2 is from PrabhupAd]


BG 13.15 That [which is to be known] is One, continuous, without parts, and pervades everything. yet appears as if divided in distinct entities or objects or beings. Further, the supreme knowable is the nourisher (bhUtabarTru) , annihilator (grAsishNu) and creator (prabhavishNu).

BG 13.17 That ParaBrahman' is the Supreme Light of all lights and absolutely transcends mAyA (the aspect which measures, makes existence appear finite, creates an appearance of duality, distinctness and variety). Of the form of highest spiritual knowledge (dnyAna svarUp), the right and highest candidate subject to be known, and that which can be attained through spiritual knowledge by philosophical understanding (dnyAnaM, dneyaM, dnyAna-gamyaM).
Moreover, it exists is the hearts of all beings.

BG 13.14 THAT knows everything that is knowable, to be known, yet , behold, it has no sense organs (eyes, ears, .. with which to know or perceive).
Despite having no attachments or possessiveness to anything or anyone, the One supports and nourishes all entities (stationary, moving, animate, inanimate).
Despite being attributeless, blemishless or pure (nirguN), which is the consumer of all effects of all attributes and qualities (guNas -- goodness, passion, ignorance).

BG 13.13 That [which is to be known], is all-pervading [the infinite space], is [as if] with hands, feet, eyes, head, mouth everywhere, in all directions. [because it knows and can do anything]

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I would argue that "God" is neither ground nor being...both being nouns, 'things'...I suggest that God is a verb, an action...and maybe that applies to us 'beings' as well...

 

[PureX]

I would say that God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of being.