An argument for God's existence

If you say that Existence equates to Being (with a capital B) you have no quality or trait that you can use on it. Perfection means ideally fitting requirements. What requirements can we make on Existence? It is as it is. If you say it isn’t perfect, it means nothing, other than your requirements of it are flawed. You have no choice therefore you cannot claim that Existence has any quality at all. You either have Existence or not.

The “Ground of Being” is a phrase that says that God underlies Being and consequently everything in existence. Without God there is no existence, so there is no comparison to make and therefore no way to call it perfect or not. For that reason, the idea of saying a perfect existence would be …. Is null and void.

Is Omnipresence a quality or trait? Can it denote anything other than Existence? I say this because Existence exists everywhere. What else exists everywhere?

Something which is omnipresent is everywhere at the same time. It is an adjective and describes something, so it is a quality or trait. It is usually said of God, the Ground of Being, without which there is no existence.

So you say “Something which is omnipresent is everywhere at the same time”. I agree. Is it not true of Existence that It exists everywhere at the same time? Would it not be absurd for us to say ‘there is no Existence there’, or that ‘there is non-existence there’ ?

Do you believe God to be Omnipresent? If not, do you believe God to be Omnipotent?

Once again, in my view, you simply avoid/evade my points above. Given that, for most religious denominations, embodying God’s will as mere mortals is encompassed in obeying His commandments big and small, they choose, in regard to issues like “abortion, the role of government, war and peace, social and economic justice, human sexuality, ‘value voter’ issues etc.” behaviors they are convinced will serve them well on Judgment Day.

How is that not “for all practical purposes” religion in a nutshell?

Now, some get around this by embracing one or another ecumenical approach to religion. The God of all faiths who allows the faithful to choose cafeteria style the behaviors that they think will forward them to immortality and salvation. And if those choices clash with others? Well, the God of all faiths just works it out somehow.

Sure, with morality here and now and immortality there and then, we can all “just ignore everybody and get on with our life, making it as best we know how to.”

But explain that to all of the various orthodox religious communities. Those folks who are absolutely adamant regarding what does or does not please a God, the God, their God.

My obsession?

worldfuturefund.org/Articles/Jday/Jday.html

[b]Many of the world’s great religions and philosophies have a larger, more cosmic view of life and time.

Religions like Christianity and Islam believe that this life is a test, meant to determine a person’s fate in an eternal afterlife.

Hindus believe that a person will be reincarnated over a cycle that can take thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

Buddhism has many different aspects, but there are various Buddhist sects that believe in reincarnation as well.

The pagan, Pre-Christian religions like Norse Paganism believe in Valhalla, an honorable afterlife for warriors.

But the point is that in many of these religions there is a concept of judgment, that the actions you take in this life matter, for better or for worse.

We are not here to debate the theological realities of whether this is true or not.

But we will simply state that religions have a long term view of man’s purpose that extends beyond a single lifespan.

And that if a person doesn’t accept their purpose, there will be a harsh punishment to come.[/b]

Or in Christianity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judg … ristianity

Once again, however, from my own frame of mind, this is an entirely vague “spiritual contraption”. What of the courage of your own convictions in regard to “abortion, the role of government, war and peace, social and economic justice, human sexuality, ‘value voter’ issues etc.”, when they come into conflict with the faiths of others? When they read their own Scriptures in a different “right way”? In the way they insist God meant it to be read? What of God’s judgment then?

But, in my view, you are not willing to explore the points I raise in a substantive manner relating in particular to the manner in which I construe religious faith itself as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein…given the trajectory of the life that you have lived.

And only with respect to that discussion does there seem a possibility that I might be convinced that there is a way to move on.

On the other hand, I still respect the amount of time and effort you have put into exploring all of this introspectively. And the “edge” that often pervades my own reactions above is, again, more in the way of how I wish I could figure out a way to think myself up out of the truly bleak hole that my own honest introspection has brought me down into.

If God didn’t exist, I would invent one right now. Life is better when there is a God.

Certainly real,

Obviously, the limits of human-beings comprehension, do not necessitate the constitution of reality. Therefore, when I (or anyone else) say that I can conceive of infinity, that does not mean that it is possible or impossible. As far as I am aware, experientially or empirically, we have no way of knowing for sure. Given that this is the case, I see no reason to claim that existence is infinite. Of course, existence coming from nothing doesn’t seem logical, I cannot conceive of how that could occur. But given that the choice presented is between something coming from nothing, a first cause or something along those lines, and an infinite regress of causes for existence, from my perspective, both of these ideas are very problematic, so I don’t know.

If I were going to posit that existence was infinite, there should be something tangible that could always have existed. My knowledge in this area is not extensive, so the only thing I can think of that could have always existed is energy because it cannot be created or destroyed. I don’t know how existence could have occurred from energy alone, that is as far as my knowledge takes me.

You cannot count to Infinity. Nor can you expand to the point of becoming Infinite. However, this does not mean nothing is Infinite. This does not mean non-existence is Infinite because Existence is necessarily Infinite (otherwise we commit to something coming from nothing). The Infinite is not non-existent. If Existence has no beginning and no end, then there is no counting to Infinity happening. There is also no expanding to the point of becoming Infinite happening. There is also no something coming from nothing. Existence just Is Infinite. This is not absurd. Again, counting or expanding to Infinity is absurd. So now I see why you think an infinite regress of causes is absurd. Forgive me for not seeing this earlier. With that in mind, consider the following:

You cannot have an infinite number of regressing causes to the Infinite because you cannot count to infinity. So the idea of an ‘infinite regress of causes resulting in Existence Being Inifnite’ is absurd. Anything that is absurd/illogical/paradoxical must be rejected. So we have the following options:

  1. Existence came from non-existence
  2. There is an infinite regress of causes but Existence is not Infinite
  3. Existence Is Infinite (Existence had no beginning and has no end)
  4. 1, 2, and 3, are all paradoxical.
  5. I cannot makes sense of 1, 2, 3, and 4, yet I do not think them to be paradoxical.

Which do you think is correct?

Well, I think that I can’t help you … sorry.

I think we’re moving in circles.

Certainly real,

I do not believe that even the greatest minds could answer this question unequivocally, with the knowledge/information that we have available to us. Logic is a good tool, but it requires information to conclude things accurately. In this case, we cannot conjecture an infinite or finite existence into realisation. We need facts, but we don’t have anything conclusive.

I don’t know enough to answer this question. However, logically speaking, if every deduction relating to the origins of existence is paradoxical, yet existence is. Is the problem existence, logic and/or a lack of information?

Well, thanks for trying.

And if, down the road, you do have a new experience, begin a new relationship or come into contact with new information, knowledge or ideas that actually does allow you to address the points I make in regard to the existential interactions between men and women on this side of the grave, please bring it to my attention.

And may you go to the grave comforted and consoled by what you have concluded so far.

God knows I’m aiming for that myself.

I am trying to move with what you are giving me. You appear to make a distinction between God and Existence. I want to see your reasoning regarding this. So do you believe God and Existence to be the same, or do you think God and Existence are not the same? If you do not think them to be the same, given the fact that Existence exists, do you think Existence to be non-omnipresent?

A triangle always has three sides. This is a conclusive fact because it is an irrefutable fact. It is irrefutable because it is a matter of pure reason. Empirical observations are open to interpretation. Pure reason is not open to interpretation (as in a triangle having three sides is not open to interpretation). Good science adheres to pure reason and logic. When an empirical observation shows paradoxes/contradictions in a given scientific theory, that scientific theory is either abandoned, or reformulated. Check ‘paradigm shift’ in the philosophy of science if you are interested. Do you see how avoiding paradoxes/absurdity is the name of all ‘games’? Do you see how avoiding paradoxes is everything? Which good subject, theory, or person do you see actively embracing absurdities/paradoxes/falsehoods?

Can you be certain that a triangle has three sides? Yes, because it’s rejection is paradoxical/absurd. In other words, it is hypothetically impossible for a triangle to not have three sides, just as it is hypothetically impossible for Existence to have an origin.

So you seem to rightly believe that “every deduction relating to the origins of existence is paradoxical”. You are right. To describe Existence as having an origin, as absurd as describing a triangle as having a fourth side. There’s no way around this. So that I understand you better, can you please answer the following two questions:

  1. Triangles having three sides. Absurd or not absurd or unknown?

  2. Existence having no beginning and no end. Absurd or not absurd or unknown?

Certainly real,

I’m a relatively old man. Unless I have to, my time of jumping through hoops is over. I have told you what I think, and I don’t see a reason to expand upon that. In conclusion to our discussion, I would ask, what exactly are you trying to demonstrate? Be frank.

Ok, I will try to give you a sincere answer to your question:

I’m trying to demonstrate/highlight:

  1. That saying triangles have four sides is paradoxical.
  2. That saying Existence has an origin is paradoxical.
  3. That saying triangles have three sides is certainly true (because 1 is paradoxical and 3 is the only way to solve it)
  4. That saying Existence has always existed and will always exist, is certainly true (because 2 is paradoxical and 4 is the only way to solve it)

I am trying to highlight/demonstrate to you that Existence Is Infinite, and that that which Is Infinite (Existence) is at least as real as us, purely because rejection of this is paradoxical, just as rejection of triangles being there-sided is paradoxical.

If I can get you to see that Existence Is certainly Infinite (just as a triangle is certainly three-sided), then I can get you to see that Existence Is certainly Perfect (which is the same as saying God (True Perfection), as described in the Abrahamic religions, is certainly at least as real as us. But I first need you to see reason with Infinity and Existence. So if you are willing to engage, my question is:

Do you agree with 4?

CR,

I’m the new plan. I know a lot more about this topic than I really have time to explain to you.

Hold this in your heart and never forget it:

You are not great until everyone is great

You are not in your personal heaven until everyone is in their personal heaven.

Know that. Look around you. What do you see?

That’s called a fact that anyone can falsify including you.

Perfect? As if.

We just make plans to stop being BORED with foreverness…

There are serious flaws in the current plan. It was my personal job to test it.

You are talking to something you don’t understand. I’m talking to you in ways you can understand.

I do not deny that how things look is clearly valuable. The more good-looking, the better. I do not deny that one should not ignore the appearance of things. But one should not reject pure reason for the appearance of things. The appearance of things will not improve if one rejects pure reason. I think I’ve done enough to show you how it is paradoxical to reject Existence Being Perfect. If you do not see this, then God does not want you to see this, and this will be because you do not deserve to see this, and this will be because you are not sincere to reason and Truth/God. It will be because you do not really/sincerely want to see this. If you never see this, then so be it. It’s All Perfection.

CR,

I was given all the powers of existence to test this current plan. It doesn’t work.

When there is ANY zero sum scenario, existence is just a big pool to eventually send everyone to hell forever.

It’s not fucking funny dude.

I think Existence Is Perfect because Its rejection is paradoxical. I think you think existence is imperfect because the current plan doesn’t work.