I typically don’t engage in discussion regarding the existence of God anymore, but I do love to answer those lists of “questions for atheists”. But they are all pretty much the same old questions copied and pasted. I have come up with my own, original list of “questions for theists” that I’ve not seen anywhere. These are my own original questions built upon my worldview’s premises. So if you’re interested, take a shot at answering.
Does “wishing make things so”?
Is the ‘immaterial’ distinguishable from the ‘imaginary’?
How do you reconcile your worldview’s inherent subjectivism with the primacy of existence?
How can one reliably distinguish what you call ‘God’ from something that is merely imaginary?
By what means are you aware of ‘God’? Are you aware of it directly, or do you infer its existence? If you infer it, what is your starting point?
What is the orientation of the relationship between God as subject and any and all objects it is aware of?
What evidence is there that anything was ever brought into existence by essentially wishing it to be so?
Why do you start with non-existence and then look for an explanation for existence?
When I imagine your god (what other alternative do I have to consider it?) How is what I’m imagining not imaginary?
Is the ‘supernatural’ outside the laws of nature, including the law of identity?
Nope…both exist in the mind as abstraction with no external referents.
Existence requires no creator, because there is no state of non-existence, other than in the mind where humans invert existence.
Many definitions of t term ‘god’…you are referring to the most conventional which is an abrahamic definition.
In this definition ‘god’ refers to absolute order…which is presumed to be totalitarian….and to an idealization of man, or collective mankind.
In Judaism, from where its definition comes, the term is used to represent collective Jewry idealizing themselves and adopting nihilism as their method of survival and coping.
Their awareness of god refers to an esoteric feeling….as a presence.
A product of man’s developing self-consciousness.
The subconscious communicating wit consciousness, in a divided brain. God is usually associated with disembodied mind…
Projection from a third-person perspective.
Zero…
Because non-existence is easier to assume, requiring to evidence.
In fact, non-existence is non-existent. There is no before or after existence. Time is meaningless without existence.
Abrahamic god is always abstract and obscure and conveniently un-provable.
Pure emotion justifies the concept.
Nihilistic metaphysics always begins with an uncaused cause - a groundless grounding.
The reverse of how philosophy ought to begin…with physis, the perceptible….and then advance towards the metaphysical, using the physical as its grounding.
But we aren’t dealing with philosophers, no matter what they think or call themselves…we are dealing with emoters…..desperate to prove the irrational things they need to cope with existence.
Forums, like this one, are not really about the truth….but about affirming comforting lies.
Interesting metaphors. I’m curious—how would you apply these ideas to question #4: How can one reliably distinguish what you call ‘God’ from something imaginary?
I want to thank you for taking the time to answer these questions thoughtfully. There is so much I agree with. I found your answer to question #5 particularly intriguing. I think you are right that ‘God’ arises from the communication of the subconscious with the conscious mind. It feels external because it is unbidden. Spot on. I’ll need some time to unpack your answers, but well done. I’m guessing from your answers that you are not a theist, which is fine. I’m happy to hear the atheist’s answers. It feels like you answer for the theist if he were to answer honestly.
Are you certain they do? You are addressing theists, not scripture.
What you reference is interpretation. Creation from nothing, or creatio ex nihilo, is theological interpretation. It isn’t necessarily Biblical. The doctrine developed later in Jewish and Christian thought.
The Bible does not declare creation from nothing, and in fact explicitly declares “with God nothing shall be impossible” in Luke 1:37.
At the most basic level God would be present during creation, God being eternal, and God certainly is not nothing or nonexistence.
Genesis 1:1 declares “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. This proclaims the beginning of the heaven and the earth, the beginning of the universe, not necessarily the beginning of existence or creation from nothing. Again, at the very least God is present. God is not nonexistence.
Furthermore God is likened to a potter working with clay throughout scripture, specifically in verses such as Jeremiah 18:1-6 and Romans 9:21. This suggests God creates from phenomena existing, not from nothing or nonexistence.
Additionally Isaiah 45:18 states “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else”. Scripture further emphasizes forming and shaping, suggesting things already existent, not creation or beginning from nonexistence.
There is no explicit declaration of beginning from nonexistence in the Bible. In fact a common motif of formation and shaping from existent material is conveyed. God alone would be something, existence, not nothing or nonexistence.
What you reference is theological interpretation, not scripture.
“and in fact explicitly declares “with God nothing shall be impossible” in Luke 1:37.”
That’s not how Luke said it. He said, “With God, nothing shall be impossible but square triangles, married bachelors and decent Taylor Swift albums. Therefore, even God is constrained by logic and can not violate it in his endeavors.”
So, if something is logically possible, it can be a possible option for God.
But this is all granting the god you and Luke Ryewalker believe exists exists. It doesn’t obviously, but if it did, these would be some terms of its activity. Basically, Aristotle is like the Stan Lee of our universe and even god answers to him.
Thank you very much for your comments, Daniel. To clarify, I’m not focusing on any particular scripture here. I suppose my questions pertain mostly to the Abrahamic religions, but not exclusively. There have been many gods proposed throughout history. My questions are for those who believe in a god similar to the Abrahamic God.
Can I ask something about your view of existence? If God exists, wouldn’t that mean God is part of what exists? If so, why wouldn’t God be included in the sum total of existence? If not—if God is somehow ‘outside’ existence—how would we even know anything about something that, by definition, doesn’t exist in the same way everything else does?
So you’re talking about perceptualist (observing behavior after the fact) vs conceptualist (being/knowing the observer as it is) vs creationist diverging/converging/subsuming (influencing/becoming the behavior/being)?
I am not a “classical theist”, I am just someone who believes in the paranormal.
Maxx, before you accuse me of being some Bible-thumping country bumpkin, I want you to know, that, even if I was an atheist, I still believe in reincarnation.
.
It’s not just wishing but this “force of being” such as our essence which moves time forward. For instance we are in this modern era of tech and entertainment, rather than being born in 4500 BC.
Imaginary is anything conscious. Immaterial could be some form of thing difficult to detect by science, such as ZPE, ZPE waves, souls, etc.
I have had personal supernatural and paranormal evidence, encounters and signs. I watch videos about aliens and paranormal things. And I do not really care if anyone believes me or not. Aliens landing on earth might not even be a good thing, it could be more woke shit of having to share every public space with aliens and create alien hybrids, or the aliens could be dictators and shit. On the other hand, aliens might be good and create good tech, such as better entertainment, better vehicles and better weapons.
What I call “God” could be aliens, or ASI, or that we live in a “false reality” like a simulation or truman show of sorts.
I only infer “God’s” existence through signs, omens, paranormal events.
Unknown. Probably similar to ASI and Aliens or some entity with superior tech.
Its not wishing per’se, its force of being. If a poor person wishes to be rich, they might stay poor. Its like how an incel wishes to get laid but cannot get laid. A chad has a “force of being” which causes them to be laid. The incel has a “force of being” which causes them to be nervous around women and have anxiety.
Both atheists and theist grapple with this question. While the question is on-topic, it also seems like it could be somewhat tangential.
Anything you imagine is imaginary. Your brain produces a videogame/simulation construction.
Laws of nature are made by men, descendants of primates. Our tech could simply be too paltry to understand all of nature, and “supernatural” is simply what our tech is too primitive to understand.
I used to grapple with this question when I was much younger, but not anymore. As I see it, the only alternative to starting with existence is to start with non-existence. This means no asking “Where did it all come from?” because we are part of existence and can’t step outside of it. Does the notion of ‘outside of existence’ even have any meaning?
If someone claims there’s something ‘outside’ existence, what would that even look like—and how could we know it?
A binary processing biological machine starts with BOTH existence and non existence because it doesn’t possess life.
You need to exist to claim that you don’t exist and are a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) because you don’t possess life because you are dead,
Atheists exist and claim that they don’t exist (are a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) and are dead.
How can you take atheists seriously when they don’t know what life is?
something outside existence might be a fast-travel or a wormhole. Because if you take a spaceship outside a galaxy it might be a slow-travel to another galaxy, therefore there is a space that exists between the galaxies. But if a spaceship fast-travels to galaxies then nothing exists between galaxies.
basically nothingness is that which does not exist, non-existence does not exist. so if you could get atoms to no longer affect each other then they do not exist. if there is an atom which has no effect on another atom and no effect on photons then it does not exist. existence is something which has an effect on something. if you could somehow get every atom in the universe to have no effect then you could destroy the entire universe and have non-existence. The question is then what is a soul, can or should a soul be destroyed or no, and if not, then is destroying the universe beneficial to souls or not beneficial to souls.
The concept ‘existence’ subsumes everything that exists now, in the past, and in the future. When you say it could be this thing or that thing, you are presupposing existence. On what grounds do you propose something that exists outside of existence? That’s a contradiction in terms.