PerpetuallyCurious:
anon51310602:
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.
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?
Perhaps. That’s the point of the ontology I’ve developed:
Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender
Abstract
Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.
Terms And Definitions
Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.
Infinite (adj.)…
Theological versatility is a key feature of the framework:
Theological Versatility
While many philosophical systems offer rigid prescriptions for existence the framework presented herein supports a plethora of theological and metaphysical interpretations.
The framework accommodates theism and deism in which deity, a part of existence, creates the universe, another part of existence. It accommodates pantheism in which all is equated with deity. It accommodates naturalism in which systems and structures develop naturally. It accommodates agnosticism in which knowledge of deity is uncertain. The framework also accommodates atheism in which deity is rejected. All positions are accommodated without compromising the integrity of the ontology.
Not only does the philosophy accommodate various theological positions it also reveals and connects the commonalities among them.
Regardless the perspective, theistic, deistic, pantheistic, etcetera, God is existence. Whether God is part of existence, as with theism, or the whole of existence, as with pantheism, God is existence.
This ties into the Existence Both Part And Whole Section of the essay:
Existence Both Part And Whole
Existence is both part and whole. Existence as the whole is. Parts of existence are. It is. They are. All share the same commonality of existence, of being. Whole is. Parts are. They exist. They are.
Take Earth for example. There are parts of Earth and the whole Earth. Earth, the entire world, exists. However each continent, each body of water also exists. Each continent has its own name, each its own list of regulations. Each body of water has its own name. The continents are acknowledged as distinct things, the bodies of water are acknowledged as distinct things, as pieces or as parts. They also are acknowledged together as a whole, as the world or as the planet Earth. Earth’s structure is comprised of several layers which also are viewed as parts or as pieces or together as the entire planet. Both parts and the whole can be and are acknowledged. This same premise applies to existence. Existence concerns both parts and the whole.
“Existence” or “being” is general, and applies to all, including parts, and the whole or entirety. “An existence”, “an existing” or “a being” is specific, and applies to a particular. Both are acknowledged. In other words, both are.
A thing, although observably only part of existence, is still existence. A thing is not nonexistence. The fact a thing is [only part of] existence is implicit within context of interaction with said thing.
Other philosophical frameworks, such as Spinoza’s, are relatively rigid and offer restrictive views of deity.