[Anselm]That God truly exists

@Zetherin,

Solace wrote:

The same trouble with pairing any opposites; they're opposite. Can you tell me anything that is and is not? (Apart from some abstract definition of space.)

If you want to argue the point, we would be taking the conversation far from it's subject. However, one might follow Buddhist logic and argue that self is and is not.

Pairing opposites has immense use. For one, the practice can help cut through the inadequacy of language. When we are discussing notions like God, or being, or self, language is especially awkward. The pairing of opposites allows us to overcome that awkwardness and continue to discuss the subject.

Solace wrote:

And I simply cannot hold with his conclusion that "any question of His possible existence is irrelevant". The question may not be answerable, but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant, especially if, like Merton, one believes that God does exist. How can one possibly propigate such belief but then dismiss the sole question surrounding it as irrelevant? It strikes me as an attempt to brush off the doubts of non-believers.

That's fine if you disagree with him, but that's not the point. I introduced the Merton passage to express my curiosity: have we been misunderstanding Anselm? Well, have we been misunderstanding his argument? We may not agree with Anselm, or Merton for that matter, but we can ignore whether or not the argument is convincing while we try to determine what the argument argues for in the first place.

Now to your point: You disagree that the question of God's existence is irrelevant. But how can you question the existence of something that cannot exist in the first place? Or, how can you question the existence of something whose existence is fundamental to existence? If God cannot exist, to ask "does God exist" is irrelevant. If God cannot but exist, to ask "does God exist" is irrelevant.
Following Anselm, as God cannot not exist, the question of whether or not God does exist is irrelevant.

The question can be dismissed for this reason, according to Merton:

Quote:

To question the "existence" of Him Who is, is tantamount to conceiving Him as possibly existing or not existing, as having somehow "come into being."

As God cannot come into being, much less leave being, as God is, to make inquiries regarding His coming into being or out of being are irrelevant. Like asking a human being if there is something stuck in his hoof. Humans have no hooves, thus the question is irrelevant to a human.

Solace wrote:

Actually, I didn't. In that case, I was just playing with words. I should clarify that I have nothing against playing with words, (I do it for a living,) but passing it off as logical, or ontological, is a different matter, particularly when it isn't. But whether or not it is a religious institution that God is aseitic is secondary to the notion that God is aseitic. In order for God to be aseitic, God still must be. Thus brushing off the question of God's existence as irrelevant automatically makes irrelevant the notion that he is aseitic, or that he is anything else for that matter.

It's the very fact of God's aseity that makes questions about his existence or non-existence irrelevant. That's the point: God must be, so asking whether or not He is, is irrelevant. The question "Does God exist?" is irrelevant because it is not applicable to God. The question makes untrue assumptions about God. A subtle assumption, but you know how those theologians are - always paying attention to even the most minor detail.

Solace wrote:

Well, I guess ya got me there.

It happens. When you hear the truth you learn the truth, and when you hear what is false you learn the truth.

0 Replies

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

The same trouble with pairing any opposites; they're opposite. Can you tell me anything that is and is not? (Apart from some abstract definition of space.)

One of the fundamentals of quantum physics is that an observation is only valid in the context of the experiment in which it is performed. If you want to say something even exists, you must indicate context, as in another context it may not exist at all. We have single particles in multiple locations currently in existence. This isn't anything speculative, and it was only considered abstract up until the last 5 years or so.

Oh, sorry for butting in, by the way.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

It's the very fact of God's aseity that makes questions about his existence or non-existence irrelevant. That's the point: God must be, so asking whether or not He is, is irrelevant. The question "Does God exist?" is irrelevant because it is not applicable to God. The question makes untrue assumptions about God. A subtle assumption, but you know how those theologians are - always paying attention to even the most minor detail.

Haha, I like this. Clever. The thing about this is, the moment you enter the aseity realm, you must stop separating "God" as some elusive notion; there's absolutely no point in even mentioning it's existence, as it is not a seperate entity - asking the question is essentially asking if we exist. "God", from this perspective, just is. That is, it is everything, including us. This is why I speak that we are gods, interconnected.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Quote:

Haha, I like this. Clever. The thing about this is, the moment you enter the aseity realm, you must stop separating "God" as some elusive notion; there's absolutely no point in even mentioning it's existence, as it is not a seperate entity - asking the question is essentially asking if we exist. "God", from this perspective, just is. That is, it is everything, including us. This is why I speak that we are gods, interconnected.

If this is what Merton is getting at when he speaks about God's aseity then I couldn't disagree more. Although, frankly, I would like a simpler explanation of it just the same, because it seems to me that Merton is attempting to prove God is by assuming God is. The argument doesn't seem to come from or go to anywhere. Here's what I'm talking about;

Quote:

It's the very fact of God's aseity that makes questions about his existence or non-existence irrelevant.

How can we assume any facts about God? If God is then he is, and thus he is aseitic. But if God isn't then he isn't, and he isn't aseitic either, nor is he any other thing. We cannot attribute a quality to what is not. And we cannot state facts about something that we do not know is.

Also explain to me how God is

Quote:

something whose existence is fundamental to existence

or that

Quote:

God must be

These things are also stated as though they are facts, when I'm seeing nothing to support these facts.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

If this is what Merton is getting at when he speaks about God's aseity then I couldn't disagree more. Although, frankly, I would like a simpler explanation of it just the same, because it seems to me that Merton is attempting to prove God is by assuming God is. The argument doesn't seem to come from or go to anywhere. Here's what I'm talking about;

I wasn't implying that what I wrote was what Merton intended, it's just how I logically understood it.

As for your gripe concerning the argument, I would have to agree; this logical progression doesn't really "prove" anything, at least not in any scientific sense. It makes the most sense to me that "God" doesn't exist - that is, all things are interconnected, rendering all existence just being. The universe just is. But, of course, I have no proof to back this up.

This Merton guy appears to present nothing more than another theory, and the theory is highly dependent on the clear definitions of the words used, "God", "being", "existence". Any deviation just renders the notion a battle of semantics. I mean, playing with phrases, "fundamental for existence", and "God must be", are just asking for a critical thinking punch. And as for aseity, the whole idea is that God necessarily exists as opposed to it happening to be the case that God exists (according to sources). This isn't fact, this is theory.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I think the only thing this progression of thought proves is that we are the Gods.

Good point, Zetherin. We are the Gods, because we are the ones who create the deities, and the new age mystical concepts of God.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Hi,

It is impossible to prove the existence of God and it is also impossible to prove the non existence of God.

But God exists "The heavens declare the glory of God" and that is good enough for me

Alan

Well, proving a negative is impossible. It is impossible to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist. It is impossible in the same way that scientifically proving that a child's imaginary friend doesn't exist. But, what we can do is use our knowledge about nature and reality, and then use our ability to reason to come to a conclusion. Please keep in mind that when I speak of God I am speaking of the idea of a personal God/deity; like Horus, Zeus, Hercules, Krishna, Vishnu, Mithra, Yahweh, Jesus, etc. I am not speaking of some obscure, inconsequential, new age concept of God.

You just said "it is impossible to prove the existence of God, and then you say "God exists". The awe inspiring phenomena of nature is enough evidence for you in the same way that the existence of thunder was enough evidence to support the existence of Thor to the Greeks. Nature's wonders shouldn't be enough for the thinker. The better things to ponder on are the common attributes of a personal God; attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and benevolence, and then try and relate those attributes with what we know about nature/reality and the human condition, then see what you come up with.

0 Replies

@Arjen,

Arjen;11909 wrote:

It seems like fun to exchange some thoughts on this proof that God truly exists of Anselm. People call this a logical or also an ontological proof of the existance of God.

Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe.

His bit of writing was chock full of logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and just poor thinking. If this bit of fumbling is the best he has to offer, I imagine that his works are of no more value than a dry historical 'footnote'.

(The tastiest burgers come from 'sacred' cows...)

0 Replies

@Arjen,

Guys,

To me;

God = Existence and Existence = God

God is the Primordial Mind and the First Thought

Alan

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I think the only thing this progression of thought proves is that we are the Gods.

Good point, but I would't let it go to your head. Ha. IMO, we are most definitely a part. As I have mentioned "He is we, but we are not He". Now I just use human pronouns for conversational purposes. And I use capitals for the respect I have toward that omnipotence. Smile

William

1 Reply

@Arjen,

Guys God is simple that which

"IS"

It is impossible to define but what a great subject to debate

Alan

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Guys God is simple that which

"IS"

It is impossible to define but what a great subject to debate

Alan

What you are speaking of is a mystical, new age concept of God. I do not find it necessary to try and redefine God in a pantheistic sense; God is dead.

1 Reply

@William,

William wrote:

Good point, but I would't let it go to your head. Ha. IMO, we are most definitely a part. As I have mentioned "He is we, but we are not He". Now I just use human pronouns for conversational purposes. And I use capitals for the respect I have toward that omnipotence.

William

You're absolutely right - we shouldn't let it get to our heads.

I place my existence no higher than anyone else; the understanding that we all are the gods allows me to come to a perspective that isn't elitist. No being is better or greater than any other - these concepts we apply... the universe just is. Everything has it's place, regardless how our perception has constructed importance.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

What you are speaking of is a mystical, new age concept of God. I do not find it necessary to try and redefine God in a pantheistic sense; God is dead.

"God" was never alive to begin with.

I'll try to explain how the idea deviates from a pantheistic view. What I'm trying to explain is that we should not separate the notion of "God" from ourselves, and everything, constructing an idea that is elusive or mystical. Construction of this idea is inherently driven by our desire to apply meaning to our existence. I feel we should realize everything just is - I choose not to even use the term "God"; any conception of the word creates separateness, the problem! This is not to say that existence does not matter, or that we shouldn't apply meaning! On the contrary, we should, but from a perspective that is neutral, not overbearing, elitist, mystical, ego-driven... basically, HUMAN Smile

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

"God" was never alive to begin with.

I'll try to explain how the idea deviates from a pantheistic view. What I'm trying to explain is that we should not separate the notion of "God" from ourselves, and everything, constructing an idea that is elusive or mystical. Construction of this idea is inherently driven by our desire to apply meaning to our existence. I feel we should realize everything just is - I choose not to even use the term "God"; any conception of the word creates separateness, the problem! This is not to say that existence does not matter, or that we shouldn't apply meaning! On the contrary, we should, but from a perspective that is neutral, not overbearing, elitist, mystical, ego-driven... basically, HUMAN

The saying "God is dead" is metaphorical, not literal. It is a popular quote from Nietzsche, and it means that the traditional concept of God is slowly dying or already dead in the modern world.

I agree with you, but just in case you misunderstood, the post you quoted was not directed towards you. I agree that God separates man from the the all in all (the universe and reality itself), and that there is no need to re-conceptualize the word. God is an outdated word and concept (to say the least).

1 Reply

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

The saying "God is dead" is metaphorical, not literal. It is a popular quote from Nietzsche, and it means that the traditional concept of God is slowly dying or already dead in the modern world.

I agree with you, but just in case you misunderstood, the post you quoted was not directed towards you. I agree that God separates man from the the all in all (the universe and reality itself), and that there is no need to re-conceptualize the word. God is an outdated word and concept (to say the least).

I misunderstood, thanks for the clarification.

Take care,

Z

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

hue-man

"God outdated" which reality are you living in. All these wars mass killings and everlasting conflicts go on because humans continue to believe God has some personal interest in them.

Religion is the bane of humanity

Einstein, idea about God was he created the universe and left it to run on its own. The remote god of the Dutch philosopher Spinoza

Nietzsche,was a great philosopher, but in my opinion his ideas about god was no closer than yours or mine.

Philosophy is about asking question and trying to know what we do not know and to accept that somethings are simple unknowable

How can a finite entity like we humans define infinite existence.

We exist and the universe exists as an undeniable fact.

To me Existence is God and God is existence

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

"God outdated" which reality are you living in. All these wars mass killings and everlasting conflicts go on because humans continue to believe God has some personal interest in them.

I don't think anyone was disputing that people still believe in notions of "God", or that they don't kill in the name of - that's a given. We're saying, simply, that it's foolish. It's time to achieve new perspective.

Alan McDougall wrote:

Philosophy is about asking question and trying to know what we do not know and to accept that somethings are simple unknowable

You're going off on on a tangent here - if you want to discuss what philosophy is, there's another thread.

Alan McDougall wrote:

How can a finite entity like we humans define infinite existence.

I think this whole "simply unknowable" perspective is an excuse to escape further contemplation. It's possible there are things we will never be able to come to a conclusion about, but we've been making progress.

Alan McDougall wrote:

To me Existence is God and God is existence

Again, I feel this is the problem. There's no need to create a separateness. Stating God = Existence, is similar to stating Da (Russian) = Yes (English); While we try to assume the translation is exact, it is not, each word invariably carries different notions and feelings, however so slight. Additionally, the muttering of "God" reaches for that ego-driven meaning to our existence, which I find foolishly arrogant. Instead, remove "God" altogether. Hence, Existence just is.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Here is another essay I wrote some time ago relative to this topic

Something instead of nothing?

Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists. There is a Universe, we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.

Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is.

I cannot believe that, indeed, I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory or final answer to this ultimate of all questions.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

With nothing,
I mean the un-existence of everything. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time a total non-existence of everything. A mind-boggling, brain-, brain-numbing and brain- twisting overwhelming concept, terrifying, frightening, too awful to contemplate and impossible think about, without going insane and totally beyond understanding of any human genius.

Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.) Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have "nothing", but definite and absolutely do indeed have 'something'.

This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one. The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power.

Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were nothing, there would be no creator, of course.

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy.

However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?
Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed,

I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things by the very best minds of the human race. There are simply mysteries out there that will never ever be solved by mere mortal man.

You see the universe has a strange Goldie locks condition about it, i.e., it cannot be too hot, or too cold etc, etc, etc, but it has to be just absolutely correct, precise and right or life would not have come into existence and we would not be around to contemplate, debate or dialogue on this ultimate enigma.

We would not exist. Life hangs on and depends on this knife- edge of harmonies conditions that have to be sustained over countless billions of years, for us to have come into existence and continue to exist. Makes one think, does it not?

Why do we have a Universe? My answer is that God created the Universe. However, then, one can ask, who/what created God? I believe God was not created and this 'fact' is beyond our understanding and must be accepted on FAITH.

God is far and beyond our understanding, everlasting, without beginning or end, eternal and ever -existing, but was (and is, and will be) always existed. He/she is indeed the very author of all existence.

Indeed, God is so mighty, Omni-All that he/she exists, forever, far above our reasoning and above the ultimate reaches of our logic.
Something we and all the ,scientist, philosophers, etc, will just have to accept in time,

We will, at the end of the day have to, relent and acknowledge that somewhere out there is a awesome, colossal, mighty, great infinite intelligence that in comparison that we are as a microbe is to a human or perhaps horrors even much further remote, from the Omni-all power we call God.

It will indeed be a most humbling experience for us to finally realize and acknowledge, that there are things and mysteries that will; remain forever, absolutely, totally beyond human comprehension understand and reside eternally in the mind of our creator God.

It is a fact the finite can simply never ever comprehend the mind of the infinite; this should be logic to anyone

God Exists and in himself is Existence

By Alan McDougall 11/6/2007.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Zetherin

Quote:

You're going off on on a tangent here - if you want to discuss what philosophy is, there's another thread.

I will go on any tangent I like, and how can you ever separate the concept of God and Existence from philosophical thought.

My quote relating to philosophy is my own and not from any book I read.

Is it forbidden to quote ?

And dear fellow if God does not equate to existence, then to whom does this infinite entity equate?

If we could prove that God does not exist, then what are we left with but "Existence"

It seems you might know the answer

Alan

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

And dear fellow if God does not equate to existence, then to whom does this infinite entity equate?

Prove Tinker Bell exists. Prove Humpty Dumpty exists. "God" is but another concept we have conceived --- why are we seeking to "prove" *it*? Again, we have applied a mystical undertone to this concept, so in saying "Prove God exists", we have a MUCH different reaction than when asked "Prove Santa exists". Why? Because we have applied a specific meaning to a concept we have constructed. In other words, proving God exists should not be anymore profound than asking to prove Tinker Bell, Mickey Mouse, or that a gallon of 1% milk on the moon is controlling us. We accept Mickey Mouse for just being, and yet we can't do the same for this elusive "God" (both are concepts WE have constructed; they are the same in this respect)

Alan McDougall wrote:

then what are we left with but "Existence"

Damn right, that's all we're left with. And why is that so hard to digest?

Again, I see the mere conjuration of the notion of "God" creating separateness; it deviates humanity, it initiates pissing contests. It's ego-driven to apply profound meaning to our existence - we feel comforted when we think that there is purpose, life-force, whatever, and try in every possible way to stay in this mentality. Even notions of "God" spawning from theories like aseity run into this very problem. Truly, I believe we'd have a much more diverse, healthy, intelligent, peaceful species if we could come to the conclusion that the we do not need to identity an artificer to the artifact. Instead, just be.

I just want to add that I do not mean anything offensive by my posting, and I've received indication that you may perceive my writing in an entirely difference manner than what was intended. So, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

1 Reply

[Anselm]That God truly exists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know