1
   

Existentialism and agnosticism

 
 
Reply Wed 17 May, 2017 08:36 pm
Sartre problematically distinguished the Christian existentialists from the atheist existentialists. What about the agnostic existentialists? It seems to me much more fitting the existentialist’s position to say: “I have examined the theistic arguments of Anselm and Aquinas and the rebuttals of these arguments, and I conclude that I do not know whether God exists. Still, I must make my way in the world as best I can, not knowing whether Hell awaits me for my lack of faith.” Here we avoid the dogmatic positions of the Christian and the atheist, and deal with the anxiety of existence without the blubber-like wrap of pseudo-certainty.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,162 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 05:34 am
It all seems like so much horse **** to this atheist.
Jedothek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 06:13 am
@edgarblythe,
If you claim to know that God does not exist, please give your argument.
ekename
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 06:45 am
@Jedothek ,
It could be Quietism ( an offshoot of existentialism) answers your question. Quietism "focuses on language and the use of words, and by its objective, which is to show that most philosophical problems are only pseudo-problems."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 07:14 am
@Jedothek ,
One would have to directly ask Anselm and Aquinas what kind of God exactly they are talking about...I am not sure they clarified that well enough.

- A mind is a problem solver machine. Why would God need a mind when it has natural order ?...

...lets say that we buy the mind thing for a second:

- Does God has free will ? Can God not be perfect or do other then good ?

- If not then God is not all powerfull and can be put down as the ground of all Being or the Set of all Sets...God as a minor god is just another player that might or might not have created this simulated reality but becomes irrelevant for fundamental Ontological questions.

Moreover if Existence is defined as being the product of intention and mind who created God?

Certainly it is understandable God cannot create himself from his own bootstraps to exist before existing...in that sense an uncreated God concept is equated with the World as concept because the distinction of a mindless mathematical God as pure order, with no degrees of freedom, again, as different from the very idea of a World with mathematical natural order makes no sense. They are equivalent!

Once more, it seems we don't know enough of what to make of a God concept to even be agnostic about it...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 08:49 am
@Jedothek ,
Your question about 'existence of God' begs a more critical one about whether 'existence' is relative or absolute. As an atheist I concede that 'God exists' for believers because the the 'God concept' is useful to them.
In short, I maintain that as far as semantics is concerned, all we ever have is concepts . All concepts, from 'rocks' to gods' stand or fall on the basis of their contextual utility relative to the human language users who give them status as linguistic tokens used in communication and thinking.
The only substantial difference between 'an atheist' and 'a beliver' is whether the word 'God' is useful to them.
The abstract persistence of a word outside dynamic usage fools thinkers into assuming the persistence of 'things in themselves', but persistence is always relative to human lifespans even for 'rocks' !
'Agnosticism' is simplistic (fence sitting ) position which fails to take into account that the concept of 'existence' itself, like any other concept, is relativistic.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 09:14 am
@fresco,
What about the existence of concepts, lets say for instance, just for the sake of the argument, in the Platonic sense?
Are you selling the idea your groups pov assumes no axioms?
Because if you do, what the hell are you selling that does not exist?
What does it mean to state that existence is relative? Relative to that which also does not exist???

The arrogance in your group current of thought lays in the contradiction of speaking about absolute relativism.
A contradiction in terms...
Speaking on language games, without an absolute frame of reference Relativism itself has no meaning to be raised in the first place...
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 10:30 am
I suggest that those who do not understand the contextual relativity of concepts,
including the concept of 'existence', should research (a) the non -representality of language movement and (b) the "e-prime" movement in philosophy which attempted to proscribe the use of the verb 'to be'.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2017 11:16 am
@Jedothek ,
You're clouding your argument with assumptions, leaps of logic, and question begging, i.e. taking premises as a given. For one, you're making a jump from the entertainment of the belief of a god to the entertainment of the belief of Hell as a punishment for lack of faith. The two beliefs are not necessarily tied to each other. Secondly, you're basing your argument on a limited definition of atheism. Atheism is also, and more correctly, a lack of belief in God or Gods. Agnosticism is about knowledge, specifically the lack thereof about the existence of God or Gods.

In regard to Anselm's argument, one can insert "the world" in God's stead and come up with the same conclusion.

In regard to Aquinas' theology, it's all predicated upon the assumption, i.e. it begs the question, that God exists.

Eschew obfuscation.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2017 02:53 pm
@fresco,
"The non-representality of language movement"...great glad to know you don't mean to represent anything with your talk. I can take it easier that way.
0 Replies
 
Jedothek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 01:23 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Anselm was clear enough. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2019 02:02 am
@Jedothek ,
If "god" is infinite and by definition, the biggest of infinities (odd enough right there you can always add one more), "god" is uncountable, infinitesimally unrelated to itself and anything else, and non-logical. Not "love" (conection) but boundless fragmentation...and still by your own definition a contradiction in terms as the infinite set of creation summed up with "god" would form yet a bigger set.
Jedothek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2019 07:31 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The only part of this that makes sense is the last remark about a contradiction.
Spinoza says that God is absolutely infinite being. The absolutely infinite being would already include the “one more” that you imagine adding. (Aleph-null is not absolutely infinite.)
What does “infinitesimally unrelated to itself” mean?
Why is Anselm’s God non-logical?
Why do you imagine that that God is fragmentation?


Jedothek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2019 07:41 pm
@InfraBlue,
'In regard to Anselm's argument, one can insert "the world" in God's stead and come up with the same conclusion.'

If that’s the case, perhaps it is a valid argument, since the conclusion is true, that is, the world exists.

'In regard to Aquinas' theology, it's all predicated upon the assumption, i.e. it begs the question, that God exists.'

You are mistaken if you are referring to Aquinas’ five ways of proving God’s existence. He does not assume that God exists, though at the end of each way he tacitly slips in the assumption that he has proven the existence of a single entity ( as opposed to, e.g., multiple unmoved movers) , which he has not.

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2019 11:11 pm
@Jedothek ,
If you gonna do infinities to follow Anselm "god" pick the bigger one which is irrational and uncountable, thus fragmentary, turning "god" infinitely unrelated to itself own properties, on the infinitesimal level, one by one, and therefore non-logical.
Finally, I think God is the opposite, it has finite properties but was not created, its a fractal boundless loop, it is not a mind because as the ground of all being it doesn't need to ask questions, solve problems which IT doesn't have, or have any goals which are not already accomplished in Being itself outside time, nor escape its own root Logic which it cannot change. Yes "god" is Love because it connects, because it is rational because it is countable and intelligible. Finite yet everything! The prime mover, that "raises" conscious beings yet not conscious of itself! Consciousness requires awareness within time and therefore limited to contingent knowledge which in turn leads to the necessity of computation/thinking troubleshooting problems based on guesses about future states of affairs. The true abstract mathematical rock of all Being is pantheistic, a spacetime block unmovable Universe, done, accomplished, quiet, timeless, and yes you guessed it DEAD!
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2019 12:03 pm
For the nth time here it goes, the video that never leaves my thoughts!...

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2019 02:20 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Certainly it is understandable God cannot create himself from his own bootstraps to exist before existing...

It is claimed that we did. So why is that axiomatic about God?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2019 02:24 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
'Agnosticism' is simplistic (fence sitting ) position which fails to take into account that the concept of 'existence' itself, like any other concept, is relativistic

You stole that right outta the Bible, huh.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2019 04:10 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Certainly it is understandable God cannot create himself from his own bootstraps to exist before existing...

It is claimed that we did. So why is that axiomatic about God?


The context of that sentence was criticizing top-down from Fresco's mind first POV, not down-up evolution...so nop it doesn't fit the bill!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Existentialism and agnosticism
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/16/2019 at 01:17:58