MemberSeptember 26, 2019 at 11:16 pm
If God exists, why does God exist?
MemberSeptember 27, 2019 at 6:03 am
The best explanation of why God exists should make sense. Consequently, we should reject the claims that God is self caused, sui generis, a necessary being, or a being who necessarily exists because those claims are incoherent nonsense. A being must exist in order cause or generate something or make itself necessary. Thus, it makes no sense to say that something caused itself to exist, generated itself, or makes itself a necessary being (it does not only make it necessary that it will continue to exist, but also makes it necessary that it will exist in the first place).
We should also reject the claim that God is “eternal” (had no beginning) because, absent one of the rejected nonsensical explanations, it is unlikely that anything exists that had no beginning. Being “eternal” is sometimes said to be different than existing in time, but that is a confused idea. It all started when Aristotle defined time as the number of moments in a motion with respect to before and after. While the definition captures one aspect of time, it does not fully express what time is. It does capture the measurable aspect of time. We measure time with motion (the motion of the sun, the motion of clocks, etc.) However, what Aristotle did not capture with his definition is that time provides the possibility of both changing and staying the same as other things change.
MemberOctober 22, 2019 at 3:12 am
I´ll tell you a story that I find intriguing and makes sense for me.
In the beginning there was only “God” and “he” was very bored in the vast nothingness. He then decided to experience himself in all his glory and patheticness and created the universe in which he divided himself into all the small pieces observing himself in all forms and all situations.
Now this makes little sense if you look at it in a linear way. But if you assume that time has always been and the universe has always existed, and replace the timeline with “always and forever”, the story makes sense. (Or even if you believe in the Big Bang, only that the bang came from another place, as an energy transition, because as we know, energy cannot be created nor destroyed).
It also makes little sense if you look at God as a bearded invisible man in the sky. But the description of God is omnipresence and omnipotence. That means that he is you and me, and the universe as a whole. The observer within you which only observes, never ages, never judges your actions or your thoughts. This part of us, many believe, is the focus lense of this “God” thing which observes us and himself in other creations. The receiver of our senses. It is the same thing that may observe an afterlife.
Everything in this universe is built on the same building blocks. We as organisms, have individual cells in our bodies that has very specific purpose. And they do their jobs masterfully. Since cells have different purposes there must be an intelligence to them, if ever so limited. They are aware of their surroundings for sure, since they make choices based in their surroundings. But I doubt they are aware of the organ they are part of, or the body or me as a whole. I am aware of my heart and organs, but I don´t control them directly.
In a holografic universe, it makes sense that we also could be part of a bigger body that we don´t see. A body that has a very different experience of time than we do. Perhaps the galaxy? Or something the galaxy is a part of. And so on ad infinitum…
We exist in order to experience life, growth, ourselves, others, learning, love, senses, hate, patheticness, greatness, smallness etc… and the paradox! And so on… From my limited perspective, I would assume that God exist to experience the whole, the parts, himself, time and timelessness, creation, choices, consequences etc… and the paradox!
MemberOctober 26, 2019 at 1:20 am
What a provocative question. It is a poor question, however, in that it is a loaded question–god (God?) exists, a prioi and legitimately. Many observers of your question quite rightly doubt the validity of this assured bias by a deficit in direct knowledge of god.
Another less glaring omission in taste, is that you haven’t specified to which god you refer. I might be so bold as to fancy that gods from different cultures may sprout from widely different imperatives; god for one man likely fulfils a role utterly alien to another man–but fulfills a ROLE nonetheless!
It is a proclivity (and one of the gifts) of man that he rationalises, orders, sorts, constructs, destroys, degrades, all manner of things in his world. Might the emergence of god from the universe be a sublimated aspect of this characteristic? Or is the rationalisation of the world an emanation from god? Either way god provided something man once desperately needed; for he wasn’t brave or astute enough in his youth to exist without it, let alone turn the problem on its head.
MemberJanuary 10, 2020 at 10:38 pm
According to the existantialist theology of Mulla Sadra, a 17th century theist metaphysician, to ask why there is God, is to ask why there is existence, for according to his philosophy, God is existence as opposed to quiddities that describe existence.
But existence itself is self-evident and unquestionable first because any question presumes existence already. Moreover asking why existence exists suggests doubling an individual by predicating it of itself, which is logically absurd. Existence exists by its own virtue not by anything else, otherwise the question can be asked of the existence of existence leading to infinite regress. In other words existence imposes itself without anything necessitating it.
Furthermore, existence is unitary which is another reason rendering the notion of existence of existence absurd. There’s only one existence since the concept incur no division and analysis unlike other concepts such as categories (substance, quality, quantity, location, etc) that represent ways of describing existence, or quiditties (such human, tree, etc) as they are also divisible and incur partners. Yet, existence as the most universal concept is beyond all divisions and categories meaning that it can’t be subsumed. As such it can’t be but a singular entity.
Once we establish that existence is evident and ontologically fundamental and prior, then we proceed to argue that existence is God. How this jump is made requires an extensive discussion, but meditation over the features of existence explained above already provide some crucial insight.
In the above we established that existence is self-sufficient. It is not contingent on anything else. And such is God the sovereign king of the universe.
Existence underlies everything since nothing can be without existence. Such is God who is sustainer of all.
Existence is singular yet the source of the multiple. Such is God, the source of the multiple creation.
We also know that power, love, compassion, beauty, wrath, justice, knowledge all exist. But this statement reformulated in the light of the ontologically prior status of existence discussed above will be translated to: Power, love, compassion, beauty, wrath, justice, knowledge are all attributes of existence. And these are attributes of God.
To sum it up, Mulla Sadra argued that by contemplating the nature and features of existence, it reveals itself to represent God of religions. How this analysis is taken further to account for other theological questions is beyond this answer but I think I already established why God can’t be questioned, and there are still other arguments that show the necessity of God but this was the most profound I believe.
Log in to reply.