Could God Exist, And Not Exist Too?

[Typist]

Philosophical discussions on the topic of religion often revolve around a central question, does a God exist, or not?

It's perhaps interesting to observe that those on both sides of this question seem to accept the dualistic, yes/no, on/off, exist/not exist nature of this question without complaint.

If the question "does God exist?" is itself flawed, then it seems all discussion arising from that question would also be inherently flawed, rendering all arguments pro and con, for and against, to be perhaps essentially meaningless.

And so we might take a few steps back from the routine of debating the "exist or not?" question, and explore whether a God could both exist, and not exist, at the same time.

If this is possible that may mean that theists and atheists are both right, and wrong as well. Such an outcome would totally spoil the debate game of course, but those concerned primarily with advancing understanding have no reason to fear that.

And so we proceed to the question of evidence. Is there compelling evidence of anything that could both exist and not exist, at the same time?

I ask all this because it has recently occurred to me that the overwhelming vast majority of reality from the subatomic to cosmic level both exists, and doesn't exist, at the same time.

I am referring of course to space.

There certainly is space between the Earth and Moon, that space is there, or the Earth and Moon would be one thing. But that space is defined as an empty void, a nothing. It exists, and yet doesn't exist, at the same time.

If one feels that one's point of view should be grounded in observation of observable reality, we can observe the seemingly impossible to be a dominant characteristic of reality.

Weird, huh?

 

[BSM1]

Yes and no.

 

[JRMcC]

and explore whether a God could both exist, and not exist, at the same time.

Great post!
You could say that God neither exists nor does not exist.

I feel like asking whether or not got "exists" is like asking what happened before the big bang. :/

 

[lovemuffin]

It seems to me that many religious traditions, in calling the ultimate reality (whether called God or something else) ineffable, beyond a purely objective knowledge, have also said that it is not a "being", that it is beyond both being and non-being. Two examples:

"At first was neither Being nor Non-being...
The One breathed without breath, by its own impulse...
Then, that which was hidden by the Void, that One, emerging, stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be...

In the beginning Love arose,
which was the primal germ cell of the mind.
The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom
discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing..." (from Rg Veda X,129)

"God, then, is infinite and incomprehensible, and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. All that we can say cataphatically concerning God does not show forth his nature but the things that relate to his nature… God does not belong to the class of existing things: not that He has no existence, but that He is above all existing things, even above existence itself. For if all forms of knowledge have to do with what exists, assuredly that which is above knowledge must certainly also be above essence… — (De fide orthodoxa, St. John of Damascus)

​

 

[Typist]

Thanks for the great replies guys, appreciated. I would welcome your further comments exploring the implications of this observation.

If it is true that the vast majority of reality both exists and doesn't exist at the same time (an assertion which can be debated if needed), what does that mean for the God debate?

Are we willing to be as skeptical of the "does God exist?" question itself, as much as we are any claims or counter claims that arise from it?

How do we explain the fact that it seems most participants on all sides of the debate have apparently agreed on the validity of the question for endless centuries?

Can we continue to assume that the "does God exist?" question is a relevant and useful basis upon which to construct what may be the biggest debate in human history?

Have we become so comfortable with the memorized dance of the god debate that we just won't give it up, as the psychological rewards of the debate are simply too great?

If space does exist and not exist at the same time, does this reveal how our minds relentlessly attempt to impose a dualistic pattern upon reality that simply isn't there?

I'm sure you will think of other such questions, and I look forward to reading them.

 

[Valjean]

Of course God can exist and not exist. There are levels of reality. What is real and existing in one level may not exist in others.

If, during sleep, I dream of a unicorn, that unicorn is real. As long as I remain in level 2 reality - REM sleep - that unicorn is part of my reality.

If I then wake to third state reality - our current waking-state - the unicorn becomes unreal to me, but now this laptop I'm typing on is real.

If I wake to 5th or 6th state, this reality I'm speaking from will become equally unreal.

reality is a neurological phenomenon. We take a very meager sensory input and paint a totally abstract picture with it, a picture quite at odds with the Reality described by physics.

We dream our own realities. They may contain unicorns, gods, teapots -- all sorts of things that aren't objectively Real, but for us, subjectively, consciously, they are tangible and real.

 

[Shad]

This view violates the law of noncontradiction. Something can not exist and not exist as these are mutually exclusive views.

 

[Curious George]

This view violates the law of noncontradiction. Something can not exist and not exist as these are mutually exclusive views.

I agree. If we look at the space example we see semantics at play. The concept only works when we define exist or not exist in a non mutually exclusive manner, thus beg the question. However I would like to point out that logical systems can survive without the rule of non contradiction. Usually however it is the law of the excluded middle that is dropped. Thus, if we change the OP question to is it possible that God exists is neither true or false, we can keep the theme of the op and remain logically coherent in some systems.

 

[1137]

The way I see it is that god exists within chaos, and in chaos things can both exist and not exist. So for us, god is everywhere, and yet there is "non-god" existence also.

 

[Typist]

This view violates the law of noncontradiction. Something can not exist and not exist as these are mutually exclusive views.

Ok, so that brings us to the obvious next question from that point of view.

If it has to be one or the other, does space exist, or not exist?

 

[Vishvavajra]

This view violates the law of noncontradiction. Something can not exist and not exist as these are mutually exclusive views.

On the contrary, it only violates Aristotelian logic. In Buddhist logic it's perfectly sensible, since the categories themselves are largely arbitrary and negotiable. Therefore something can logically be said to exist in once sense and not in another.

If one actually analyzes what "existence" means, one will find that this is always the case, as there's no universally accepted definition of "existence." It's something we take for granted in order to get through the day, thus it's a very useful conceptual fiction, but it's also entirely illusory and falls apart on any rigorous analysis.

Does this glass exist? Yes, I just drank from it.

Does this glass exist? No, it's really a complex of silicate molecules that only look like a single thing because the naked eye can't see its constituent parts.

Does this glass exist? Yes, it is one manifestation of the category "glass," which I recognize for its utility.

Does this glass exist? No, the very concept of "glass" is a mental construct that does not exist independently of the human mind that conceives of it.

 

[Baladas]

On the contrary, it only violates Aristotelian logic. In Buddhist logic it's perfectly sensible, since the categories themselves are largely arbitrary and negotiable. Therefore something can logically be said to exist in once sense and not in another.

If one actually analyzes what "existence" means, one will find that this is always the case, as there's no universally accepted definition of "existence." It's something we take for granted in order to get through the day, thus it's a very useful conceptual fiction, but it's also entirely illusory and falls apart on any rigorous analysis.

Does this glass exist? Yes, I just drank from it.

Does this glass exist? No, it's really a complex of silicate molecules that only look like a single thing because the naked eye can't see its constituent parts.

Does this glass exist? Yes, it is one manifestation of the category "glass," which I recognize for its utility.

Does this glass exist? No, the very concept of "glass" is a mental construct that does not exist independently of the human mind that conceives of it.

I am very glad to see someone else mention Buddhist logic.

 

[Bunyip]

Philosophical discussions on the topic of religion often revolve around a central question, does a God exist, or not?

It's perhaps interesting to observe that those on both sides of this question seem to accept the dualistic, yes/no, on/off, exist/not exist nature of this question without complaint.

If the question "does God exist?" is itself flawed, then it seems all discussion arising from that question would also be inherently flawed, rendering all arguments pro and con, for and against, to be perhaps essentially meaningless.

And so we might take a few steps back from the routine of debating the "exist or not?" question, and explore whether a God could both exist, and not exist, at the same time.

If this is possible that may mean that theists and atheists are both right, and wrong as well. Such an outcome would totally spoil the debate game of course, but those concerned primarily with advancing understanding have no reason to fear that.

And so we proceed to the question of evidence. Is there compelling evidence of anything that could both exist and not exist, at the same time?

I ask all this because it has recently occurred to me that the overwhelming vast majority of reality from the subatomic to cosmic level both exists, and doesn't exist, at the same time.

I am referring of course to space.

There certainly is space between the Earth and Moon, that space is there, or the Earth and Moon would be one thing. But that space is defined as an empty void, a nothing. It exists, and yet doesn't exist, at the same time.

If one feels that one's point of view should be grounded in observation of observable reality, we can observe the seemingly impossible to be a dominant characteristic of reality.

Weird, huh?

But space does exist and is not nothing. That space between the earth and the moon is not empty. Space is not a perfect vacuum, within it are gravitational forces, light, hydrogen and so on. Something being largely empty does not mean that it doesn't exist - that seems to be a huge logical misconception on your part.
I could point to a desert and say 'It's empty', but emptiness and non-existence are not the same thing.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Hmm.

It might be beyond human comprehension, but I don't see it being mathematically possible. X = not x.

But supposedly he isn't limited to logic, so it's pointless to try to rationalize it

 

[Typist]

But space does exist and is not nothing. That space between the earth and the moon is not empty. Space is not a perfect vacuum, within it are gravitational forces, light, hydrogen and so on. Something being largely empty does not mean that it doesn't exist - that seems to be a huge logical misconception on your part.

The things you reasonably point to are not space, but things within space. The light travels through space, and is not space itself.

 

[Tumah]

I don't think G-d exists. Existence is something that G-d is beyond. The only thing that could be said is that G-d is.

 

[Bunyip]

The things you reasonably point to are not space, but things within space. The light travels through space, and is not space itself.

Sure, the point is that space is not nothing and therefore exists.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If this is possible that may mean that theists and atheists are both right, and wrong as well. Such an outcome would totally spoil the debate game of course, but those concerned primarily with advancing understanding have no reason to fear that.

The answers God exists and God does not exist, are basically same as saying 'the painting is beautiful', or "the painting is ugly". Either answer is valid. The existence of God is a subjective issue, as is demonstrated by the focus on faith in religion. With subjective issues the validity of the answer depends on that the conclusion is chosen. So it is a logical error to say God does not exist, because I do not have any evidence of Him, because it is error to be forced to a conclusion on subjective issues.

 

[Typist]

On the contrary, it only violates Aristotelian logic. In Buddhist logic it's perfectly sensible, since the categories themselves are largely arbitrary and negotiable. Therefore something can logically be said to exist in once sense and not in another.

All flavors of logic we might discuss are human inventions. And humans are a half insane species with thousands of hair trigger nukes aimed down our own throats, an imminent extinction event we rarely find interesting enough to discuss, a species only recently living in caves, a single species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc. It's folly to assume that any rules invented or discovered by such a species would be binding on all of reality, a realm we can't even define.

We can observe how space violates our rules. We can observe how we typically don't notice that space violates our common sense and rules, even though space is the dominant property of reality at every scale.

We can observe how even most of the leading scientists and religious leaders seem to share our assumption that there are only two possible answers to the "does God exist?" question. We can observe how accumulating decades of expert authority does not automatically cure us of the illusion. We can observe how the "does God exist?" debate goes on fervently for endless centuries, largely blissfully unaware of a possible third answer to this classically dualistic question.

We can observe how that even once we see that even the dominant property of reality can both exist and not exist, we will likely discard this observation so we can get back to the comfortable routine of arguing over whether god exists or not, because we enjoy that game and have memorized all the various arguments on every side.

We can observe how much something that doesn't exist has to teach us.

 

[Typist]

Sure, the point is that space is not nothing and therefore exists.

Ok then, so how much does a cubic foot of space weigh?