Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[Enai de a lukal]

The point is to question if existence just exists by default or it began to exist.

What makes you sure this question isn't ill-posed to begin with?

What would it mean for "existence to begin to exist"?

 

[idav]

Yeah, the opposite of that is the case. If God created/caused the universe to come to be, God is necessarily transcendent prior to the creation of the universe he is immanent in; in other words', God's immanence is logically contingent upon God's transcendence. Once again, transcendence is the sine qua non of theistic gods in general, and this is no exception.

Transcendence isn't a requirement for god and I find that notion interesting coming from an atheist. For the most part pantheism says god is immanent not transcendent.

The second meaning of pantheism is “atheistic” or “immanent pantheism,” or monism (see the article Atheism). It considers the divine as a “vital energy” animating the world from within, and thus has naturalistic and materialistic consequences. Finally, pantheism also assumes the meaning of a “transcendental-immanent pantheism,” according to which God not only reveals himself, but also realizes himself in all things. Such is the pantheism of Spinoza, for example, and that which, in diverse forms, is of interest to various idealistic currents of the modern age.
Pantheism | Inters.org

 

[idav]

What makes you sure this question isn't ill-posed to begin with?

What would it mean for "existence to begin to exist"?

You think existence has always been or it began?

 

[Willamena]

You think existence has always been or it began?

What about "existence is"?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Transcendence isn't a requirement for god

I get it that you think that, the problem is you need to back it up. And here's the problem, once again: if God created the universe, then God was not immanent prior to the creation of the universe he is to be immanent in- thus, prior to creation, God transcends any universe. God becomes immanent only after creating the universe which he transcends; as I said, even when God is said to be immanent (as in this case), his immanence is nevertheless prior to and contingent upon his transcendence. I'm not sure there's any way out of this dilemma for you; either God created the universe and is thus necessarily transcendent, or God did not create the universe, and God is arguably not God.

For the most part pantheism says god is immanent not transcendent.

Right. Unfortunately, claiming God is transcendent is merely sweeping the problem under the rug, not addressing it; as we see above, any immanent creator God is necessarily transcendent, and worse, his immanence is purely a function of his transcendence.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You think existence has always been or it began?

You're dodging the question...

 

[idav]

It exists by default unless you think that non-existence can produce existence? If nothing exists can nothing produce something?

Good question. Nothing is an extreme, especially for something to come from it.

What about "existence is"?

Just as God simply is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Good question. Nothing is an extreme, especially for something to come from it.

Just as God simply is.

Proposing that something exists does not really demand quite the same level of evidence that proposing that God exists does, though.

 

[idav]

I
Right. Unfortunately, claiming God is transcendent is merely sweeping the problem under the rug, not addressing it; as we see above, any immanent creator God is necessarily transcendent, and worse, his immanence is purely a function of his transcendence.

I agree with that for the most part but in pantheism god is not transcendent as far as being separate from creation. That is one main issue that pantheism resolves. Yes immanence is necessarily transcendent but if there is nothing outside of existence to transcend then the word becomes useless, which is why there is a difference between the two terms.

 

[ArtieE]

Just as God simply is.

Except that there's no need to call existence "God".

 

[idav]

Proposing that something exists does not really demand quite the same level of evidence that proposing that God exists does, though.

But not just to propose that something exists but that something exists that began everything whether it is eternal or had a starting point.

 

[idav]

Except that there's no need to call existence "God".

There is reason to call the source of existence god.

 

[Willamena]

Just as God simply is.

Becoming is superfluous to the picture of is.

 

[idav]

Becoming is superfluous to the picture of is.

When there is nothing how else are we to get to 'is'?

 

[Willamena]

When there is nothing how else are we to get to 'is'?

"Is."

No "getting to" necessary.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I agree with that for the most part but in pantheism god is not transcendent as far as being separate from creation. That is one main issue that pantheism resolves. Yes immanence is necessarily transcendent...

Well, but then my criticisms RE transcendent causal agents apply.

 

[Willamena]

"Is."

No "getting to" necessary.

The mind supplies a need, a desire, for coming from and getting to.

That's the becoming.

 

[ArtieE]

But not just to propose that something exists but that something exists that began everything whether it is eternal or had a starting point.

Something eternal has no beginning or end. And something can't exist "that began everything" because everything minus everything is nothing and nothing can't begin anything.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Worse, even if the problems exposed in conceptual analysis of the theistic notion of deity (incoherence) can somehow be resolved, the fact remains that you're implying that theism somehow offers an explanation for something- and yet, if what I've argued is accurate, "God did it" cannot be an explanation.

 

[idav]

Well, but then my criticisms RE transcendent causal agents apply.

You cut off the important part. The reason transcendence is an issue is because of god being separate from its creation which is not an issue in pantheism via immanence. Immanence is not true transcendence, it is a work around.