Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because there is only existence or non-existence. There is not a multitude of ways to exist, you just either exist or you don't. Existence is the only thing that will have that exception, everything else would be an effect.

"You're either wet or you're not, therefore there's only one ocean."

 

[idav]

"You're either wet or you're not, therefore there's only one ocean."

I dont think existing is a property like wetness. Existing is sorta fundamental.

 

[Looncall]

I dont think existing is a property like wetness. Existing is sorta fundamental.

Neither are properties. They are conditions.

This confusion is responsible for a lot of nonsense.

 

[idav]

Neither are properties. They are conditions.

This confusion is responsible for a lot of nonsense.

How is existing seen as a condition? Maybe in a specific individual sense but not as a whole.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont think existing is a property like wetness.

But are the two things different enough to make the analogy fail? AFAICT, both arguments use the same logic, so they should be equally true or false. I don't see how semantic questions about whether existence is a property would change this.

Existing is sorta fundamental.

What does "sorta fundamental" mean?

 

[idav]

But are the two things different enough to make the analogy fail? AFAICT, both arguments use the same logic, so they should be equally true or false. I don't see how semantic questions about whether existence is a property would change this.



What does "sorta fundamental" mean?

Existing being fundamental changes the significance of the analogy. Why, because everything that we know of in the entire cosmos exists, this is something fundamental that we share with everything. Wetness, hot or cold are possible properties of existing. Existing doesn't come from a potential anything, it is the source of the ability to have properties.

 

[Straw Dog]

Hello idav,

Existing is sorta fundamental.

How do you define 'existence'? How do you define 'non-existence'? It seems that they are both relative to a particular working model of reality within the human mind. And what is the human except a bridge between forms?

Our realities are limited. They may be useful, beautiful, abstract, social/ethical, scientific, etc., but what is the absolute reality? It is ultimately incomprehensible, it doesn't seem to care about helping us out specifically, and humanity seems to be relatively insignificant in the galactic scheme of things.

I think that theology may sometimes shift personal responsibility away from an individual reality. It becomes a distraction by fixating upon either a subtle or overt projection of subconscious ideal human characteristics out onto or beyond our limited reality. We need to embrace the responsibility of our human reality instead.

 

[Looncall]

How is existing seen as a condition? Maybe in a specific individual sense but not as a whole.

The traits one ascribes to a red rubber ball, for example, are the same whether or not there actually are any red rubber balls, just as they are the same for hot and cold ones.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Existing being fundamental changes the significance of the analogy. Why, because everything that we know of in the entire cosmos exists, this is something fundamental that we share with everything.

Everything that exists. We don't share it with things that don't exist.

Wetness, hot or cold are possible properties of existing. Existing doesn't come from a potential anything, it is the source of the ability to have properties.

Except it's not, since we can talk about the properties of things before we establish their existence. For instance, We can ask "does John Smith have a tall son?" even before we know whether John Smith has any kids at all.

 

[idav]

The traits one ascribes to a red rubber ball, for example, are the same whether or not there actually are any red rubber balls, just as they are the same for hot and cold ones.

Everything that exists. We don't share it with things that don't exist.


Except it's not, since we can talk about the properties of things before we establish their existence. For instance, We can ask "does John Smith have a tall son?" even before we know whether John Smith has any kids at all.

That sounds rather odd to assign traits to things that don't exist. Non-existence is not a trait. Of course we don't share existence with things that don't exist, only existing things share that property (that was one of my main points, existing things all share that aspect as opposed to nonexisting things). If it doesn't exist then its nonsensical to talk about it as if it does.

 

[ArtieE]

That sounds rather odd to assign traits to things that don't exist. Non-existence is not a trait. Of course we don't share existence with things that don't exist, only existing things share that property (that was one of my main points, existing things all share that aspect as opposed to nonexisting things). If it doesn't exist then its nonsensical to talk about it as if it does.

Then why do people talk about gods if they've never been shown to exist? How nonsensical.

 

[Looncall]

That sounds rather odd to assign traits to things that don't exist. Non-existence is not a trait. Of course we don't share existence with things that don't exist, only existing things share that property (that was one of my main points, existing things all share that aspect as opposed to nonexisting things). If it doesn't exist then its nonsensical to talk about it as if it does.

But existence is not a property, it is a condition. You keep slipping away from this. Do you dispute it?

 

[idav]

Then why do people talk about gods if they've never been shown to exist? How nonsensical.

Cause we exist and it had to start somewhere. I am not even trying to say what traits god has except that it exists. I wouldn't be going into whether it bounces like a red ball or not.

 

[idav]

But existence is not a property, it is a condition. You keep slipping away from this. Do you dispute it?

I dispute this. Existence can only be a condition if non-existence is possible. However existence shows the impossibility of non-existence.

 

[ArtieE]

I dispute this. Existence can only be a condition if non-existence is possible. However existence shows the impossibility of non-existence.

And therefore existence has always existed and could never not have existed and couldn't possibly have started to exist because the starting place would have to be non-existence which you just said was impossible.

 

[idav]

And therefore existence has always existed and could never not have existed and couldn't possibly have started to exist because the starting place would have to be non-existence which you just said was impossible.

I don't mind the idea of an eternal existence. Nevertheless I see that scenario as another version of self starting. Anything eternal would be self existing without necessarily being caused to exist, therefore with it being its own cause it fits the label god.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Enaidealukal, the fact that we are having this debate about transcendence means you know very well what this thread is about. We can only go so far back and even science ends up envoking some creative force.

That isn't really true, and science does not posit ANY transcendent causal agents.

It is inevitable, whether eternal and/or self starting then transcendent it is. Thats why god is necessary.

It is not inevitable. If something has always existed, or if some events can be uncaused, this whole line of reasoning breaks down.

The bottom line is this; for any belief-system that posits an entity which caused/created the universe/existence, and/or an entity which is both transcendent and standing in causal relations with the world, (usually we call it theism), then that belief system is incoherent, and not tenable. But then, rejection of such belief systems in general (i.e. atheism) is the only warranted position- in other words, atheism is not "extreme", it is the only rational conclusion given the present information.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Existing is the only uncaused. I said its the only exception.

How is existence itself an exception, unless you're assuming existence is an effect in the first place?

Even for god to exist then it has to be like the rest of existence otherwise gods nonexistent.

If it is possible that existence is necessary, then isn't God just superfluous here?

 

[idav]

That isn't really true, and science does not posit ANY transcendent causal agents.

I have heard science talk about something out of nothing, that nothing is unstable and could be responsible for everything in the universe. That is science envoking a creative force cause the maths run them into a dead end.

The bottom line is this; for any belief-system that posits an entity which caused/created the universe/existence, and/or an entity which is both transcendent and standing in causal relations with the world, (usually we call it theism), then that belief system is incoherent, and not tenable. But then, rejection of such belief systems in general (i.e. atheism) is the only warranted position- in other words, atheism is not "extreme", it is the only rational conclusion given the present information.

I agree but your still describing panentheism, not pantheism. I am sure you know the difference.

How is existence itself an exception, unless you're assuming existence is an effect in the first place?
Everything after existence is an effect. For Existence to be an effect it has to have a prior cause.

If it is possible that existence is necessary, then isn't God just superfluous here?

It seems some creative aspect is needed for existence so God is necessary and god happens to be existence making it necessary as well. It is possible, especially with considering your arguments against transcendence, that it is necessary for existence to be god.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I have heard science talk about something out of nothing, that nothing is unstable and could be responsible for everything in the universe.

Not "nothing" in the same sense- not the absence of existence, but the absence of matter, of mass.

That is science envoking a creative force

Only a "creative force" in a very rough sense, and it is nevertheless not transcendent.

Everything after existence is an effect. For Existence to be an effect it has to have a prior cause.

Right, but to say that existence is an "exception" (to universal causation), is to assume that it could be subject to causation in the first place, that this is not just a category mistake. But not only is this a rather large assumption, it is prima facie untenable for very similar reasons I've mentioned about God- causation of existence assumes a prior antecedent state of non-existence for the cause of existence to exist in.

It seems some creative aspect is needed for existence so God

It does not seem that way to me, since causing existence is incoherent.

It is possible, especially with considering your arguments against transcendence, that it is necessary for existence to be god.

That's not the conclusion I would draw; I would say that the concept of god becomes superfluous- especially if God is not anything above and beyond the physical universe.