Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Many deny that there is a supernatural cause of our being. To assert that existence is God is to assert that existence is the supernatural cause of all being.If you're saying that God is (and only is, otherwise other positions become possible) the act of existence then why call it God? Why give it a name? We have a perfectly decent noun already: existence.
Many deny that there is a supernatural cause of our being. To assert that existence is God is to assert that existence is the supernatural cause of all being.
So it´s a trivial point based on a redefinition of the keyterm - a point that doesn´t have anything to do with the implication of the OP.
That's my point exactly. God is unknown, so you cannot logically say that he is the only possible (note that I say possible, not actual) source of existence. Other potential origins of existence also exist, so saying "existence without God" is not nonsensical.
Saying that God is existence is, considering what the Bible says and that fact that existence cannot logically be conscious, because if consciousness exists, then it can't be the process of existence (because the process of existence allows it to exists). God cannot logically be the process of existing.
To assert that existence is God is to assert that existence is the supernatural cause of all being.
Great. I assert instead that existence is the natural cause of all being.
How is it natural?Great. I assert instead that existence is the natural cause of all being.
Look back at the entire context. I was asked "why call the act of existing 'God' when we have a noun already". The whole point of what I have been saying is related to the title of this thread.Whoah, that was deep. NOT! Tautology 101, and as the atheists have said, it trivializes God.
What you state would indeed logically follow if existence and consciousness were not one and the same in being.Saying that God is existence is, considering what the Bible says and that fact that existence cannot logically be conscious, because if consciousness exists, then it can't be the process of existence (because the process of existence allows it to exists). God cannot logically be the process of existing. You can say God caused everything else to exist, but you cannot call God "existence".
What you state would indeed logically follow if existence and consciousness were not one and the same in being.
Is there anything which necessitates that existence and consciousness are not one and the same in being?
How is it natural?
If God is 'the act of existing', then no, morality cannot exist without God. That is all. Simple.
"God" typically refers to some supernatural being which is independent of and source of all other beings. By saying that existence is "God", I am affirming that existence possesses those three properties, one of which is clearly incompatible with a naturalistic outlook.
In fact, I have yet to see anyone effectively demonstrate that existence is natural.
Nope. Existence is the STATE of being! I is, you am, and he she and / or it be
You're not grasping the abstract nature of "God" as a term. You keep trying to use it as a concrete term, and it's just not. The actual source of existence, is God. Whatever that turns out to be, which as of yet, is still unknown. You really can't argue against that, all you can do is refuse to use the term as it is meant.
Many deny that there is a supernatural cause of our being. To assert that existence is God is to assert that existence is the supernatural cause of all being.
Any being which exists by nature cannot cease to exist due to its very nature of existing If a being may cease to exist, then that being does not exist by its own nature but instead exists because of the nature of some other being.It wouldn't be above nature. Nature is all about "acts of existing" -- that is what every entity does by nature. As Aristotle had pointed out, to be is to be something. Being something is existing. There is no separating these two. Ground of being arguments are entirely needless, since existing is part of what it is to be a specific natural entity.
Right, but I believe that 'the act of existing' is God. Most people would generally agree that 'God' means 'supernatural', 'supreme being', and so on.And if 'the act of existing' does not have to involve a God or be called a God, then morality can exist without God.
You're right, I could just call God 'existence', and pray to 'existence.' But that is not necessary either, so I will do as I please.Yes, but saying that existence is "God" is a pure matter of taste on your part. It's not necessary.
Natural beings have the potential to change in being and cease to exist. The act of existing does not appear to have such potential.What would you accept as a justification?
The natural universe is something which exists. It therefore depends upon another being, the act of existing, to exist -- that is, unless the universe itself is identical to the act of existing.Existence isn't supernatural - it's part of the natural universe.
Nothing can exist without the act of existing. It is a logical impossibility.For something to be logically necessary, it has to be the only option. If any other options are available, then none of them are necessary. You cannot say that the source of existence has to be God unless you can logically show that no other options can exist.
How does a rock necessitate that the act of existing and the act of perceiving are not one and the same in being?A rock. You know, like what Charlie Brown gets on Halloween.
The natural universe is something which exists. It therefore depends upon another being, the act of existing, to exist -- that is, unless the universe itself is identical to the act of existing.
Existence is a verb, which is an action, or act.Existence is a word, but that doesn't mean that it refers to an object or an act. Existence is a description or a property of something that exists.
No, "existence" is a NOUN! "Exist" is a verb.Existence is a verb, which is an action, or act.
"Something" does not perform "existence", rather "existence" is a possible property of "something"."Something exists."
This is the simplest possible form of a complete sentence. It contains a subject which consists of one noun, and a predicate which consists of one verb. As we can see, 'something' is a noun, which performs an action, or verb, specifically 'existing'.
Now, nouns and verbs may be used as adjectives and adverbs (descriptions or properties), but their use as such does not erase the fact that they are, at their very core, nouns and verbs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?