Why though must my existence be dependent on something? Why is that a necessity?
You are dependent on something else because your existence is not logically necessary. You don’t
have to exist, you just, as a matter of fact,
do. Your existence does not explain itself. “Why do I exist?” is a reasonable question. If your existence explained itself, that question wouldn’t need to be asked. The fact of your existence is contingent upon some other existing thing as a cause/reason for you.
This is true of everything else in the universe, therefore nothing in the universe is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe – everything points to something else, so to speak. The only explanation that would be sufficient to account for the existence of the universe must therefore be sought “beyond” the universe.
It has been argued in a number of posts that the only apparently necessary “existent” is existence itself, therefore for God to be “necessary” means that God must somehow be identified with
Existence Itself.
The Bible sheds light on this by making it clear that God is “I AM WHO AM.” In other words that Existence is “Living Identity,” :extrahappy:
This whole venture of “proving” God’s existence should only be engaged in as a means of “knowing” more about God, of shedding light on God and God’s Nature, so to speak. It would be a grave error to hold off seeking God until we were absolutely certain of his existence.
This is akin to having a relationship with another, say, human “person.” If you use strict rules of logic or empirical proof, it would be very difficult to establish with 100% certainty the “personhood” of another human being. If we had to first perform the philosophically necessary task of proving the conscious identity of our spouse before we could truly love them, we would never begin. :crying:
This would be putting absolute faith in our own ability to know – yet we know that our knowledge has limitations. :banghead:
As Socrates understood, the only knowledge we can be absolutely certain of is the limitation of our knowledge. The only thing I know for sure is that I really don’t know anything for certain.
Descartes had difficulty establishing his own identity to himself in a logically necessary way, he would have even more difficulty establishing the personal identity of another human being – there would always be “logical doubt” about the existence of another person. We chalk that up to the limitations of “empirical knowledge” and move on. We act on trust, love and faith with regard to others, not logical proof
Same with God. Philosophical proofs might point us in the direction of God as the ultimate cause/purpose of everything and help us understand him better, but we cannot wait until the philosophical jury has convened and made a definitive judgement about his existence before we act. We trust and have faith in God and move towards knowing him in faith, just like we trust the existence of other significant “persons” in our lives without first demanding strict philosophical/scientific proof of their “being” as unique personal identities before loving/caring about them.
This is true with anything “outside” of ourselves, even making decisions about the future or taking action in general. If we had to prove definitively that X would happen every time I do Y before we risked doing Y, we would be severely limited in our actions. Life is characterized by taking risks, acting in “faith” so to speak - doing the best we can with what we have.:clapping:
Incidentally, I think this kind of thought is what motivated Pascal to come up with the idea of a “Wager.” That faith is reasonable because it is similar to how we act in many facets of our lives.
However, I think to found the “Wager” on a Heaven/Hell dichotomy is a serious error. I think the wager should be rephrased as a Material Universe/Living God or Matter/Cosmic Purpose alternatives.
Peter Kreeft does a credible job rephrasing the argument to what he calls a “high-minded” motive:
To the high-minded objector who refuses to believe for the low motive of saving the eternal skin of his own soul, we may reply that the Wager works quite as well if we change the motive. Let us say we want to give God his due if there is a God. Now if there is a God, justice demands total faith, hope, love, obedience, and worship. If there is a God and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth. But the only chance of doing infinite justice is if God exists and we believe, while the only chance of doing infinite injustice is if God exists and we do not believe. If God does not exist, there is no one there to do infinite justice or infinite injustice to. So the motive of doing justice moves the Wager just as well as the motive of seeking happiness. Pascal used the more selfish motive because we all have that all the time, while only some are motivated by justice, and only some of the time.
peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm
