How can either existence or life be a gift?

[Bob_the_Chef]

Hi all,

Here’s a thing I’ve always found puzzling. Frequently, it is said that life is a gift from God, that existence is a gift from God. However, there is a very obvious absurdity that dwells within that statement.

A gift is, generally speaking, acting in a supererogatory fashion for the good of another. A gift is given freely to another. Paying back a loan is not a gift because one party owes another something by virtue of the intention of the loaning parting. Giving is an act that occurs between two persons, implying a relation of gift giver and gift receiver.

In any case, to say “life is a gift from God” is equal to saying “I existed before I was alive, and then God gave me life”. To say “existence is a gift from God” is equal to saying “I existed before I existed, and then God gave me existence”. Both are absurd.

So far, the answers I’ve gotten were cop outs. One nun, obviously eager to dismiss the question to maintain her flimsy adherence to the faith, responded with “well, if you understand giving in such as narrow sense, then of course it doesn’t make sense”. I suppose actually sticking to definitions is considered narrow in certain circles. I humored her, and asked how giving could be understood any other way. She couldn’t give an answer.

Now if you don’t have a good answer, I kindly ask all of you to refrain from posting another cop out or mere hunches. Answers like “it’s a metaphor” (especially when you haven’t specified what it is a metaphor for) aren’t answers, and I’ve given this problem a lot of thought so hunches are dismissive steps backwards. This is a formal philosophical question, not a request for popular commentary. If you are not well versed in philosophy, or don’t know the answer, please have the humility to refrain from commenting.

What I have found, when pressing people, is that they tacitly assume their preexistence. They commit the Avicennean error of making existence a property of a thing and thus something posterior to a thing, which is absurd.

The answer, I suppose, is tied to the Leibnizian question of why there is anything at all. Did God have to create the universe, or did he create freely? Why? Now, we may find life and existence wonderful (because of our natures) we did not benefit from being created because there was no us to benefit.

 

[devoutchristian]

Subscribing.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hi Bob the Chef,

Interesting question! I think some modal reasoning may help to answer your question.

Let’s pre-suppose Molinism. Or, let’s take as axiomatic that God knows not only what will** happen but also what would** happen given any particular set of circumstances. Or, we can say that God’s knowledge encompasses all possibilities and all modes. This is a very real possibility, but many theologians disagree. Anyway…

You are right that the notion of “gift” seems to pre-suppose a “giver” and a “receiver” but what if the giver and receiver exist in different modes?

We can think of life or existence being a “gift” in the sense that it is a good given by the real God to the as-yet “unreal” person. The person does not exist per se, but nevertheless is** a modal** possibility. The “gift” of God is to effect an ontological change in the human person from a modal possibility to a modal actuality.

You may claim that this is a kind of “soft” pre-existence, but it is not, and I’d like to give a somewhat useful analogy.

Consider the child giving cookies to Santa Claus. The child thinks that Santa Claus has the property of “actuality” in some sense. Just because Santa Claus doesn’t actually exist doesn’t therefore mean that the cookies loose their status as “gift.” There is still a giver and receiver here, even though the ontological states of both parties are different. You might say that actually the parents “receive” the cookies. That is probably true, but I would argue that this is analogous to the “real” person “receiving” existence intended for the merely “possible” person.

I am not sure whether we can say that there is an identity relationship between God’s modal conception of a person and the actual person resulting from God’s creating act, but whatever the relationship, the status of “gift” seems to remain intact.

We seem to think that God could have created someone other than us, and so we perceive existence as a gift precisely because of the kind of modal intuitions I outlined above.

This is far from a complete or good answer, but I have a tennis match and I have to go!! I’ll be back later.

 

[aemcpa]

It’s all well and good to say “This is a FORMAL PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION” (ooh, aah), but the people that say “life is a gift from God” aren’t making a formal philosophical statement.

The new lives of my children were certainly gifts to me. Why God said “Fiat lux” in the first place is an incomprehensible mystery, but the world He created has its own procreative process built in, and the new lives that are continually created are certainly gifts from God not only to His pro-creators but to the world at large.

 

[devoutchristian]

Hi Bob the Chef,

Interesting question! I think some modal reasoning may help to answer your question.

Let’s pre-suppose Molinism. Or, let’s take as axiomatic that God knows not only what will** happen but also what would** happen given any particular set of circumstances. Or, we can say that God’s knowledge encompasses all possibilities and all modes. This is a very real possibility, but many theologians disagree. Anyway…

You are right that the notion of “gift” seems to pre-suppose a “giver” and a “receiver” but what if the giver and receiver exist in different modes?

We can think of life or existence being a “gift” in the sense that it is a good given by the real God to the as-yet “unreal” person. The person does not exist per se, but nevertheless is** a modal** possibility. The “gift” of God is to effect an ontological change in the human person from a modal possibility to a modal actuality.

You may claim that this is a kind of “soft” pre-existence, but it is not, and I’d like to give a somewhat useful analogy.

Consider the child giving cookies to Santa Claus. The child thinks that Santa Claus has the property of “actuality” in some sense. Just because Santa Claus doesn’t actually exist doesn’t therefore mean that the cookies loose their status as “gift.” There is still a giver and receiver here, even though the ontological states of both parties are different. You might say that actually the parents “receive” the cookies. That is probably true, but I would argue that this is analogous to the “real” person “receiving” existence intended for the merely “possible” person.

I am not sure whether we can say that there is an identity relationship between God’s modal conception of a person and the actual person resulting from God’s creating act, but whatever the relationship, the status of “gift” seems to remain intact.

We seem to think that God could have created someone other than us, and so we perceive existence as a gift precisely because of the kind of modal intuitions I outlined above.

This is far from a complete or good answer, but I have a tennis match and I have to go!! I’ll be back later.

Right. If I recall correctly existence is not per se an essential characteristic of any being besides God.

 

[devoutchristian]

It’s all well and good to say “This is a FORMAL PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION” (ooh, aah), but the people that say “life is a gift from God” aren’t making a formal philosophical statement.

The new lives of my children were certainly gifts to me. Why God said “Fiat lux” in the first place is an incomprehensible mystery, but the world He created has its own procreative process built in, and the new lives that are continually created are certainly gifts from God not only to His pro-creators but to the world at large.

The OP explicitly said that he did not want non-philosophical commentary.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

We receive the gifts of existence and life continually, from the moment we are able to receive them. Granted, before we exist there is no receiver, but after our creation we receive and benefit from the gifts. That we are not present to receive them before they are bestowed is irrelevant.

 

[aemcpa]

The OP explicitly said that he did not want non-philosophical commentary.

My point is he has a false premise. He’s asking for a philosophically rigorous treatment of something that does not purport to be a philosophically rigorous argument. I don’t accept the premise that the “people” who “frequently” use the cliche mean it in the manner that he suggests.

 

[devoutchristian]

My point is he has a false premise. He’s asking for a philosophically rigorous treatment of something that does not purport to be a philosophically rigorous argument. I don’t accept the premise that the “people” who “frequently” use the cliche mean it in the manner that he suggests.

So your purpose in posting is to say that this thread is pointless? Frankly, if you don’t agree with it then you can just not read it, you don’t have to try to derail it.

 

[aemcpa]

So your purpose in posting is to say that this thread is pointless? Frankly, if you don’t agree with it then you can just not read it, you don’t have to try to derail it.

Oh, I’ll read it. Enjoy your trip down the rabbit hole.

 

[dmar198]

Oh, I’ll read it. Enjoy your trip down the rabbit hole.

I agree with aemcpa. And I don’t agree that his counter-argument amounts to denying the point of the OP. The reason is this: he is pointing out a false premise in the OP’s argument, and that assumes that the OP’s argument has a point but concludes it falsely. This is typical of arguments and counter-arguments. If we decided to discount all counter-arguments that are about false premises, we would dismiss almost all counter-arguments, because non-sequiters are not as common as false premises. So aemcpa’s point is very good: he is trying to examine a cliche philosophically, and he shouldn’t do that. The nun’s answer seems brilliant to me: his definition of “give” is too narrow because he only wants to use it in a philosophically precise way. The cliche is intentionally using the word in an imprecise manner, and that’s just fine.

 

[Ion]

I think it is a gift because not only any person finds something good in his own life, but it was supposed to be only good.

 

[ColdComfort]

Hi all,

Here’s a thing I’ve always found puzzling. Frequently, it is said that life is a gift from God, that existence is a gift from God. However, there is a very obvious absurdity that dwells within that statement.

A gift is, generally speaking, acting in a supererogatory fashion for the good of another. A gift is given freely to another. Paying back a loan is not a gift because one party owes another something by virtue of the intention of the loaning parting. Giving is an act that occurs between two persons, implying a relation of gift giver and gift receiver.

Even in human terms this doesn’t seem to be much of problem. Young parents start to put away money for their children’s education before they are born. The issue is what?

In any case, to say “life is a gift from God” is equal to saying “I existed before I was alive, and then God gave me life”. To say “existence is a gift from God” is equal to saying “I existed before I existed, and then God gave me existence”. Both are absurd.

This is nonsense. It basically denies that God can create out of nothing; that He must have something to create with. It is dualism.

So far, the answers I’ve gotten were cop outs. One nun, obviously eager to dismiss the question to maintain her flimsy adherence to the faith, responded with “well, if you understand giving in such as narrow sense, then of course it doesn’t make sense”. I suppose actually sticking to definitions is considered narrow in certain circles. I humored her, and asked how giving could be understood any other way. She couldn’t give an answer.

Now if you don’t have a good answer, I kindly ask all of you to refrain from posting another cop out or mere hunches. Answers like “it’s a metaphor” (especially when you haven’t specified what it is a metaphor for) aren’t answers, and I’ve given this problem a lot of thought so hunches are dismissive steps backwards. This is a formal philosophical question, not a request for popular commentary. If you are not well versed in philosophy, or don’t know the answer, please have the humility to refrain from commenting.

What I have found, when pressing people, is that they tacitly assume their preexistence. They commit the Avicennean error of making existence a property of a thing and thus something posterior to a thing, which is absurd.

The answer, I suppose, is tied to the Leibnizian question of why there is anything at all. Did God have to create the universe, or did he create freely? Why? Now, we may find life and existence wonderful (because of our natures) we did not benefit from being created because there was no us to benefit.

I don’t think this is a serious point. By the way, the nun was right.

 

[ColdComfort]

What I have found, when pressing people, is that they tacitly assume their preexistence. They commit the Avicennean error of making existence a property of a thing and thus something posterior to a thing, which is absurd.

I think you’re wrong about this. St. Thomas stands against the idea that existence is an accident not in a temporal but in ontological sense. I don’t know about Avicenna specifically but I rather doubt theologians prior to Aquinas conceived of existence being added to a substance in the crude way you describe.

The answer, I suppose, is tied to the Leibnizian question of why there is anything at all. Did God have to create the universe, or did he create freely? Why? Now, we may find life and existence wonderful (because of our natures) we did not benefit from being created because there was no us to benefit.

The issue whether God creates “freely” or by necessity doesn’t seem to connect to the issue you raised in the OP. It all very confused to me. How do I not benefit from existence now even though I did not not exist in the past? I’m not sure but are you seeing all these issues on a temporal level where they do not belong?

 

[hicetnunc]

Hi all,

Here’s a thing I’ve always found puzzling. Frequently, it is said that life is a gift from God, that existence is a gift from God. However, there is a very obvious absurdity that dwells within that statement.

A gift is, generally speaking, acting in a supererogatory fashion for the good of another. A gift is given freely to another. Paying back a loan is not a gift because one party owes another something by virtue of the intention of the loaning parting. Giving is an act that occurs between two persons, implying a relation of gift giver and gift receiver.

In any case, to say “life is a gift from God” is equal to saying “I existed before I was alive, and then God gave me life”. To say “existence is a gift from God” is equal to saying “I existed before I existed, and then God gave me existence”. Both are absurd.

So far, the answers I’ve gotten were cop outs. One nun, obviously eager to dismiss the question to maintain her flimsy adherence to the faith, responded with “well, if you understand giving in such as narrow sense, then of course it doesn’t make sense”. I suppose actually sticking to definitions is considered narrow in certain circles. I humored her, and asked how giving could be understood any other way. She couldn’t give an answer.

Now if you don’t have a good answer, I kindly ask all of you to refrain from posting another cop out or mere hunches. Answers like “it’s a metaphor” (especially when you haven’t specified what it is a metaphor for) aren’t answers, and I’ve given this problem a lot of thought so hunches are dismissive steps backwards. This is a formal philosophical question, not a request for popular commentary. If you are not well versed in philosophy, or don’t know the answer, please have the humility to refrain from commenting.

What I have found, when pressing people, is that they tacitly assume their preexistence. They commit the Avicennean error of making existence a property of a thing and thus something posterior to a thing, which is absurd.

The answer, I suppose, is tied to the Leibnizian question of why there is anything at all. Did God have to create the universe, or did he create freely? Why? Now, we may find life and existence wonderful (because of our natures) we did not benefit from being created because there was no us to benefit.

Great thought!

In fact, a number of philosophers and Thomists…including Etienne Gilson, do not count existence or Creation as a gift, precisely as you say, for the reason that prior to Creation, there was nothing to receive the gift.

However, in his commentary on Job, Thomas calls both life and existence a gift. In fact, the whole commentary deals with this question of creation and giftedness of existence in the light of Job’s misfortune. Thomas’ justification for this seems to be based on what is sometimes called retro causation: that a cause can follow temporally upon the effect. For example, and purely by the way of analogy, the fact that I am mortal now is caused by the fact that I will die later.

Because existence is not a single act (I am still existing now, even though I had a moment in which my existence began), I can be grateful after the fact for what I am enjoying now. I receive my existence in each moment, and retroactively. Providence anticipates future contingent realities, just as someone preparing you or I a meal before we arrive to enjoy it is an act determined to a future contingent: my sitting down to enjoy the meal.

Very interesting stuff…thanks!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I have mixed feelings about this. A gift is free, but I think even after we are given the gift of life we have to continually earn it. We certainly are grateful for it, and we should never take the ungrateful option of looking the Gift Horse in the mouth.

 

[Blinky]

Jeremiah 1:5