Non Existence, explain this

[AndyF]

I don’t get it. Why is non existence a state that is to be avoided?. Why does everyone feel that it is a state to be rescued from?.

Not having any memory of it, or not knowing what it was like to simply exist as a concept rolleyes, the Church expects my attitude to be that I am to breathe a sigh of relief in leaving it, and then becoming.

Personally, I know(gut feeling ) it was in no way worse than now unless of course non existence carried with it some hellish equivalent, or some controlling factor could have imposed an immediate threat to non-me(?), which I doubt. Whether it was better than now I can’t say.

Lastly, there remains the question if a conceptual non existent being is subject to a God at all. Does he need to be made substance before it applies?

So there is a conflict that arises just out of the reality of our conditions regardless of choices or acts. The platform for the non existent is one of universal justice involving rights, for Deity, from one of desire also involving rights. (I’m not saying God has no right to create.)

Until someone can provide evidence to the contrary, the condition is that conceptual us were taken from a state of conceptual contentment, with no risk element involved, where we were non intrusive to other states, and non effected to anything except for the threat that we can be brought into existence.

How is it worse than existence.? What universal law outside of those who are the opposing parties states that the right to create overrides the right to non exist.?

Andy

 

[MindOverMatter]

That which does not exist, has no rights, for it does not exist.
That which exists, exists because it is good to exist.
If there is no such thing as objective values which are rooted in eternal perfection, then it doesn’t seem right that one can not choose simply to cease, for there is no reason to exist, no purpose, no meaning, no value, just being. It follows that any belief that life is objectively worth living in such a way that we ought to exist, is a fantasy that we indulge in for fear of death.

However, if some great good comes from existing, if the root of all reality is an objective perfection and goodness, then such a reality is infinitely more valuble then ceasing to be, whether we realise it or not. In fact it would be an immorality for you to cease or to desire it, for this would be in opposition to that which is the greatest good.

 

[AndyF]

That which does not exist, has no rights, for it does not exist.

This is still a claim made regarding a state that is unknown to every being. Non existence may still be a concept that has it’s limitations of formulation in the mind. It is still a venture. Is the fact that Deity dips into it’s pool to obtain the substance for creation, maybe we should be concerned at expressing the liberty?.

What we do know is that to the person yet to be, all realization and decision making must arise at the point of existence. From the creator’s point of view it comes earlier. He would know the principles that apply to the being he wishes to create, and even know that he will have rights. So we can say an allowance could be made for the disadvantaged for now he has rights because he exists. The best interest of the created is paramount here.

We find a parallel in the spirit of Baptism, where in charity a helpless existing being is appointed a representative or spokesman that will act in his best interest. Here questions are asked, and the spokesman answers. In charity questions matter at this point.

So in the same spirit, the conceptual being’s spokesman could state that for this person,“it would be better that he were not born”, passing this information to the creator who would in charity not create him. Yes, we note a conflict of interest. Is it significant to solving our problem?.

If there is no such thing as objective values which are rooted in eternal perfection, then it doesn’t seem right that one can not choose simply to cease, for there is no reason to exist, no purpose, no meaning, no value

 

[geometer]

I don’t get it. Why is non existence a state that is to be avoided?. Why does everyone feel that it is a state to be rescued from?.

Well, when I was ten years old I became surrounded by the children on the playground at school, and because of their angry behavior, I told God that I did not want to exist. I short while after that I vanished.

I was sent back to the playground three hours later about twenty-five feet from where I had vanished.

I was only ten years old and did not know that I should not ask not to exist. But, I was only allowed to not exist for three hours. So perhaps God does not allow non-existence, or I returned because the people at school who searched for me, or my mother, who they called and told that they could not find me, had hoped that I would be found.

After returning to existence, looking back there is no experience of non-existence to reflect on. Non-existence is not a dark experience, its no experience.

Metaphysically I think it could be argued, that the nature time may be such, that I passed rather instantaniously from one time and place to another. But, maybe while the people I left behind could not find me during three hours, I simply did not exist during that time.

However, it might be, I believe tradition advised people not to pray not to exist, because the idea for most everyone is so close to the idea of dying that most people can’t be clear about the difference. So, the intention to not to exist leads to a physical death instead of the miracle of being sent, by God.

When Jesus spoke of being sent by God in John chapter 8, I believe that it was about vanishing at one location and appearing at another, born from the spirit.

If you can trust that I am telling you the truth as I have experienced it, then I would hope that you might pray bigger. Prayer is an experimental science…

 

[AndyF]

geometer:

Is this a parable or did you really experience this? Sincerely, I’m not being critical.

I had a similar experience involving direct intervention when I was that age. Our teacher was an old spinster who liked to twist ears and expectantly knuckle wrap small hands with a wooden ruler. Bun in the hair, Colonel Klink monacle, permanent frown, one could see she was an unhappy lady. The principle was a mild mannered soft spoken wimp who didn’t want any trouble, but I felt he was troubled by her as well, and he would punish the children by her command no question asked. The children learn early. Either they strove to get on her good side or they were blacklisted and I was one of them.

I was behind in my memory of multiplication tables and she took great pleasure in using that for her torment and example for other children to redicule. (Actually, the terror for the most part was the cause of my not concentrating, something the psychiatric world knows of now). I was asked to go to the blackboard and mulitply a 4 digit number by a 3 digit. I took the chalk and asked God to help me. Looking down slightly trembling, I simply wrote numbers at random. Expecting a resounding laugh and an eraser to fly at me, there was complete silence.

“Ok Andy, children you will now turn to page…”

Still moving to my desk I waited for the usual, but nothing happened. I concluded I got it right… somehow.

However, it might be, I believe tradition advised people not to pray not to exist, because the idea for most everyone is so close to the idea of dying that most people can’t be clear about the difference.

I have no problem with understanding the difference and there is a difference. If they are people, then by their primal free choice they chose to be tested.

So, the intention to not to exist leads to a physical death instead of the miracle of being sent, by God.

Again, it doesn’t apply to my proposal. I am saying in the new procedure that God would allow, all differences and concerns regarding being to be resolved just prior to the soul being assigned at conception. So he cannot be faulted for a test that is not yet applied to him/it. He is not a “clay vessel”(Rom) as yet. If a being has any intention, then he has already agreed to being created and is created. There is no question that God can do what he pleases, even if He desires to punish this proto-soul for his choice for not wanting to impose or offend anyone, but then it wouldn’t be a sincere liberty would it? 'Sides, that would be out of character with the God the Church taught me about.

If you can trust that I am telling you the truth as I have experienced it, then I would hope that you might pray bigger. Prayer is an experimental science…

You mean as to your story? sure I have experienced many miracles myself. This is simply a dialectic supposition, I don’t feel a need to be rescued, but I appreciate the concern.

Andy

 

[geometer]

You mean as to your story? sure I have experienced many miracles myself. This is simply a dialectic supposition, I don’t feel a need to be rescued, but I appreciate the concern.

Well, I was rescued in that situation, but when I was about thirty I decided based on that experience to ask to be delivered from place to place at various times. And, I have been. Jesus spoke of being sent by the father. I believe that when he appeared in the upper room, that is what had happened, he was sent there by the father.

Jesus said that we must be born of spirit. He prayed that we be sent as he was sent by the father. The scriptures say that he who has been born of God has overcome the world.

It is also interesting to note that Paul said of himself that he had not overcome. But, in Acts chapter 8 Philip is sent from the side of the eunich to a nearby city.

An odd word was inserted in the KJV “palingenesis”. In that passage Jesus says that those who follow him in the palingenesis will rule with him. Some translators believe that this greek word means born again, although it was translated to english as regeneration…

 

[MindOverMatter]

This is still a claim made regarding a state that is unknown to every being.

Its not only unknown. It doesn’t exist.

Non existence may still be a concept that has it’s limitations of formulation in the mind. It is still a venture. Is the fact that Deity dips into it’s pool to obtain the substance for creation, maybe we should be concerned at expressing the liberty?.

I’m not sure what you mean in this paragraph.

What we do know is that to the person yet to be, all realization and decision making must arise at the point of existence.

When a person is actualised, as in being more then an idea, then that being has value. But its value is given by its creator. Its value has no meaning outside of its creator.

The best interest of the created is paramount here."

Its best interests is God. Humanities best interests, is its potentiality for heaven. Humanities ultimate value is completed in heaven, for human beings are created for heaven, and all morality exists for and is only meaningfull in respect of that end which is the union of humanity and God .

“it would be better that he were not born”

If God is good, and good is existence, then such a statement could only ever be relative and never absolute. What i mean is that, Gods nature means that it is good to exist.

I will answer the rest of you post at a later time.

 

[AndyF]

that being has value.

Something can have worth because it is valueless. We can only say that valuable happens to be our positive experience. Things of no value can have purpose. Creation in it’s simplest form may be simply a necessary transition from conceptual to substance. How it is acted upon is a separate matter.

I’m not sure what you mean in this paragraph.

We say we know nothing of it, but we take the liberty to grade it negatively relative to our state which is the general attitude that I don’t understand. We grade something that doesn’t exist. Because God obtains his material for the existing from it, then our liberty to do so is a venture.

its value is given by its creator. Its value has no meaning outside of its creator.

or no value. Can worthless things serve a purpose?

If God is good, and good is existence, then such a statement could only ever be relative and never absolute. What i mean is that, Gods nature means that it is good to exist.

As you say that the question of our existence is no interest to us but all is God’s, then there is none reserved for aware created. Now if even good is not a right or should be expected, it follows that it behooves any beings who are potentials for existence to better their position by picking existences that offer choice, for the logical reason that evil could also be the reality.

If this reasoning is unsound, then all democratic processes that adopt it are and the Church would not give it sanction. Families applying for passports to new nations have done their homework to ensure the risks are reasonable, but they have options. If fallible beings are capable of seeing the lessor good in this, how much more would it satisfy the infinite *good, as such procedure is solidly “bound on earth and in heaven.” *

Andy

 

[Biggie]

Is this simply a way to assert I am a mistake, please recall me?

Or does it point to the fact that I did not will myself into existence? And conversely that I cannot will myself out of, in the least, having existed? My existence, therefore, must either be an accident or the subject of another capable will. The Christian view would be that my existence, rather than an accident, was in fact willed by God, Himself. The will of God is absolute good. My existence is therefore good, and the lack of my existence is the opposite of good, evil.

 

[AndyF]

Is this simply a way to assert I am a mistake, please recall me?

No, I want the best for you and you and I are not mistakes. Nor do I wish I never existed nor am I not grateful for the abundance of graces I have, and I am sure you feel the same about yourself.

Or does it point to the fact that I did not will myself into existence? And conversely that I cannot will myself out of, in the least, having existed?

No. I can’t see anything wrong in allowing for a new option, the choice to exist. I think it solves more problems than it creates. Conversely, if given this choice you would not need the option(or to ask God) to not exist since you would be where you wanted to be,…here.

My existence, therefore, IS …

the subject of another capable will.

The Christian view would be that my existence, rather than an accident, was in fact willed by God, Himself.

yes

and the lack of my existence is …

IMHO, neutral. Are you sure it’s evil? It would seem to me that if you don’t exist there is nothing to assign negativity because your not existing makes the existing world good without you. In other words your saying that if God decided you should not exist and His will is good then your not existing is absolutely *good not evil. *Sorry if I don’t understand. :blush:I think evil would be a factor only if there is an obstruction to the will of God. I could be wrong.

Andy

 

[Biggie]

IMHO, neutral. Are you sure it’s evil? It would seem to me that if you don’t exist there is nothing to assign negativity because your not existing makes the existing world good without you. In other words your saying that if God decided you should not exist and His will is good then your not existing is absolutely *good not evil. *Sorry if I don’t understand. :blush:I think evil would be a factor only if there is an obstruction to the will of God. I could be wrong.

Andy

Yes, if God could will me not to exist, then my non-existence would be good - but he cannot since there would be no me to … non-will (?!?) I am only because of God’s will. The fact that I exist is the proof of his will, just as the fact creation exists is the proof of his will for creation to exist. And one step further, God would be dissatisfied with all creation were I not in it, since his perfect will includes my existence just as it includes the existence of all creation. IMHO.

 

[liquidpele]

Yes, if God could will me not to exist, then my non-existence would be good - but he cannot since there would be no me to … non-will (?!?) I am only because of God’s will. The fact that I exist is the proof of his will, just as the fact creation exists is the proof of his will for creation to exist. And one step further, God would be dissatisfied with all creation were I not in it, since his perfect will includes my existence just as it includes the existence of all creation. IMHO.

If there was a God, and he actually bothered to decide what should and should not exist in the current world, why did he create all the bad things? I’m not talking about life lesson bad things either, I’m talking about things like abortion. Why allow it… is he not willing it to exist then?

 

[geometer]

Yes, if God could will me not to exist, then my non-existence would be good - but he cannot since there would be no me to … non-will (?!?) IMHO.

You are wrong though, that is the only problem with what you are saying…

 

[AndyF]

liquidpele:

There is an intrinsic good in everything God creates but yes he tolerates evil. He allows it because it would interfere with our grace of free will. So if we abuse something, He tries to make up for it by creating a greater good out of it, but the person is still culpable of causing a deviation from God’s intent.

If the mother was raped and the baby is not wanted, perhaps God had a future plan for him and he wanted this child to make a big difference in the world. Now God had a backup Law that says we can’t kill, so that should ensure the baby’s safety. But the mother’s free will decides for abortion. This sets in motion events that weren’t planned, so God tries to mend the wrong in other ways.

Same for prisoners executed. Perhaps God wanted this person to eventually come around by repenting and causing some good through prayer and the limited acts he had available to him. Perhaps his prayers were destined for someone else who is also socially forgotten and would not otherwise have the advantage without it.

This is why the classification of evil shows itself when we do counter to God’s will. While here no person is entirely useless and situations entirely hopeless.

Andy

Thanks everyone for your contribution. Good points made all around.!

 

[TheWhim]

As MindOverMatter justly has said, non-existence has no rights. If a thing or a state does not exist it cannot possibly have rights. To have presupposes to be. – In other words, it would hardly fall short of a logical contradiction to affirm that God infringed on our rights when he chose to transfer us from the state of non-existence to the state of existence. Indeed, there is no such state of non-existence. Since we did not exist, we cannot be said to have had any rights God could have disregarded.

Existence is always preferable to extinction, says the church. This is no philosophic musing but a huge moral declaration. This is even the basis of morality. – If this doctrine would not stand at the beginning of all the other ones, they would become quite unjustifiable. What is wrong with murder, after all, if it cannot be said that murder might not be a favor because it leads the murdered to the blissful state of non-existence?(Of course, there is no such bliss; non-existence implies that there is nothing at all anymore.) If this extinction of all sentiments, all thoughts, all events is really the ultimate cause and goal of mankind, from whence it came and where it shall go, why, then, trouble about injustice, oppression, terror, abuse, treachery anymore? This, after all, would involve sentiments – which are existing – which are therefore wrong. Love, friendship, and all happy feelings likewise couldn’t be given the preference over those terrified feelings anymore because if extinction is the only standard by which to judge things, if existence is not better than extinction, everything becomes indifferent and human agony would be as welcome as human joy.

 

[geometer]

Existence is always preferable to extinction, says the church. This is no philosophic musing but a huge moral declaration. This is even the basis of morality. – If this doctrine would not stand at the beginning of all the other ones, they would become quite unjustifiable. What is wrong with murder, after all, if it cannot be said that murder might not be a favor because it leads the murdered to the blissful state of non-existence?(Of course, there is no such bliss; non-existence implies that there is nothing at all anymore.) If this extinction of all sentiments, all thoughts, all events is really the ultimate cause and goal of mankind, from whence it came and where it shall go, why, then, trouble about injustice, oppression, terror, abuse, treachery anymore? This, after all, would involve sentiments – which are existing – which are therefore wrong. Love, friendship, and all happy feelings likewise couldn’t be given the preference over those terrified feelings anymore because if extinction is the only standard by which to judge things, if existence is not better than extinction, everything becomes indifferent and human agony would be as welcome as human joy.

Existence was not prefered by me when I was ten, and surrounded by about 200 angry children throwing stones in my direction. I told God that I did not want to exist. In a few moments I failed to exist. There three hours later I was reborn of the spirit with the sunshine of a hot summer day shining through me, as my body became material.

I don’t think that you have the logic to address the power of God. You seem to have jumped to a number of false conclusions.

You only exist right now because God is allowing you to exist…

 

[Dameedna]

Existence is always preferable to extinction, says the church. This is no philosophic musing but a huge moral declaration. This is even the basis of morality. – If this doctrine would not stand at the beginning of all the other ones, they would become quite unjustifiable. What is wrong with murder, after all, if it cannot be said that murder might not be a favor because it leads the murdered to the blissful state of non-existence?(Of course, there is no such bliss; non-existence implies that there is nothing at all anymore.)

This may be conceptually true, however god has supposedly chosen certain people’s “non-existance” ie through his commands to kill, or his supposed punishments.

If he is alway’s good, then the non-existance of these people must be good. Yes, I know they DID exist then were extinguished, but their non-existance in this world, was chosen prematurely by a God. So there’s a contradiction going on here.

How is this contradiction reconciled if one is to say existance is alway’s preferable.?

cheers

 

[AndyF]

As MindOverMatter justly has said, non-existence has no rights. If a thing or a state does not exist it cannot possibly have rights. To have presupposes to be. –

However, mankind does make preparation and concession for the potential. Rights are conferred to unborn children, constitutions conferred to unborn nations,etc. I agree it must be real for rights to be given substance but they still can be assumed.

In other words, it would hardly fall short of a logical contradiction to affirm that God infringed on our rights when he chose to transfer us from the state of non-existence to the state of existence.

This is an appeal to ignorance and is a conclusion formulated in your mind. I am attempting to deal with the subject objectively as is the norm in theological/ontological discussion. It is not intended as a contradiction of what is, but by using the limited faculties at our disposal, to try to determine what could be that is a benefit to all concerned.

Existence is always preferable to extinction, says the church.

Which church’s principles are you extolling?

Yes it did. But the active word is, Preferable. Logic would conclude that the perception depends on what it offers and the risks involved with each entity, one an institution and the other an individual analyzing the pros and cons of the situation. In that respect, is it coincidental that the Church has nothing to lose, and the existing have something to lose.?

This is no philosophic musing but a huge moral declaration. etc…

Your observational selection loses me here. I am trying to understand the impact of allowing choice to existence with negative events. But following your reasoning, those murdering can’t murder if they don’t exist either, which brings us full circle to allowing choice to exist. Now we have that person who wasn’t given a choice to exist and murdered, and the same one who was and murdered still. But now it differs, since his judgment’s prosecution can additionally argue he promised to make a difference.

Andy

 

[budgie2]

I don’t get it. Why is non existence a state that is to be avoided?. Why does everyone feel that it is a state to be rescued from?.

Not having any memory of it, or not knowing what it was like to simply exist as a concept rolleyes, the Church expects my attitude to be that I am to breathe a sigh of relief in leaving it, and then becoming.

Personally, I know(gut feeling ) it was in no way worse than now unless of course non existence carried with it some hellish equivalent, or some controlling factor could have imposed an immediate threat to non-me(?), which I doubt. Whether it was better than now I can’t say.

Lastly, there remains the question if a conceptual non existent being is subject to a God at all. Does he need to be made substance before it applies?

So there is a conflict that arises just out of the reality of our conditions regardless of choices or acts. The platform for the non existent is one of universal justice involving rights, for Deity, from one of desire also involving rights. (I’m not saying God has no right to create.)

Until someone can provide evidence to the contrary, the condition is that conceptual us were taken from a state of conceptual contentment, with no risk element involved, where we were non intrusive to other states, and non effected to anything except for the threat that we can be brought into existence.

How is it worse than existence.? What universal law outside of those who are the opposing parties states that the right to create overrides the right to non exist.?

Andy

I have been thinking about this one with regards to contraception. I’m not a great believer in contraception. However, before a human being exists it does not have the same value. I am not like God. I didn’t exist from the beginning. I started to exist from the point I was made and from then on I had value. Before then I may have had value as a planned person in the mind of the Creator. Before I was planned by God, I had no value at all. So the use of a contraceptive can be justifiable according with conscience. However, the use of an abortifacient which destroys a human being, a life which has already begun is equal to murder.

 

[Biggie]

If there was a God, and he actually bothered to decide what should and should not exist in the current world, why did he create all the bad things? I’m not talking about life lesson bad things either, I’m talking about things like abortion. Why allow it… is he not willing it to exist then?

The bad things were not created by God, but are allowed by Him. They are allowed by God because He loves us.