B
Biggie
Guest
The part about I am only because God willed me to be? The part about the concordance with God’s will being the source of good? The problem with what you are saying is that you aren’t saying it.
- Status
G
geometer
Guest
You had written that God can not will you not to exist. He can do just that…
A
Areopagite
Guest
There are two kinds of non-existence, says Aquinas, and they are usually called …
Negation: When there is an absence of a thing that does not necessarily have to be there
Privation: When there is an absence of a thing that should be there
For example, blindness among humans is a privation because humans should be able to see. The ability to fly, on the other hand, for humans, is a negation because human nature is not intrinsically designed for levitation (as opposed to sight).
You can also say, that privations are evil. Privations are not necessarily moral evils … but a lack of something that prevents completeness if a thing.
Goodness pertains to the fulfillment/completeness of an existence. For example, it is good for a man to have sight, because sight is necessary for him to be a complete human being (otherwise, technically he would be lacking something).
However, there is extra goodness that can be achieved, such as a human’s ability to fly. You could call this a grace or … I forget the word (preternatural … ?). Anyway, though such things are not necessary for the completion of a thing’s existence/nature, it still is an added bonus … an extra power that comes from God … an additional perfection that is better than not having it. It is better because when we (or anything) receives more perfections we become more like God, who has all perfections. We become complete in a supernatural (or in some cases merely preternatural) way. Growing in God’s image and likeness is good, no? And it is always preferred to not growing in God’s image and likeness.
In that,** we see existence is better than non-existence, for to exist is to be more like God. **It is not necessary for God to create us, for our initial non-existence is a negation, and not a privation, but he choses to grace much of his ideas of beings into existence as a gift (not a necessity). And once again, it is better for something to exist, because it then becomes more like God.
Now, another important thing is that if someone fails and goes to hell … is it not better that they never existed in the first place? No. *People in hell are more fortunate than those who do not exist altogether. * And it is because they exist. Various writings of mystics have attested to this.
*What about the passage when Christ says that it would have been better if Judas had never been born? * Does this not seem to disprove what I said? I don’t think so. There are two ways to interpret this passage correctly, I think …
Negation: When there is an absence of a thing that does not necessarily have to be there
Privation: When there is an absence of a thing that should be there
For example, blindness among humans is a privation because humans should be able to see. The ability to fly, on the other hand, for humans, is a negation because human nature is not intrinsically designed for levitation (as opposed to sight).
You can also say, that privations are evil. Privations are not necessarily moral evils … but a lack of something that prevents completeness if a thing.
Goodness pertains to the fulfillment/completeness of an existence. For example, it is good for a man to have sight, because sight is necessary for him to be a complete human being (otherwise, technically he would be lacking something).
However, there is extra goodness that can be achieved, such as a human’s ability to fly. You could call this a grace or … I forget the word (preternatural … ?). Anyway, though such things are not necessary for the completion of a thing’s existence/nature, it still is an added bonus … an extra power that comes from God … an additional perfection that is better than not having it. It is better because when we (or anything) receives more perfections we become more like God, who has all perfections. We become complete in a supernatural (or in some cases merely preternatural) way. Growing in God’s image and likeness is good, no? And it is always preferred to not growing in God’s image and likeness.
In that,** we see existence is better than non-existence, for to exist is to be more like God. **It is not necessary for God to create us, for our initial non-existence is a negation, and not a privation, but he choses to grace much of his ideas of beings into existence as a gift (not a necessity). And once again, it is better for something to exist, because it then becomes more like God.
Now, another important thing is that if someone fails and goes to hell … is it not better that they never existed in the first place? No. *People in hell are more fortunate than those who do not exist altogether. * And it is because they exist. Various writings of mystics have attested to this.
*What about the passage when Christ says that it would have been better if Judas had never been born? * Does this not seem to disprove what I said? I don’t think so. There are two ways to interpret this passage correctly, I think …
- It would have been better if Judas had failed to be born (i.e. died before his birth … in the womb of course) than to have sinned such a great sin and damn his soul to hell.
- [and this is theological controversial, and I don’t know if I agree with this] Better to die in the womb (and go to heaven as an infant) than sin such a great sin and suffer such an excruciating punishment in purgatory (just in case Judas managed to go to heaven in God’s infinite mercy somehow) … this possibility of course brings into question the reality of limbo for unbaptized infants (and I am undecided on the issue personally)
B
Biggie
Guest
No. The I in me only becomes me when God wills it. Once I am, because he willed me, he cannot unwill me lest he contradict himself. If he could unwill me, he could not be God since his first decision to will me would have been made in error and trumped by his second decision. God cannot decide that I should be and not be at the same time.
G
geometer
Guest
You should not stand in judgement of God.
B
Biggie
Guest
That is a silly response to a valid philosophical argument. That which can be known of God is known because God wishes it to be known.
B
budgie2
Guest
I found this interesting. Just to go back to the OP, why would anybody want the right to not exist and does this not equate to the right to suicide or euthanasia? Basically the right to not exist is a form of nihilism/ absence of life. God is life, so life is a good thing however, certainly if I do not yet exist I do not have full human rights at that point. Absence of life would be a form of hell and would also mean absence of God.
G
geometer
Guest
You do not have a valid philosophical argument. God can will you to exist and also to not exist. Its all up to him. You can not argue that because you exist you know what his will is. Before you were born he may have intended that you only exist temporarily, and also there are instances where God has changed his mind on very important matters. The destruction of Sodom and Gemorah is one of those, and he had also repented that he had chosen the Israelites, and Moses interceeded.
Also, H’enoch did not die but was taken up by God. H’enoch is also mentioned in the new testament as righteous because he was translated from the world, without dying.
G
geometer
Guest
No
No, Jewish mystics tell us that God in the highest sense is no-thing, and does not have existence as do ordinary things that have been created…
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
That depends on what you believe God to be.
I believe God is as such that he created people in-oder to fullfill them as people.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
God is existence
B
Biggie
Guest
Having trouble with your logic … I can certainly and do argue that if I can exist only by God’s will, then the fact that I do exist is evidence that he wills me to exist. Therefore as to my existence I know his will. If anything else were the case, then I must be able to come into existence by accident without God’s cooperation - and then my existence would not make a statement as to God’s will, but God would not be God.
Furthermore, even if I exist temporarily, I have existed. The fact that I have existed demonstrates God’s will that I exist (see above). God cannot then will that I never have existed. To do so would indicate that God’s will is divided within itself, therefore fallible.
As to H’enoch - H’enough already.
T
TheWhim
Guest
Dameedna has written:
Well, the Church teaches that people who are killed, that is, who leave their earthly abode, do not fall into non-existence, nor does the Church teach that God inflicts such a punishment as non-existence. People who leave their bodies, whether punished or not, either go to purgatory, heaven or hell.
G
geometer
Guest
That is pantheism. In order to avoid pantheism, it is said that everything that exists is within god, and god is somehow within everything, panentheism. God is not simply being but is at the ground of being, the cause of all being…
D
Dameedna
Guest
My response was written to a person that claimed they never existed.
And quite frankly, non-existance would be a greater “good” than hell.
Of course, that is a matter of personal opinion
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
I never said God is the universe. I said God is existence. Anything that comes into existence, anything that physically changes, participates in existence.
Existence is in everything neccesarilly, since existence is neccesary for everything. But not everything is existence by its fundemetal nature of being. There is only one existence. There is only one God.
Existence is the eternal “Expression”. You, me and all universes are the manifestations of that eternal expression.
B
budgie2
Guest
You could say that God is essence, from the verb essere “to be”. So God is the source of life, and is being. Yahweh, the name for God in the Old Testament means “I am”. Existentialists believe that existence preceeds essence, however Christianity believes that essence preceeds existence. I don’t know what I’m talking about now.
A
AndyF
Guest
Areopagite:
“Better”. Implies analysis of one’s own position respective of everything else. I can create a sentient aware intelligent machine and I determined it was good. This entity’s non existence is a negation as far as I am concerned. We can change what is Better very easily by the state of each entity involved here. If I placed torture circuitry inside that entity, then in respect of my being able to feel makes my position Better. However, if I were to deliberately have a similar circuitry implanted in myself, my position is no longer better. If the risk is also mine, there is no better way to express my total love for my creation than to cause an equivalent risk in myself. (Or if I were to say to this entity it was possible to become perfect, it would encourage him if in the 20 trillion entities so far that I created so far there were at least one that achieved it.)
Andy
“Better”. Implies analysis of one’s own position respective of everything else. I can create a sentient aware intelligent machine and I determined it was good. This entity’s non existence is a negation as far as I am concerned. We can change what is Better very easily by the state of each entity involved here. If I placed torture circuitry inside that entity, then in respect of my being able to feel makes my position Better. However, if I were to deliberately have a similar circuitry implanted in myself, my position is no longer better. If the risk is also mine, there is no better way to express my total love for my creation than to cause an equivalent risk in myself. (Or if I were to say to this entity it was possible to become perfect, it would encourage him if in the 20 trillion entities so far that I created so far there were at least one that achieved it.)
Andy
A
Areopagite
Guest
I am not entirely sure what you’re saying here. Forgive me if I misinterpret.
You say “better” implies analysis of one’s own position respective of everything else. Um. I don’t think so. If I mean, of course, that A is better than everything else, then yes. But if I mean, A is better than B, I am saying that A is simply better than B, and not everything else. What I was saying in my argument is that existence is better than non-existence, because existence is a perfection that God has, and having it makes us more like God, and thus increases our goodness.
You claim that you can create a sentient aware intelligent machine … but of course I contend that (and have been doing so in our discussion on the thread about A.I.)
. Thus, I don’t think you could “torture” a machine.Perhaps the first part to resolving this discussion requires the fulfillment of our A.I. debate.
I might have missed the point you were trying to make. I apologize.
G
geometer
Guest
Prove that to us, all…
- Status