Non Existence, explain this

[geometer]

Yahweh, the name for God in the Old Testament means “I am”. I don’t know what I’m talking about now.

Yhvh means something like eternal becomming. hvh is a root word meaning ‘to become’.

Yh is a name of God which means god from eternity.

The hebrew word “I am” is Ahyh, which can mean ‘I will be’.

Both names infer that God is the cause of being, and not simply being…

 

[Areopagite]

God cannot then will that I never have existed.

Prove that to us, all…

I think Biggie did prove it …

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.

Since God is out of time, he wills things only once. He can’t change his mind and hit the undo button. At such times in the Bible, where God seems to be changing his course of action, what’s really happening is that God “before time” had willed for one thing to happen at a particular time in our universe, and then willed something else at another time in our universe. He he willed this at the same time without logical contradiction, since he planned such events to happen at different times in our history. But for God, it is happening all at once, but his plan is put into action in a temporally successive way in history, and thus it seems to us, if we don’t think clearly enough, that God is changing his mind, but he really isn’t.

But if God decides to make someone to have never been in existence and yet has made them to exist, then that’s a logical contradiction, something that God is not capable of doing. This is because no matter what time in our history that someone exists, it will be in conflict to the divine decree that such a person should never be in existence. God can’t go against metaphysical necessity, just as he can’t make a square circle.

 

[geometer]

Since God is out of time, he wills things only once. He can’t change his mind and hit the undo button.

Where do these assumptions come from?

 

[geometer]

But if God decides to make someone to have never been in existence and yet has made them to exist, then that’s a logical contradiction, something that God is not capable of doing. This is because no matter what time in our history that someone exists, it will be in conflict to the divine decree that such a person should never be in existence. God can’t go against metaphysical necessity, just as he can’t make a square circle.

You are saying that you can create laws with necessary logic, which god must follow?

What if God breaks one of the laws that you have created for him to obey?

You cannot make a square circle, and he must be careful not to surprize you?

Is that it?

 

[Areopagite]

You are saying that you can create laws with necessary logic, which god must follow?

What if God breaks one of the laws that you have created for him to obey?

You cannot make a square circle, and he must be careful not to surprize you?

Is that it?

Well, I would not claim that I have created laws with necessary logic. Technically, it came from a book that I read that, in my experience, resonated with me. Or rather, it made sense to me and my intellect. I admit that I could be wrong, since, in the past, I have held erroneous opinions. Furthermore, I would say that the this idea that God must follow logical/metaphysical necessity is not something created by any human but something truly about God which we can discover by natural reason. I deal with the question with some rigor in the thread “What is our official position on God’s omnipotence?”

Correct me if I’m wrong. If you make a valid argument that shows that I am wrong about this, then I hope I will have the honesty to take back my position. Otherwise, you have no grounds to refute my argument. You have to prove, somehow, that God is above logic, though “proof” is intrinsically tied to logic, isn’t it? Unless you claim that God is above human logic and follows his own “divine” logic. But then, of course, you have to prove that God is above human logic, but of course, all proofs that we are capable of would use human logic, wouldn’t it? So, in essence, what makes you think that God is above logic? I used to believe that God could contradict himself, though … before I realized I was contradicting myself. But maybe contradicting yourself is okay. But if you’re right, then I’m wrong because I would be contradicting myself … but, of course, in that case, it would be okay. Right? You see? It just doesn’t make any sense if God is able to logically contradict himself because you would be contradicting yourself? (aaaaahh!)

Maybe I’m wrong. But if you can show me that it’s okay for God to contradict himself, then my argument falls to the ground. If you can’t, then there is no reason to deny my argument.

Once again, I deal with this in more detail in the thread “What is our official position on God’s omnipotence?” I love your objection, though.

 

[Biggie]

Prove that to us, all…

Really, this is just simple logic.

If that which exists comes into existence by God’s will…
and if I exist (have existed) …
then my existence is (was) a result of God’s will.

God cannot will and not will the same thing…
since God’s will would be nullified by his own “non-will”
and since that would imply God changed his mind
and since a change of mind implies a lack of prescience
therefore God’s will could be wrong (imperfect)
therefore God could not be God.

If I have existed (God’s will) … God cannot will me to never have existed (God’s non-will) … since God cannot will and not will the same thing.

That is a proof for y’all.

 

[geometer]

Really, this is just simple logic.

If that which exists comes into existence by God’s will…
and if I exist (have existed) …
then my existence is (was) a result of God’s will.

God cannot will and not will the same thing…
since God’s will would be nullified by his own “non-will”
and since that would imply God changed his mind
and since a change of mind implies a lack of prescience
therefore God’s will could be wrong (imperfect)
therefore God could not be God.

If I have existed (God’s will) … God cannot will me to never have existed (God’s non-will) … since God cannot will and not will the same thing.

That is a proof for y’all.

Sorry but none of that makes sense. Metaphysics does not flow from logic. Logic is not sufficient proof of existence. The scriptures tell us that God does change his mind on occasion.

 

[Biggie]

Sorry but none of that makes sense. Metaphysics does not flow from logic. Logic is not sufficient proof of existence. The scriptures tell us that God does change his mind on occasion.

You asked for a proof and I gave a logical argument as proof. You can dispute the proof by showing a flaw in the logic.

You respond that it “does not make sense” to you (or that it is illogical) without demonstrating the flaw in the logic. Then you doubt that logic can be offered as a proof. So you are responding that the argument is both logical and illogical. Metaphysics does not “flow from logic”, but is revealed by logic. Logic is a tool. And to the extent that scripture has God changing his mind, one can safely say it is an anthropomorphism on the part of the author to readily grasp and explain God’s activity.

But reason with me … yes, God is not bound by human logic, however it is clearly God’s intention to be known by human beings. For this he has revealed himself in scripture. Also for this , he has equipped us with the faculty of reason, a tool of which is logic. God does not obey logic, but rather uses logic as a means of access.

While all that is true about God cannot be known by logic, what can be known about God by logic must be true … else God is wholly capricious. In that case, God would have provided us with a means of arguing to truth, and would have chosen not to appeal to that means. But the God of scripture is the source of all truth, and truth is immutable. What can be known by logic to be true must be true of the God of scripture.

 

[geometer]

What can be known by logic to be true must be true of the God of scripture.

You do not know the limits of logic. One can only know reality through experience.

 

[Areopagite]

There’s a whole lot of abuse going on here with the term “logic.” A lot of people are equivocating it with the word “reason.” Logic, in its more proper sense, is “the form of reason” and has to do with showing how different proposed statements are consistent with each other. Logic by itself is absolutely nothing. Logic requires premises. Those premises could be false, and yet the argument could still be logical if it uses valid logical forms. “Reason” does not solely include logic, but, for example, also includes self-evident principles and the ability to abstract the intelligible forms of material substances (that might sound scary to some people … like me). As Chesterton said, one can be very logical about faeries, though one’s premise regarding the existence of faeries might be wrong.

Certain things about God *can be known *by natural reason and divine revelation (so I claim … and others). If this is true, then we can also verify other claims about God by seeing if they are in logical harmony with the given knowledge we do have of God.

If you deny that we can know anything about God, well then that’s a different story.

If, however you claim that some things can be known about God, then there is no reason for you to deny the validity of logic when those knowable truths are put into logical syllogisms. If you do deny logic in this way, and in any way, you contradict yourself instantly.

I am curious. **Some people obviously believe that God is above logic. ** Why? Where are they getting this? There must be some reason for this, right? What revealed truth have they received that I have not? I cannot conceive why they would say this, and yet perhaps they are just wiser than me. Why, oh, why are they saying this? What tipped them off? Who told that to them?

 

[geometer]

Who told that to them?

You can know God through experience of God. Truth about God comes directly from experience. I do not believe that pure reason can tell us anything about reality. Reality must be experienced.

There are many forms of logic and there is no reason to believe that logical forms limit God.

 

[Areopagite]

You can know God through experience of God. Truth about God comes directly from experience. I do not believe that pure reason can tell us anything about reality. Reality must be experienced.

I think I more or less agree with you here … on some things here.

But before I dissect this, would you claim that ANY knowledge (e.g. about the natural world or whatever) comes directly from experience. For you say “Reality must be experienced.” Thus, would you have to travel to other countries before you know about them? Granted that you know a country better by experiencing it … but isn’t it also true that you can know some things about the country from not experiencing the country. If “Reality must be experienced” then is logic good for anything?

Depending on what you mean by “pure reason” I might agree that pure reason can’t tell us anything about reality. “Pure reason” I assume means “reason without faith.” But perhaps that’s not your use of the term “pure reason.” Maybe, you mean it to be “experience.” In that case, I would disagree. Though experience is valuable and even necessary for knowledge, I also believe you can take that experience, analyze it, and draw logical conclusions from it. That’s really the kind of thing that happens in science. They draw logical conclusions from observed and experienced data. Would your view that “reality must be experienced” excommunicate science from the realm of possible human knowledge?

There are many forms of logic and there is no reason to believe that logical forms limit God.

I address the issue of multiple logical systems in a previous reply. Here is the link to it: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5372510&postcount=6

It may be a bit confusing. I don’t blame you if you didn’t read it, nor will I blame you if you don’t read it this time. I do that to other people’s confusing posts all the time.

Nor will I blame you if you are still unconvinced after you read it. I would be interested to know why, of course.

In essence, the argument goes like this: even though there are many valid logical systems, they are derived from LOGIC in the broad sense, that is “The Form of Reason.” Therefore, if an argument is invalid in one logical system, it is invalid in all logical systems. Thus, the reason for holding that God isn’t bound by logic because there are many forms of logic isn’t tenable.

Furthermore, there IS a reason to believe that logic limits God. If logic didn’t limit God, then nothing about God could be known. You could say that you could learn things about God from experiences of God … like, that He exists. But since God would allegedly be above logic, it is possible for God to choose to have never existed (sure that doesn’t make sense, but that’s the consequence of a divinity above logic). In which case, your experience would be wrong.

Don’t get me wrong. I think experience is important. But I believe further truths can be known that are drawn from experience, so long as the conclusions flow logically from experience. No?

 

[geometer]

Depending on what you mean by “pure reason” I might agree that pure reason can’t tell us anything about reality. “Pure reason” I assume means “reason without faith.” But perhaps that’s not your use of the term “pure reason.” Maybe, you mean it to be “experience.” In that case, I would disagree. Though experience is valuable and even necessary for knowledge, I also believe you can take that experience, analyze it, and draw logical conclusions from it. That’s really the kind of thing that happens in science. They draw logical conclusions from observed and experienced data. Would your view that “reality must be experienced” excommunicate science from the realm of possible human knowledge?

Scientific knowledge is solely based on experience. Logic is used in science to describe the observed actions. Newton used the calculus to develop his celestial mechanics. It is perfectly logical but does give an accurate description of the orbit of Mercury.

Einstein said that logic is the servant and intuition the gift.

I do not see why you can completely confident in logic as a source of knowledge, when it clearly is not at all that. Logic is simply a method of description.

 

[geometer]

It is said that two things can not occupy the same space at the same time. People will use logic to make such a statement a dogma. Creating dogma from logic is sophomoric.

When electromagnetic waves were studied it was found that radio waves do occupy the same space at the same time. So again, the truth about reality came to us from experience, not logic…

 

[Biggie]

You do not know the limits of logic. One can only know reality through experience.

I have never experienced ancient Rome. Am I to doubt its reality?

 

[Biggie]

It is said that two things can not occupy the same space at the same time. People will use logic to make such a statement a dogma. Creating dogma from logic is sophomoric.

When electromagnetic waves were studied it was found that radio waves do occupy the same space at the same time. So again, the truth about reality came to us from experience, not logic…

Logic tests dogma, just as it tests experience. It creates neither.

 

[AndyF]

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 are saying it is better because of an ideal, not reality. The reality is that everything that God creates is a good, but a lessor good, otherwise we would be like God. Those aspects that makes us differ creates a state where all risk is ours. To reiterate, the good of existence for the created must be examined in light of what it has to offer to the created, and weighed against it’s potentials and risks. This is also because existence is intrinsically linked with justice, and justice involves social relations.

There is no argument that existence is good for God, but coincidentally there is no risk to God, nor is there potential for Him has God already possess what he desires, and can not be effected by what he already knows will happen. So one cannot really argue the good of existence for the created by the example of good of existence for the Creator. Impose the risks and potentials on Him, (or on Himself?), then draw the same argument.

I’m deviating this thread here, but this topic is also linked with Universal Justice. The case of creatures and God do not have a parallel. So in our case it is a case more of a powerful being who dictates to a lessor being and will always be so in a mono universe, otherwise we could bring this debate to a panel of gods with their respective creations and obtain a consensus.

All the same, just one small change could justify hell, the choice of existence.

Andy

 

[Biggie]

You are saying it is better because of an ideal, not reality. The reality is that everything that God creates is a good, but a lessor good, otherwise we would be like God. Those aspects that makes us differ creates a state where all risk is ours. To reiterate, the good of existence for the created must be examined in light of what it has to offer to the created, and weighed against it’s potentials and risks. This is also because existence is intrinsically linked with justice, and justice involves social relations.

There is no argument that existence is good for God, but coincidentally there is no risk to God, nor is there potential for Him has God already possess what he desires, and can not be effected by what he already knows will happen. So one cannot really argue the good of existence for the created by the example of good of existence for the Creator. Impose the risks and potentials on Him, (or on Himself?), then draw the same argument.

Andy

And as it is written we are made in God’s image: immortal, creative, free. We are not necessary to God, as you have intimated, except that God has willed our necessity, which you have overlooked.

At the end, accepting God for who he is, one can only conclude we were made out of love, that the happiness God experiences might be shared. We were made for our own happiness, and to share our happiness with the material universe as God shares his with us.

The “risk” condition you envision as to the human being was created by knowing human violation of the condition of his nature: that although like God in all things that can be conveyed by a creator to a creature, he cannot himself simultaneously be the creator, the prime being.

The “risk” God endures is the risk any lover undertakes for his beloved.

 

[Areopagite]

You are saying it is better because of an ideal, not reality.

I’m saying “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” is not only an ideal but also a reality.

The reality is that everything that God creates is a good, but a lesser good, otherwise we would be like God.

Depending on what you mean by the phrase “we would be like God,” this can be true or false. If you mean it to be “having all perfections” then we are not like God (that’s why we are less in goodness … because we don’t have all of God’s perfections … but we do have some). If you mean “having some of the perfections that God has” then we are like God. We all want to be more like God but sometimes we do it in the wrong ways. Adam and Eve wanted to be more like God, but they were convinced to try and be like God in such a way that excluded God, which is absurd, and thus evil. Nonetheless, the life of grace makes us more like God. It fulfills that desire that Adam and Eve had but in a good and actually possible way.

There is no argument that existence is good for God, but coincidentally there is no risk to God, nor is there potential for Him has God already possess what he desires, and can not be effected by what he already knows will happen.

One long-standing scholastic (and perhaps earlier in theology too … I don’t know) idea is that God is perfectly simple in his existence. That is, for example, his justice and mercy and will and knowledge and all that are all exactly one. When we distinguish between God’s justice and mercy, it is a virtual distinction in our mind. It is not distinguished in God. God’s existence, as Catholic theologians have long spoken, is also indistinguishable from everything else in God. That is, his existence and essence are the same. To say that God’s existence is not good (or bad) is also to say that all of God is not good (or bad). I don’t think we want to say that.

Now, of course, in creatures, our essence is not intrinsically connected to our existence. But we are complex creatures, where divisions such as those are possible. In God, he is perfectly simple, and His existence IS His Essence, and vice versa.

Those aspects that makes us differ creates a state where all risk is ours.

To reiterate, the good of existence for the created must be examined in light of what it has to offer to the created, and weighed against it’s potentials and risks.

Also, you talk about how there is “risk” in our existence (of going to “hell”), and so it should be our choice to exist or not, so as to make it more just, for then we would have the responsibility of our damnation should we end up there, because we could have avoided it in the first place by rejecting existence (this is your argument, right?).

However, this only make a little bit of sense if “risk” meant a danger that we were not in control of … that the risk of going to hell is entirely random and having nothing to do with whether we choose to go there or not. Ultimately, though, in a sense, we are in control … we can choose to push the grace away or not. Therefore, our going to hell is not a risk (in the sense of a danger out of our control) but really our own fault. That’s where the justice comes in. It’s not like damnation is a “Oops! Darn! The dice didn’t roll right! Oh, well, I chose to play this game, so I get I accept my fate.” Our ultimate choice is not to exist or not … our choice is to exist with God or not.

All the same, just one small change could justify hell, the choice of existence.

If I’m reading you correctly, this really doesn’t make any sense. How can you be given the choice to exist or not before you exist? Choice is only capable of creatures who exist.

If you mean something like: we are first brought into existence and are given the initial choice to continue to exist or not, and if we choose yes, then we eventually go to heaven or hell … OR we choose not to continue to exist then we go into non-existence. Perhaps that is what you mean.

Of course, if they reject existence, they reject God, who is existence itself, of course, and thus would be liable for hell.

In conclusion, since God is good, and he is entirely simple in his being, His existence is identical to His essence. Creatures partake of some of God’s perfections, including existence, which, since it is a perfection of God, is good. The souls in hell, which exist, have more goodness by virtue of their existence than things which do not exist. Because of that, the order of justice does not demand that any rational creatures first be given a choice to exist or not.

 

[AndyF]

I’m saying "Existence is better than non-existence, because existence is a perfection God has…

Non-existence can be perfect in it’s attribute has the sole state of limitless nothingness, a non contained void if you will, not tainted by any sub atomic inclusion of existence, the absolute opposite of existence. It is perfect in it’s category of what can be described as degrees of non-existence…nothingness.

Therefore, in this argument you will need to prove existence’s opposite is of lessor perfection, and here the definition is, (Webster- the highest or most nearly perfect degree of a quality or trait). So the issue this argument presents becomes respectively, the perfection in the trait of everything. vs .the perfection of the trait of absolute nothingness.

Even if it bore out that non existence is perfect which it is, then you will need to prove that a being possessing the perfection of existence is “Better” than one possessing the perfection of non existence, but only then. Still, you would need to define the parameters of what Better is that is acceptable to both parties involved and you haven’t done that yet.

To say that God’s existence is not good (or bad) is also to say that all of God is not good (or bad). I don’t think we want to say that.

Why wouldn’t we?

The argument is non sequitur.

Therefore, our going to hell is not a risk (in the sense of a danger out of our control) but really our own fault. That’s where the justice comes in. It’s not like damnation is a “Oops! Darn! The dice didn’t roll right! Oh, well, I chose to play this game, so I get I accept my fate.” Our ultimate choice is not to exist or not … our choice is to exist with God or not.

How can we have confidence in a preventive tool that is designed to have various effects?. More importantly how is this fact alone a positive influence in the hypothetical choice of existence? Logically it’s not reliable. It can only be designated a deflated life saver until we are certain.

You will note control isn’t granted in the purpose of acheivement. This too is for our betterment. I can try to control through merit my destiny but that is disqualified.

Even from base logic, it is better to avoid a risk that offers uncertainty than not to take one that offers guaranteed certainty in certain areas: non effect, conceptual contentment, non intrusiveness, eternity.

Name someone who has attained perfection in this world who hasn’t been deliberately made so? I’ll even extend your time frame and make that from the beginning of time.

If I’m reading you correctly, this really doesn’t make any sense. How can you be given the choice to exist or not before you exist? Choice is only capable of creatures who exist.

And if God desires/ed this method?

How do you reconcile this limitation you impose with God’s ability to do anything? Perhaps he can’t make things not exist either? Never been proven.

Of course, if they reject existence, they reject God, who is existence itself, of course, and thus would be liable for hell.

Then he would be implementing choice when there wasn’t any, then, assigning punishment for one of the options chosen. Your describing an ogre, not the God I know.

The souls in hell, which exist, have more goodness by virtue of their existence than things which do not exist.

Using your logic in previous arguments, something can not have more goodness than nothing.

Andy