The Atheistic Explanation for the Mystery of Existence

[hangnail]

There are two senses of the statement ‘Nothing exists.’ One says of something—nothing—that it exists. Another says ‘It is not the case that anything exists’.

You get an “A.”

If one knows that God exists necessarily, then one knows that it is not possible that nothing exists (in the second sense).

Agreed. That’s the conclusion I come to whenever I ponder this question. I’m basically a believer because it seems impossible to me that God cannot exist. (But I’m trying very hard to become an atheist. Unfortunately, I just cannot undo this belief.)

 

[rossum]

So Buddhism is just another mythology like the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians had.

No transcendent Creator God.

Here is one of the Buddhist gods describing himself:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

– Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1

Like the other gods in Buddhism he is pretty much ignored. He cannot attain nirvana for me; that is something I have to do for myself.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God is not an instance of a genus.

Why not? A genus may contain only a single entity: “The tallest man in New York city”.

There is only one God.

Many other religions disagree with you.

If you do not understand that, then you do not understand theism.

Monotheism has a single God. Other religions may have many gods.

We must postulate a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings.

Are the actions of a necessary being necessary actions or contingent actions? If they are necessary, then the action of creating contingent beings is necessary, and hence those contingent beings are also necessary. If those actions are not necessary, then we can separate the necessary being from the contingent actions and ask the same question again. That gives an infinite regress. How do you make the transition from necessary to contingent? That is not an easy question to answer.

Also, the idea of a necessary being does appear in Buddhism. It’s called the “Dharmakaya.”

I am aware of the Dharmakaya. You need to be aware that, like other advanced concepts in Buddhist philosophy, all descriptions of the Dharmakaya are incorrect. Any description of the Dharmakaya is in a contingent, temporary, changeable human language. Hence it must be incorrect:

• Does the Dharmakaya exist? No.

• Does the Dharmakaya not-exist? No.

• Does the Dharmakaya both exist and not-exist? No.

• Does the Dharmakaya neither exist not not-exist? No.

Zen uses a different approach to the same concept:

The master Tozan was weighing some flax. A monk came up to him in
the storeroom and said, “Tell me, what is Buddha?”

Tozan answered, “Here: five pounds of flax.”

rossum

 

[tdgesq]

I am proposing that there might be an atheistic explanation for this question: Albeit, the explanation might appear to be nothing more than a play of words. The reason why there is something rather than nothing is because it is impossible for “nothing” to exist by definition.

Philosophically speaking, the term “nothing” means “not anything” or “no existence or being.” So while it’s technically incorrect to ask questions like “why doesn’t nothing exist,” it still gets used that way sometimes.

The only way “nothing” can exist, and then not even as an ontological reality, is as a being of reason in the mind - a concept. As an ontological reality, it’s just no being, no existence.

I also believe that it is impossible for nothing to exist. However, my reasoning is different. I believe it is impossible because God is a necessary being and God’s essence is existence itself.

A necessary being vis a vis the possibility of nothingness? That almost sounds like the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, of which I’m not a big fan.

Note: The theist is obligated to explain why God exists. Why? Because God is something, not nothing.

I don’t understand why that would be required when the assumed starting point is that “nothing” is metaphysically impossible. It seems like the burden would be on the one asserting that nothingness is a real alternative.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is one of the Buddhist gods describing himself:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

– Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1

Like the other gods in Buddhism he is pretty much ignored. He cannot attain nirvana for me; that is something I have to do for myself.

rossum

Then he is really not much help as a god, which is ironic considering how magnificently he describes himself. Christians also believe they have to attain Nirvana (Heaven) but they believe they have a Creator who is willing to help them if they are willing to receive his help.

By the way, when did Brahma utter these words, and to whom did he utter them?

Was the Brahma uncreated? Is he eternal? If so, why is he so ignored? And where does he say that you have to attain Nirvana without his help?

 

[runningdude]

This is not entirely true. We can experience the mystical state of pure awareness which is devoid of any content. “Samadhi” is the Sanskrit term that is employed to define this state. (In a very true sense, “you” can experience nothing.)

Why God could certainly provide a mystical experience of nothing, that is predicated on their being a god, and a someone to experience that nothing; thus there can be no compelling proof that nothing could exist, because the very existence of an agent to experience nothing brings doubt to the argument.

No, this is not true. The theist does have an explanation. In fact, I have already provided an explanation in the OP of this thread. (For more details, see the OP of my thread entitled “Why there is something rather than nothing?”)

You and I have made the same argument regarding the existence of God. The Atheist, simply makes the same claim about the existence of anything, and is indifferent to whether that anything is ultimately created by God.

 

[polytropos]

I’m basically a believer because it seems impossible to me that God cannot exist. (But I’m trying very hard to become an atheist. Unfortunately, I just cannot undo this belief.)

Can I ask why? Why do you find it impossible that God cannot exist (since ‘Nothing exists’ only implies a contradiction given that God exists, so your reason in the OP would not suffice as a reason for believing that God exists)? Given that you believe God exists, why are you trying to become an atheist? Do you hold that God is supremely good and that toward which all things tend (as, a scholastic would claim, is a corollary of traditional arguments for God’s existence)?

 

[polytropos]

Nothing cannot exist because nothing is the absence of existence.

In post #12, I identified two senses of the statement ‘Nothing exists’. It appears that what you are saying relies on the first analysis.

Or would you affirm the following statement? ‘It is not possible that it is not the case that something exists because total non-existence is the absence of existence.’ This would be equivalent to ‘Necessarily something exists because total non-existence is the absence of existence.’ That does not seem very plausible.

 

[hangnail]

No.

There’s a user on the forum whose SN is Bahman and who also loves philosophical questions.

ICXC NIKA.

What’s the problem with asking a philosophical question on a philosophy forum?

 

[hangnail]

You are correct that it is logically impossible for nothing to exist, since nothing is not an object. It cannot be an objective truth because nothing is the absence of objective truth entirely; in fact it is absence of truth and cannot produce any truth, and that is to say nothing can be true about nothing. Nothing cannot exist because nothing is the absence of existence.

The Problem Of Nothing

Nothing is meaningful only insofar as we are comparing the absence of things that could potentially exist in relation to things that do exist or insofar as we are comparing the metaphysically impossible to that which is metaphysically possible. The word nothing is purely a comparative concept, it is not an ontology.

1) Now; the fact that nothing cannot ontologically exist cannot in itself cause any particular thing you can imagine to exist. Out of nothing comes nothing and thus efficient causality has to be considered although something does have to exist. We cannot assume that the Universe in particular exists just because nothing cannot exist.

But what we can say is that there is a being that has the explanation of own existence within its own nature. In other words the **act of existence **is its nature; it is its nature to be the antithesis of nothing. However anything that changes, anything that is in a state of “becoming” cannot be the antithesis of nothing since that which is the antithesis of nothing does not change because it is necessary in every aspect. It does not become anything else; it does not come “into” existence because it is existence.

2) That which comes into existence is contingent upon the antithesis of nothing in order to be real because it does not have in its own nature the necessity of existence, otherwise it would necessarily exist.

3) That which is finite in dimension cannot be the antithesis of nothing since there is nowhere where nothingness can exist. Thus the antithesis of nothing permeates everything and transcends any form of finiteness.
**
The Atheist would have to show that the universe is in fact the antithesis of nothing.**

I like your answer. Good post.

 

[hangnail]

Why not?

There’s a difference between “God” and “gods.” God is not an instance of a genus; gods are.

Many other religions disagree with you.

I disagree with most religions. And I suspect that you do too.

Monotheism has a single God. Other religions may have many gods.

Monotheism, polytheism, pantheism can be forms of theism. But the term theism can also refer specifically to monontheism.

Merriam-Webster defines “theism” as “belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.”

Are the actions of a necessary being necessary actions or contingent actions? If they are necessary, then the action of creating contingent beings is necessary, and hence those contingent beings are also necessary. If those actions are not necessary, then we can separate the necessary being from the contingent actions and ask the same question again. That gives an infinite regress. How do you make the transition from necessary to contingent? That is not an easy question to answer.

I think you might have something there. Or, you might be making an argument that’s just a play on words (like the atheistic explanation in the OP). God’s existence is not dependent on finite beings for his existence. But finite beings are ultimately dependent on God for theirs. That’s the difference between infinite being and finite being.

I am aware of the Dharmakaya. You need to be aware that, like other advanced concepts in Buddhist philosophy, all descriptions of the Dharmakaya are incorrect. Any description of the Dharmakaya is in a contingent, temporary, changeable human language.

They have the same thing in theology. It’s called cataphatic (positive) theology and apophatic (negative) theology. The bottom line is the “dharmakaya” seems to smack of some kind of divine reality.

In the tathagatagarbha sutric tradition, the Dharmakaya is taught by the Buddha to constitute the transcendental, blissful, eternal, and pure Self of the Buddha

(source: Wikipedia: Dharmakaya)

 

[ChainBreaker]

In post #12, I identified two senses of the statement ‘Nothing exists’. It appears that what you are saying relies on the first analysis.

Or would you affirm the following statement? ‘It is not possible that it is not the case that something exists because total non-existence is the absence of existence.’ This would be equivalent to ‘Necessarily something exists because total non-existence is the absence of existence.’ That does not seem very plausible.

I said nothing cannot “exist”.

 

[hangnail]

The only way “nothing” can exist, and then not even as an ontological reality, is as a being of reason in the mind - a concept. As an ontological reality, it’s just no being, no existence.

Yes, the concept of “nothing” exists as an abstraction in the mind. But an abstraction is something.

A necessary being vis a vis the possibility of nothingness? That almost sounds like the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, of which I’m not a big fan.

It’s more like the argument from contingency.

I don’t understand why that would be required when the assumed starting point is that “nothing” is metaphysically impossible. It seems like the burden would be on the one asserting that nothingness is a real alternative.

It’s metaphysically impossible because God necessarily exists.

 

[hangnail]

Why God could certainly provide a mystical experience of nothing, that is predicated on their being a god, and a someone to experience that nothing; thus there can be no compelling proof that nothing could exist, because the very existence of an agent to experience nothing brings doubt to the argument.

The experience of pure awareness does not have a subject or an object. It doesn’t have a subject because there is no self-awareness. And it doesn’t have an object because there’s nothing to be aware of. There’s just awareness. That’s it. Now, awareness is something. But it is awareness of nothing.

 

[GEddie]

The experience of pure awareness does not have a subject or an object. It doesn’t have a subject because there is no self-awareness. And it doesn’t an object because there’s nothing to be aware of. There’s just awareness. That’s it. Now, awareness is something. But it is awareness of nothing.

This is just mucking around mentally because awareness requires as “aware being.”

To equate this with nothing or with an “experience of nothingness” does not work.

To be aware of nothing is to be unconscious.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[hangnail]

Can I ask why? Why do you find it impossible that God cannot exist (since ‘Nothing exists’ only implies a contradiction given that God exists, so your reason in the OP would not suffice as a reason for believing that God exists)?

The following article from a Thomistic scholar explains why in more detail.

Why Is There Anything At All? It’s Simple

Given that you believe God exists, why are you trying to become an atheist?

I want to experience what it is like to believe there is no God.

 

[hangnail]

To be aware of nothing is to be unconscious.

Agreed. Consciousness is always awareness of something. But awareness itself is not.

By the way, I like your answer. It’s profound.

 

[Partinobodycula]

“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

I’ve avoided commenting on this thread because frankly I don’t have a clue as to why there’s something rather than nothing. I’ve considered a number of possible arguments but none of them seem all that convincing. However, before I head off to sleep on it. (Literally) I thought that I would posit one intriguing possibility. And that is, that perhaps there really is nothing. Now I don’t mean this in the sense that perhaps everything around me is simply a figment of my imagination. For even an imaginary reality, is still a reality. Instead I’m talking in a Quantum Mechanical, Heisenberg Uncertainty sort of a way. In other words, every possible reality that could exist, does exist, or at least has the potential to exist, and this includes a reality in which there’s absolutely nothing.

Now if we live in such a quantum reality, then the simplest answer would be, that I simply can’t exist in a reality in which there is nothing, and so I exist in a reality in which there is something. Of course this leads to a number of obvious counter-arguments. Such as how can something and nothing exist at the same time, or if they don’t, then what was the catalyst to produce this one in which I exist, instead of one in which I don’t? I didn’t say that the argument was perfect, or even convincing, just intriguing. So I thought that I would post it in the hope of getting some feedback.

In the meantime I’ll head off to sleep on it, but I’ll probably wake up tomorrow and realize how ridiculously stupid it is, but that wouldn’t be the first time.

 

[rossum]

Then he is really not much help as a god, which is ironic considering how magnificently he describes himself. Christians also believe they have to attain Nirvana (Heaven) but they believe they have a Creator who is willing to help them if they are willing to receive his help.

Nirvana is not heaven. The heavens are treated separately in Buddhism. You need to die to reach one of the heavens (or one of the hells). Nirvana can be reached in this current life. The Buddha attained nirvana when he achieved enlightenment, at age 35. He died age 80. For 45 years he lived in the world but at the same time was in nirvana for all those 45 years. Nirvana is not a different place. Nirvana is here and now.

By the way, when did Brahma utter these words, and to whom did he utter them?

Pass. The sutta does not give specifics.

Was the Brahma uncreated? Is he eternal?

In a sense, all beings create themselves. Karma ensures that what you are now is the result of your actions in the past. No, he is not eternal, nothing is. In Buddhism, everything changes. All the gods change as well as everything else.

An unchanging God cannot act, since action requires change.

If so, why is he so ignored? And where does he say that you have to attain Nirvana without his help?

All gods are mostly ignored. Their main purpose in Buddhist scriptures is to applaud in the right places when the Buddha is speaking.

It is the Buddha who tells us that the gods cannot help us attain nirvana. If you want something material, like curing a disease, then by all means pray to a god. If you want to attain nirvana, then you will have to do it yourself.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I disagree with most religions. And I suspect that you do too.

Less than you might think. The Buddha divided other religions into ‘useful’ and ‘not useful’. A religion where action have consequences is useful. A religion where actions do not have consequences (such as an extreme form of predestination) is not useful.

Most religions, at least in practice, tend to fall into the ‘useful’ category.

I think you might have something there. Or, you might be making an argument that’s just a play on words (like the atheistic explanation in the OP). God’s existence is not dependent on finite beings for his existence. But finite beings are ultimately dependent on God for theirs. That’s the difference between infinite being and finite being.

Some aspects of God are dependent on finite beings. God cannot be the “creator” unless there is also a creation. A creator who hasn’t created anything is not a creator.

They have the same thing in theology. It’s called cataphatic (positive) theology and apophatic (negative) theology. The bottom line is the “dharmakaya” seems to smack of some kind of divine reality.

Buddhism leans very heavily towards the apophatic in describing nirvana, the Dharmakaya etc.

[The Buddha said:] “There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.”

– Udana 8.3

Do not confuse the Dharmakaya with a god (or God). As I have pointed out, any and all gods (or God) have a relatively lowly place in Buddhism.

In particular, the Abrahamic God kills (or orders to be killed) far too many people to be assigned a high place in the Buddhist hierarchy. Jesus is usually considered to be a Bodhisattva. The OT God is far less well respected.

rossum