The Atheistic Explanation for the Mystery of Existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter hangnail
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hangnail said:
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.
Click to expand...
If something is experiencing nothing, there is no objective proof that nothing could exist absent something to experience it.
 
hangnail said:
The creation is necessary if God could not have chosen but to create. However, the creation is still dependent upon God for its existence. God is not dependent on the creation for his existence.

Keep in mind, from the theistic perspective, something has to exist. Whether the creation is necessary because God’s decision to create could not have been otherwise doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...
👍
 
runningdude said:
If something is experiencing nothing, there is no objective proof that nothing could exist absent something to experience it.
Click to expand...
What he is arguing is not the same thing as experiencing nothing. It’s impossible without turning nothing into a reality, in which case its not nothing since it has an act of reality that one is experiencing; what ever it is. That is not what western philosophers mean by nothing.

If this pure awareness is real, then the only possible conclusion is that pure-awareness describes the experience of pure-awareness; in which case it it is not the awareness of nothing, but rather it is the awareness of nothing “physical”. Which is different from just nothing. It is the act of transcending the physical limitations of our experiences.
 
hangnail said:
Note: The theist is obligated to explain why God exists. Why? Because God is something, not nothing.
Click to expand...
The theist cannot explain why God exists. The atheist cannot explain why God does not exist. 😉
 
The atheist certainly cannot be certain that God does not exist. Upon what basis would such a certainty exist?
 
hangnail said:
I want to experience what it is like to believe there is no God.
Click to expand...
Is there any one experience of what it is like to believe there is no God? I imagine former theists and atheists who were never theists, for example, would differ. You are probably not subjectively capable of achieving arbitrary forms of epistemic circumstance, even if you are capable of convincing yourself to be an atheist.

(You also did not answer my question about whether you agree with Ed Feser’s arguments that God is good, and consequently that God is your good and final end.)
 
It seems that “pure awareness” is just a mind game to make experiencing nothing possible, as to be aware implies being conscious and, as was said, consciousness requires knowledge of something.

Why don’t we all just admit that we can’t experience nothing, any more than we can smell the vacuum of space or see silence? Which doesn’t mean there can’t be a nothing. But it is of no use to us anyhow.

ICXC NIKA.
 
hangnail said:
Yes, the concept of “nothing” exists as an abstraction in the mind. But an abstraction is something.
Click to expand...
No doubt that an abstraction is something, the point being that the concept of nothingness is quite different from non-being itself.
It’s more like the argument from contingency.
Click to expand...
The traditional arguments from contingency presuppose that there is presently existence and being. Given that this is the case, then the arguments from contingency make perfect sense to me. I thought you were asserting something different though.
It’s metaphysically impossible because God necessarily exists.
Click to expand...
Given that there is existence, I agree. I was under the impression that you were asserting that there is no logically possible world of nothingness. I would disagree with that, and I don’t think the arguments from contingency (that I have seen) address it.
 
runningdude said:
If something is experiencing nothing, there is no objective proof that nothing could exist absent something to experience it.
Click to expand...
I said “awareness” itself qualifies as something. That being said, you can argue that, without a subject and an object, there is nothing. You can also argue that the subject and the object are both awareness itself. It’s a matter of perspective, but the perspective itself is one of consciousness looking back at a memory of the experience of pure awareness.
 
hangnail said:
The most fundamental question of metaphysics is as follows: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

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. (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.)

What sayeth you?

Note: The theist is obligated to explain why God exists. Why? Because God is something, not nothing.
Click to expand...
Nothing exist at the moment of experience. I have two arguments for this:

Argument of conflict in existence of states. Consider a system being in state of S where S causes another state lets call S’. These two states cannot however coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the knowledge of S exists in consciousness. This means that nothing exists at the moment of experience so called now.

Argument of time: Things are subject to changes over time. What is experienced belongs to past which does not exist any longer hence nothing exists at now. Now by definition is the moment of creation.
 
polytropos said:
Is there any one experience of what it is like to believe there is no God?
Click to expand...
That’s the atheistic experience.
polytropos said:
(You also did not answer my question about whether you agree with Ed Feser’s arguments that God is good, and consequently that God is your good and final end.)
Click to expand...
I believe God is the ultimate good. That is, the good everyone is ultimately seeking.
 
GEddie said:
It seems that “pure awareness” is just a mind game to make experiencing nothing possible, as to be aware implies being conscious and, as was said, consciousness requires knowledge of something.

Why don’t we all just admit that we can’t experience nothing, any more than we can smell the vacuum of space or see silence? Which doesn’t mean there can’t be a nothing. But it is of no use to us anyhow.
Click to expand...
I have experienced the state of “pure awareness.” If you practice meditation regularly, then you should experience the state of pure awareness regularly. This state is known as “samadhi.”
samadhi is a non-dualistic state of consciousness in which the consciousness of the experiencing subject becomes one with the experienced object
Click to expand...
(source: Wikipedia: Samadhi)
Click to expand...
 
hangnail said:
I have experienced the state of “pure awareness.” If you practice meditation regularly, then you should experience the state of pure awareness regularly. This state is known as “samadhi.”
Click to expand...
Ok, I accept your statement.

Meditation and the experience of nothingness are of zero interest to me, so let’s just leave it at that.

God Bless, and ICXC NIKA.
 
ChainBreaker said:
What he is arguing is not the same thing as experiencing nothing. It’s impossible without turning nothing into a reality, in which case its not nothing since it has an act of reality that one is experiencing; what ever it is. That is not what western philosophers mean by nothing.

If this pure awareness is real, then the only possible conclusion is that pure-awareness describes the experience of pure-awareness; in which case it it is not the awareness of nothing, but rather it is the awareness of nothing “physical”. Which is different from just nothing. It is the act of transcending the physical limitations of our experiences.
Click to expand...
If that is what he is arguing, it is a non-sequitur to my point. He introduced this transcendental experience as rebuttal to my stating that we have no evidence that “nothing” could exist.
 
runningdude said:
If that is what he is arguing, it is a non-sequitur to my point. He introduced this transcendental experience as rebuttal to my stating that we have no evidence that “nothing” could exist.
Click to expand...
I see…

A lot of people tend to have simplistic notions of metaphysical concepts. When he thinks of nothing he is probably thinking about the absence of physical objects, and confusing this with the concept of nothing. Many people have this problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top