What is Existence? Especially God's?

[Qoeleth]

I am struggling to get to the bottom of what we mean when we say “God exists”. To examine what this means is to open up dialogue between theists and atheists. Few Christians believe that God is a physical “thing”, living somewhere up in the sky. In this sense, is an agreement possible between atheists and Christians about the nature of God’s existence?

We might say “X is nothing”, but in saying this we are still saying that “X is”.
Does something have to be a “thing” to exist? What about the number zero. Zero is nothing. Yet the number zero exists. We might say that the answer to a mathematical problem is zero. Therefore zero IS.

St. John of the Cross says God is nothing (nada): no thing. Plotinus similarly says God is beyond being, and non-being. Levinas says God is “other than being”. This opens up a whole area of meontotheology. Is this common ground with atheists?

But I am still perplexed by what existence actually means. If we say God IS Love, what does the IS mean? Is it cognitive equivalence/synonymy? Is it equative? Is it copular?

Now, if God’s creation is understood as the Word of God, does this affirm linguistic idealism, which allows us to bypass the whole ontological question (at the heart of the atheist/theist divide)? It seems that to say “the number zero exists” is the same as saying “the word/symbol/concept of zero exists?” Similarly, is to say “God exists” the same as saying “The word/concept of ‘God’ exists.”

Any thoughts?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

My understanding is very limited too. In fact I suspect you have more philosophy background than I do, and may have a better grasp of this subject than I do.

If it of any value, I would suggest that the thing to remember is that God is not a compound being. There is no theoretical “God” who could either exist or not exist. To understand (even in our own, limited human way) what God is means to understand that God is. He is He who Is. His Essence is His Existence, because His Essence is Existence.

I would hesitate to say that God exists and does not exist or that He exists in such a way that can only be called non-existence. I would say rather that He exists in a fuller and simpler way than how anything else exists. Anything else exists though possessing an existence that is external to its essence. For God alone, no essence-existence distinction can be made.

Don’t know if that helps at all, but it’s my thoughts on the matter right now.

 

[James_OPL]

If I may suggest, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a whole section on the existance of God in the Summa Theologica. This may answer your questions. Just a suggestion…

It is in Part 1 - Question 2 ( ff.)

 

[beeliner]

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We might say “X is nothing”, but in saying this we are still saying that “X is”.
Does something have to be a “thing” to exist? What about the number zero. Zero is nothing. Yet the number zero exists. We might say that the answer to a mathematical problem is zero. Therefore zero IS.

Zero is a symbolic representation of nothing. But while the symbol or the concept is real, the object that such concepts and symbols represent is not. Zero, ontologically speaking, represents a negation of quantities which perhaps have the possibility of being real, but are not. To say there is no bikes in this particular room, is not the same as saying that there is an object in existence which has the nature called “no-bike”. It is to say that compared to a room with bikes in them, this room is different in that there are no bikes existing in the room. No bikes is a negation of the reality of bikes. It is not a positive statement referring directly to somethings actual existence. The truth of a concept does not necessarily entail that the object of such a truth exists. The symbol call Zero is representative or rather i should say analogous to nothing much like imagining a dark void is analogous to nothing; but it is not synonymous to what the word nothing truly means.

St. John of the Cross says God is nothing (nada): no thing. Plotinus similarly says God is beyond being, and non-being. Levinas says God is “other than being”. This opens up a whole area of meontotheology. Is this common ground with atheists?

No, because what they mean by nothing in this context has nothing to do with the ontology of being. But rather it is meant to convey that God is not a physical reality. God is not a physical number or quantity. God transcends all quantities. God is nothing physical. They use the word nothing to emphasize a strict distinction between the spiritual reality of God and the physical reality of the universe. But that distinction is not being made on an ontological level, but rather in the sense that God has no dimension - God is nothing in particular. It is important to first understand the context in which words are being expressed, since they can mean different things in different contexts.

But I am still perplexed by what existence actually means. If we say God IS Love, what does the IS mean? Is it cognitive equivalence/synonymy? Is it equative? Is it copular?

God is the act of reality in which and through which we express our contingency.

Now, if God’s creation is understood as the Word of God, does this affirm linguistic idealism, which allows us to bypass the whole ontological question (at the heart of the atheist/theist divide)? It seems that to say “the number zero exists” is the same as saying “the word/symbol/concept of zero exists?” Similarly, is to say “God exists” the same as saying “The word/concept of ‘God’ exists.”

Any thoughts?

I don’t understand what you are talking about.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If I may suggest, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a whole section on the existance of God in the Summa Theologica. This may answer your questions. Just a suggestion…

It is in Part 1 - Question 2 ( ff.)

I think that he is looking for a discussion. Not just a suggestion.

 

[Qoeleth]

I don’t understand what you are talking about.

In that latter part of my question, I am wondering if the existence of the word “God” (and, of course, many texts on the nature of God), establish the existence of a concept or meaning represented by the word “God”. From the existence of such a meaning, could one validly say that God exists.

One might object that this demonstrates only that the concept of God exists, rather than that God Himself exists. But given that most theologians predicate a non-temporal, non-spatial and meta-ontological existence to God, is it meaningful to make a distinction between the existence of God, and the existence of the concept of God?

Few people (even atheists) would argue whether or not "Truth’ really exists, although many of us might argue as to the nature of truth. Is the existence of God (who, in Jesus, proclaims Himself to BE Truth) like the existence of truth, i.e. its reality is indistinguishable for its conceptuality?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In that latter part of my question, I am wondering if the existence of the word “God” (and, of course, many texts on the nature of God), establish the existence of a concept or meaning represented by the word “God”. From the existence of such a meaning, could one validly say that God exists.

One might object that this demonstrates only that the concept of God exists, rather than that God Himself exists. But given that most theologians predicate a non-temporal, non-spatial and meta-ontological existence to God, is it meaningful to make a distinction between the existence of God, and the existence of the concept of God.

Sounds like the ontological argument. I don’t know if i can honestly say that the argument works, and i don’t use it in debates. I can’t really give you an answer, although there are philosophers who think that the concept of God necessitates his actual existence; that we cannot think of God and deny his existence at the same time, since it would lead to a contradiction. God by definition is the act of reality, therefore the concept cannot be distinguished from his actual reality.

Another similar argument is based on the idea of perfection, and it goes like this…

1. We know that it is possible for a thing to be absolutely perfect.
2. We also know that “absolute perfection” by definition of being perfect cannot fail to exist because perfection necessarily entails existence (there is no perfection in absolutely nothing),
3. Therefore we must conclude that absolute perfection exists in reality, since if it did not this would lead to a contradiction. Otherwise we must say that it is impossible for absolute perfection to exist.

Some have argued that because we don’t really know if perfection can really exist the argument is epistemologically mute.

I am tempted to disagree with the idea that we cannot know that perfection is possible. However, demonstration of this fact would lead me in to making an inductive argument, which would defeat the object of what i was trying to achieve in the first place. But Generally, i try to stay away from such arguments.

 

[Qoeleth]

If I may suggest, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a whole section on the existance of God in the Summa Theologica. This may answer your questions. Just a suggestion…

Actually, Aquinas adds to my confusion. He says in *De Ente at Essentia *in SummaTheologica that God is “existence alone, without essence”. But if the essentia Dei is the ente Dei, isn’t this the same as saying God has no essence. If so, what type of existence is it? And, paraphrasing Wittgenstien, “nothing is the same as something about which nothing can be said.”

Kant, to which another respondent refers me, says that existence is not a real predicate- in other words, ente cannot be an essentia.

So, I am still confused, more than ever, about the nature of the existence of God- do theists and atheists really disagree, or just define the word “exist” differently?

 

[tonyrey]

Few people (even atheists) would argue whether or not "Truth’ really exists, although many of us might argue as to the nature of truth. Is the existence of God (who, in Jesus, proclaims Himself to BE Truth) like the existence of truth, i.e. its reality is indistinguishable from its conceptuality?

Bingo! Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all aspects of God.

 

[Qoeleth]

Bingo! Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all aspects of God.

Yes, of course. But is the existence of God of the same type as the existence of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, love, etc.??

And then, if it is, there remains the question of what is the nature of such existences? Does being a Theist in the Christian tradition require or pre-suppose a Platonic conception of the reality of things like Love, Truth, Goodness, etc.?

 

[greylorn]

I am struggling to get to the bottom of what we mean when we say “God exists”. To examine what this means is to open up dialogue between theists and atheists. Few Christians believe that God is a physical “thing”, living somewhere up in the sky. In this sense, is an agreement possible between atheists and Christians about the nature of God’s existence?

We might say “X is nothing”, but in saying this we are still saying that “X is”.
Does something have to be a “thing” to exist? What about the number zero. Zero is nothing. Yet the number zero exists. We might say that the answer to a mathematical problem is zero. Therefore zero IS.

St. John of the Cross says God is nothing (nada): no thing. Plotinus similarly says God is beyond being, and non-being. Levinas says God is “other than being”. This opens up a whole area of meontotheology. Is this common ground with atheists?

But I am still perplexed by what existence actually means. If we say God IS Love, what does the IS mean? Is it cognitive equivalence/synonymy? Is it equative? Is it copular?

Now, if God’s creation is understood as the Word of God, does this affirm linguistic idealism, which allows us to bypass the whole ontological question (at the heart of the atheist/theist divide)? It seems that to say “the number zero exists” is the same as saying “the word/symbol/concept of zero exists?” Similarly, is to say “God exists” the same as saying “The word/concept of ‘God’ exists.”

Any thoughts?

Your first step is to make better distinctions than the nonsense served up by philosophers. Don’t get worked up over terms like “is” which have way too many dictionary definitions to be useful, unless precisely defined.

The problem is that if you pick a particular definition of is, such as, equal, as in algebraic formulas, and then begin writing about it, before long you will be using other definitions of is, thus polluting the discussion. So, don’t use “is” in a theology discussion.

Next, make distinctions between the properties of things which exist. Supernovas and zero both exist. We cannot touch either. One is an abstraction, the other is a real, but short lived state in the development of a star. Supernovas actually do things, meaning that they cause other things to happen, such as the manufacture of heavy elements. Zero does not do anything. Abstractions never do anything.

Theologians seem unable to distinguish between God as an abstraction or God as an entity real enough to do anything, despite the belief that He did something (e.g: create a universe). So long as they remain confused, there is nothing to learn from them.

Intelligent atheists know better than to attempt a serious conversation with someone who insists that the object of the conversation is both a reality and an abstraction.

Consider more workable ideas. Begin by admitting the obvious, that by definition, God is PHYSICAL. By physical, an atheistic physicist means, “anything which interacts with matter or any other energetic form of the physical universe.” It would seem that the creator of the universe must be physical.

Introducing this small, but significant, tidbit of common-sense into a discussion with an intelligent atheist might create a common-sense base for furthering the conversation. From that point it is simply a matter of moving on to a better definition of God, which is now possible under the new terms of agreement.

 

[smichhertz]

I am struggling to get to the bottom of what we mean when we say “God exists”. To examine what this means is to open up dialogue between theists and atheists. Few Christians believe that God is a physical “thing”, living somewhere up in the sky. In this sense, is an agreement possible between atheists and Christians about the nature of God’s existence?..etc

To be honest, I don’t think there is an agreement there. You are, in effect, simply trying to change the meaning of the word “existence”. Technically speaking “Zero” does exist, but “nothing” does not. Zero is merely a representation of nothing, not nothing itself.

Let’s take another example: Do unicorns exist? Certainly they don’t exist in the sense that we have experienced them as a physical reality. But they do exist as a concept. I can say the word “unicorn” and we all have a pretty clear idea of what I am talking about.

Similarly, I can say the word “God” and we all have a pretty clear idea of what I mean. But saying “the concept of God exists” and “God exists” are two separate things. So to sum up, I think you are trying to treat the concept/symbolic representation/idea as the same thing as the “thing” that is being discussed. Either way, I don’t think it bridges the divide between atheists and theists.

Remember that God IS existence in the fullest sense. Nothing exists without God and all things are only existing due to God.

And just a final nit-picky note:

St. John of the Cross says God is nothing (nada): no thing.

I have heard this quote a couple of times, but I’ve never been able to trace it back to anything St. John of the Cross actually said. The only quote I was able to find was this: “All the being of creation, then, compared with the infinite Being of God, is nothing.” (Ascent Bk 1, Ch. IV, n. 4) So he didn’t really say “God is nothing” at all. If anyone is able to find the an actual quote, please prove me wrong.

Hope that helps!

 

[Sair]

Theologians seem unable to distinguish between God as an abstraction or God as an entity real enough to do anything, despite the belief that He did something (e.g: create a universe). So long as they remain confused, there is nothing to learn from them.

Intelligent atheists know better than to attempt a serious conversation with someone who insists that the object of the conversation is both a reality and an abstraction.

I notice something similar going on with those who claim that God ‘is’ love, goodness, creativity, meaning or whatever other concept they wish to identify with God. What follows from this is that they insist one must believe in God in order to believe that love, goodness, etc exist. Yet it is very easy to explain what love, goodness etc are in terms of relationships between physical beings - they exist, as such, in their own right, regardless of whether one chooses to equate them with God - who, by implication, is both love, goodness, creativity, etc etc and yet somehow more again than any or all of these things. Clear as mud, innit?

Consider more workable ideas. Begin by admitting the obvious, that by definition, God is PHYSICAL. By physical, an atheistic physicist means, “anything which interacts with matter or any other energetic form of the physical universe.” It would seem that the creator of the universe must be physical.

Introducing this small, but significant, tidbit of common-sense into a discussion with an intelligent atheist might create a common-sense base for furthering the conversation. From that point it is simply a matter of moving on to a better definition of God, which is now possible under the new terms of agreement.

Most believers, it seems, insist that God is immaterial/non-physical, and that we can know immaterial/non-physical things exist because our minds and the thoughts and concepts they entertain are all immaterial/non-physical. Far less forthcoming is an explanation of how immaterial/non-physical things can possibly interact with material/physical things, nor indeed how one can definitively say that minds and thoughts and concepts are immaterial/non-physical in the first place.

 

[Qoeleth]

To be honest, I don’t think there is an agreement there. You are, in effect, simply trying to change the meaning of the word “existence”. Technically speaking “Zero” does exist, but “nothing” does not. Zero is merely a representation of nothing, not nothing itself.

Let’s take another example: Do unicorns exist? Certainly they don’t exist in the sense that we have experienced them as a physical reality. But they do exist as a concept. I can say the word “unicorn” and we all have a pretty clear idea of what I am talking about.

Similarly, I can say the word “God” and we all have a pretty clear idea of what I mean. But saying “the concept of God exists” and “God exists” are two separate things. So to sum up, I think you are trying to treat the concept/symbolic representation/idea as the same thing as the “thing” that is being discussed. Either way, I don’t think it bridges the divide between atheists and theists.

Remember that God IS existence in the fullest sense. Nothing exists without God and all things are only existing due to God.

And just a final nit-picky note:

I have heard this quote a couple of times, but I’ve never been able to trace it back to anything St. John of the Cross actually said. The only quote I was able to find was this: “All the being of creation, then, compared with the infinite Being of God, is nothing.” (Ascent Bk 1, Ch. IV, n. 4) So he didn’t really say “God is nothing” at all. If anyone is able to find the an actual quote, please prove me wrong.

Hope that helps!

Yes, of course. Do you know John of the Cross well? I am thinking of the shematic diagram he does in conjunction with the “The Ascent of Mt. Carmel” in which he the highest Heavens is described as “Nada” (Nothing). Also there is the same type of thing in Angelus Silesisus. Jacapone da Todi, similarly says of the Highest Heaven, “the name of this heaven is non-being.” I will supply precise quotes late, but am without books the moment.

Are you aware of Derrida’s work (Sauf le Nome), where he draws a connection between negative theology and atheism?