What is meant by God "Exists"

[ReapReason]

I’m a bit confused by your response. Why have you responded this way? Where in my comment have I given the impression that I think I’m “powerful and self-sufficient” as opposed to actually being resigned and completely submissive to a God that is utter mystery??? And what in my post suggests that I don’t believe in God??

You’re so flippant with your two “you’ll have a big surprise when you die” comments in this thread. Do you feel you’re being as charitable as you, as a Catholic and as a Christian (not to mention a human), are called to be?

He is insecure and frustrated by atheism.

 

[ReapReason]

I agree that what was posted was uncharitable, yes, but one must also recall that all individuals, Catholics, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., are flawed individuals, and we speak rashly, and act rashly, all but Christ are imperfect.

Why are you protecting him?

 

[ReapReason]

We say God “exists”. The definition of exist from dictionary.com states the following defintions of exist:

ex·ist
   [ig-zist] Show IPA

verb (used without object)

1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He’s not living, he’s merely existing.

The very word exist seems to imply physicality. Yet God is not made of matter, energy, etc. which implies God does not exist physically, right? If that is the case, what do we mean by God “exists”?

God is the is-ness of all potential beings. He is the act of all potential beings. He is Existence itself, the act of reality. However he is not the essence (nature) of potential things.

In Existential Thomism, there is an absolute distinction between the nature of a thing and the act of its reality. It is the famous distinction between esse and essence which I am am talking about.

No potential nature is intrinsically real, for if reality was intrinsic to the nature of lets say a “human” then a human would always be real because to be a human would be what it means to be real. It would be meaningless to speak of such a being as being that which is potentially real. Since potential beings are not intrinsically the same as their act, it follows that the actuality of any potential nature is necessarily the conjoining of intrinsic actuality with the abstract idea of some kind of potential nature. Otherwise it is metaphysically impossible for potential or possible natures to become actual; in which case there would be no such thing as possible or potential natures.

Hence; God is the actuality of potential essences. This is what it means to speak of Gods existence, and it is also the means by which God is a “cause” of that which was not at some point actually real.

 

[Jocko_VT]

He is insecure and frustrated by atheism.

Which would explain were there any atheism in the post.

 

[thecone137]

back on topic - may I get a definition of existing that doesn’t involve physicality?

 

[Jocko_VT]

back on topic - may I get a definition of existing that doesn’t involve physicality?

I’ve got nothing for you. I thought your original question dealt more with the seeming paradox of perhaps God not “existing” rather than with a need for a new definition of “existing.” If you’re looking for a dictionary meaning, just keep looking, I suppose. Otherwise, why can’t you just add another line to the definition in the OP:

1. To be God.

But why tie yourself to the language? Why not embrace that God is larger than (and too large for) language?

 

[ReapReason]

back on topic - may I get a definition of existing that doesn’t involve physicality?

An intrinsic act of reality.

 

[JDaniel]

This is the kind of question I’ve struggled with for a long time—particularly over the last two years. I’ve given up trying to answer them, and more importantly, I’ve given up asking them!

Jocko:

And, you won’t be the last. Most people are inquisitive by nature. Most people question. And this question is a significant one. As science, and more particularly, Physics, forges onward, we are awakened to more and more questions each time we answer a preceding one. For example, What are we? Of what are we made? What is matter or energy? What is Reality? Is “being” real?

In school we learned that we are functional aggregates. That we consisted of little balls called atoms. And, atoms consisted of a nucleus of protons and neutrons, and some electrons in “orbits” circling said nucleus. With that model, it was easy to presume what Reality was. But now, we learn what the atom consists of: that an atom consists of electrons, but these are not little round balls, rather, they are point particles. And, what is a point particle? It is a “point,” i.e., a dimensionless tiny ink blotch on paper. You can stack point particles by the billions and achieve the same zero dimensionality. At the center of an atom is its nucleus which consists of protons and neutrons, which are fermions and bosons: more “point particles!” Then, when we consider the so-called “electron shell,” we discover that it, on average, is 50,000 time greater than the size of the nucleus.

This begs so many more questions. How does “matter,” if it actually exists, achieve solidity? Or, in fact, does it? Well, we think it does. We’ve developed a scale of various hardnesses called the Mohs scale, that is a listing of things from talc, at a “1” on the scale, to diamond, at a “10.” Yet, each of these real objectums is made up of atoms, which are made up of dimensionless point particles. And yet, you believe that we live in a world of ‘solids’ with ‘mass’.But do we?

One near-to-last question might be, If everything is made up of dimensionless point particles, what separates these particles? The answer is “Space.” But that answer is insufficient. How can an atom, that is 5,000,000 % space, exhibit solidity? One possible answer may be found in a reading of this thread. If nothing else, that thread will open up you mind to the possibility that you didn’t learn all that could be learned in your life sojourn. Also, if Yppop is in some way correct, then, if nothing else, there must be something that created and sustains the illusions we have for Reality. I call these phantasms “illusions” because, well, that’s what they are!

The hopeless self-delusion is that we, mere human beings, believe that are fully self-capable of discerning Reality, and that all of this which our senses perceive is actually real. By “Reality” I mean “real” as synonymous with “physical.”

These are just a few more ‘questions’ for your scrapbook.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Wolves and accusations of an attitude? - sounds like ad hominem fallacy

75% of people believe something. Therefore, it must be true? - sounds like bandwagon fallacy

I’m not held to any particular definition of existence - that was simply a starting point.

Thanks for sharing the catechism link. I"m not sure that it answered my question, though. The fact that limited knowledge of God doesn’t say whether or not God’s “existence” is in within our scoping of defining to some degree.

Thecone:

In my opinion, I think God is the ONLY * actually existing* reality. By “existing” I mean “not illusory,” “not imaginary.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Jocko_VT]

I’m not sure how to take this. I’ll respond, though.

Jocko:

And, you won’t be the last. Most people are inquisitive by nature. Most people question. And this question is a significant one. As science, and more particularly, Physics, forges onward, we are awakened to more and more questions each time we answer a preceding one. For example, What are we? Of what are we made? What is matter or energy? What is Reality? Is “being” real?

Indeed. But, I’m happy to approach answers about what we are, and what are we made of, etc., in the context of scientific investigation. But that only extends so far, and I’m no longer really willing to entertain what comes beyond that…not because it isn’t interesting and fascinating, or because I don’t feel compelled, but because a) there aren’t really any answers, and b) I don’t believe it does anyone any good.

But now, we learn what the atom consists of: that an atom consists of electrons, but these are not little round balls, rather, they are point particles. And, what is a point particle? It is a “point,” i.e., a dimensionless tiny ink blotch on paper. You can stack point particles by the billions and achieve the same zero dimensionality. At the center of an atom is its nucleus which consists of protons and neutrons, which are fermions and bosons: more “point particles!” Then, when we consider the so-called “electron shell,” we discover that it, on average, is 50,000 time greater than the size of the nucleus.

Isn’t the boson a particle that gives all others mass? Isn’t that where “solidity” comes from? It’s all over my head, but the sort of thing I like reading about.

This begs so many more questions. How does “matter,” if it actually exists, achieve solidity? Or, in fact, does it? Well, we think it does. We’ve developed a scale of various hardnesses called the Mohs scale, that is a listing of things from talc, at a “1” on the scale, to diamond, at a “10.” Yet, each of these real objectums is made up of atoms, which are made up of dimensionless point particles. And yet, you believe that we live in a world of ‘solids’ with ‘mass’.But do we?

I don’t think “we” believe this anymore, nor have we for a long time. These are indeed questions that emerge in science. These are questions worth asking and seeking answers to.

One near-to-last question might be, If everything is made up of dimensionless point particles, what separates these particles? The answer is “Space.” But that answer is insufficient. How can an atom, that is 5,000,000 % space, exhibit solidity? One possible answer may be found in a reading of this thread. If nothing else, that thread will open up you mind to the possibility that you didn’t learn all that could be learned in your life sojourn.

I’m not sure how to take this last sentence. Is this a suggestion that I’ve suggestion that I’ve learned all that could be learned?

Alas, I don’t really have time to read through an entire thread, but I did read the OP.

Also, if Yppop is in some way correct, then, if nothing else, there must be something that created and sustains the illusions we have for Reality. I call these phantasms “illusions” because, well, that’s what they are!

I don’t believe there *must *be something that created and/or sustains (regardless of whether or not if follows the logic)… But there may be.

The hopeless self-delusion is that we, mere human beings, believe that are fully self-capable of discerning Reality, and that all of this which our senses perceive is actually real. By “Reality” I mean “real” as synonymous with “physical.”

These are just a few more ‘questions’ for your scrapbook.

Yes. This is already in my scrapbook. This is completely consistent with my posts in this thread.

Now, I’d disagree on the “real” and “physical” notion, because those are simply things which we have defined as such–a cat is a “cat” whether it really exists or not, because we’ve defined that “illusion” as such, and thus a “cat” is, if nothing else, that illusion. But I get your broader point–I’d just use different language.

To paraphrase you to make my point: “The hopeless self-delusion is that we, mere human beings, believe that are fully self-capable of discerning God.” Thus, I opt not to. I’ll just try to find an avenue to coming into communion with God. But I won’t fret over details about whether or not God “exists,” or try to otherwise box God in in such a way that reduces God to something my like a human.

Do you think the “posters” you refer to in the below quote refers to me?

So, how can we be so sure that there are no such things as spirits or souls? How can we be so sure that there is no ultimate spirit, which we call “God?” I witness posters herein always requiring material proof. In the absence of such, they conclude that there are no souls, nor any spiritual posibility of a being known to us as God. There is no stretch to spiritual stuff from the postulated reality of a pure vacuum, or from the postulated reality of even less perfect vacuums.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Thecone:

In my opinion, I think God is the ONLY * actually existing* reality. By “existing” I mean “not illusory,” “not imaginary.”

God bless,
jd

This certainly provides a new definition of “exist” to work with!!!

So, do we not exist? Do God’s creatures not exist? Are humans merely “illusory”? I have trouble squaring this with any notion that God’s creation has any dignity. How to take the Sacraments if it’s all illusory? Hmmm.

For me, I exist, as do other humans and all the universe (as commonly understood). God, on the other hand, is God.

 

[JDaniel]

This certainly provides a new definition of “exist” to work with!!!

So, do we not exist? Do God’s creatures not exist? Are humans merely “illusory”? I have trouble squaring this with any notion that God’s creation has any dignity. How to take the Sacraments if it’s all illusory? Hmmm.

Jocko:

What do you think? We consist of continuous Infinite Space, but, I believe we sense it at the level of discrete space. We exist at the explicate level, God exists at the implicate level. We are things-in-the-Mind-of-God.

If God is, or is represented by, Infinite Space at the implicate level, then the configuration of S-points at the explicate level is not difficult to conceive. Nor is it difficult to conceive of the Body of Christ.

For me, I exist, as do other humans and all the universe (as commonly understood). God, on the other hand, is God.

And God IS Infinite. That means, He takes up all Space (and spaces), all place (and places), and all time (and times). We are repeatedly told by Scripture that God is in all things. What do we think that means? That He’s just in our “thoughts?” But, He’s in everything! He’s coterminous with each and every particle, atom, and molecule of the universe. Remember, that which is dimensionless takes up no space, and God, being Infinite is thereby not displaced. There can be no displacement in a true infinite. And, more, consider the “singularity.” It is described as an “infinitesimal point.” Thus, it shares the exact same so-called properties.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

And God IS Infinite. That means, He takes up all Space (and spaces), all place (and places), and all time (and times). We are repeatedly told by Scripture that God is in all things.

That comes dangerously close to panentheism, JD.

What do we think that means? That He’s just in our “thoughts?” But, He’s in everything! He’s coterminous with each and every particle, atom, and molecule of the universe.

So every particle of the universe is eternal and unchaging and so are we?

 

[Jocko_VT]

Jocko:

What do you think? We consist of continuous Infinite Space, but, I believe we sense it at the level of discrete space. We exist at the explicate level, God exists at the implicate level. We are things-in-the-Mind-of-God.

If God is, or is represented by, Infinite Space at the implicate level, then the configuration of S-points at the explicate level is not difficult to conceive. Nor is it difficult to conceive of the Body of Christ.

Of course, all this talk of Implicate and Explicate levels, and S-points, is not terribly meaningful me. Of course, I’ve looked them up on line, but to tie them in with a notion of God that struggles to to bring God effectively into the material universe–to make God a “natural” thing–just doesn’t do any work for me. It certainly doesn’t help me with humility, or the replacement of my Ego with Christ, and consequently doesn’t help me love others.

I’m not saying you’re not correct. I’m just saying, as I said above, it doesn’t really do anything for me.

And God IS Infinite. That means, He takes up all Space (and spaces), all place (and places), and all time (and times). We are repeatedly told by Scripture that God is in all things. What do we think that means? That He’s just in our “thoughts?” But, He’s in everything! He’s coterminous with each and every particle, atom, and molecule of the universe. Remember, that which is dimensionless takes up no space, and God, being Infinite is thereby not displaced. There can be no displacement in a true infinite. And, more, consider the “singularity.” It is described as an “infinitesimal point.” Thus, it shares the exact same so-called properties.

God bless,
jd

I like the “God is in all things” point. But I don’t carry it out as a scientific conclusion anymore than I take the first chapters of Genesis to be a scientific answer to how the universe and the solar system and Earth and life and humans came into being. “God is in all things,” like the creation myths of Genesis, tells us something else–and that’s what I’m interested in. Maybe there’s some scientific point tucked in there (I don’t believe it, but maybe there is), but it’s not on my front burner. Maybe you’re right, but it’s not necessary for us to see the meaningfulness and Truth of scripture. It’s not an “either God is in the ‘material’ universe or God is in our thoughts/mind” sort of option–that’s too narrow and is reductionistic to the point of absurdity.

 

[JDaniel]

That comes dangerously close to panentheism, JD.

Hello, Belorg:

Yes it does, but it is not. God is still a separate entity from humans, but is coterminous with everything. Thus, He controls everything we do, EXCEPT for sin (and evil, of course).

So every particle of the universe is eternal and unchaging and so are we?

Particles may be eternal. That no one can say. But, they could be; after all, they were created by God and compiled into that singularity. That they are unchanging is quite probable. What is a “point?” It is pure non-dimensionality. If it has no dimensionality, and, therefore, no parts, what could change? However, God could have given each of them a duration span of their own, such that, at some point, they could be annihilated, or self-annihilate.

The question is: Are they real, or are they thoughts in the Mind of God?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Of course, all this talk of Implicate and Explicate levels, and S-points, is not terribly meaningful me. Of course, I’ve looked them up on line, but to tie them in with a notion of God that struggles to to bring God effectively into the material universe–to make God a “natural” thing–just doesn’t do any work for me.

Jocko:

I think you are misunderstanding me. This is not an attempt to bring God into the material universe; it is a theory to explain known contradictions of the universe for physics. For example, if we are 5 million parts space, and one part dimensionless point particles, how is it possible that we actually have mass, hardness and “being”?

It certainly doesn’t help me with humility, or the replacement of my Ego with Christ, and consequently doesn’t help me love others.

Well, it’s not supposed to. It’s supposed to question the possibility of your questions. If it lends itself to an inevitability, the rest is for you to ferret out. But, perhaps that is why we are commanded to “love one another.” Perhaps that is just not self-evident.

I’m not saying you’re not correct. I’m just saying, as I said above, it doesn’t really do anything for me.

And that’s fine. That wasn’t my big intention.

I like the “God is in all things” point. But I don’t carry it out as a scientific conclusion anymore than I take the first chapters of Genesis to be a scientific answer to how the universe and the solar system and Earth and life and humans came into being.

Then you are left with otherwise unanswerable contradictions and questions. Unless, you wish to propose another theory.

“God is in all things,” like the creation myths of Genesis, tells us something else–and that’s what I’m interested in. Maybe there’s some scientific point tucked in there (I don’t believe it, but maybe there is), but it’s not on my front burner. Maybe you’re right, but it’s not necessary for us to see the meaningfulness and Truth of scripture. It’s not an “either God is in the ‘material’ universe or God is in our thoughts/mind” sort of option–that’s too narrow and is reductionistic to the point of absurdity.

As I said, you are left with unanswerable contradictions and questions - unless you have another theory. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to expose the necessity of meaningful answers to the contradictions and questions brought about by Physics.

God bless,
jd

 

[Jocko_VT]

I think you are misunderstanding me. This is not an attempt to bring God into the material universe; it is a theory to explain known contradictions of the universe for physics.

So why is this not just another god of the gaps? Once any so-called “contradictions” have been sorted out by science–once those gaps have been filled in–then that god becomes smaller.

Contradictions? Or places that we haven’t made sense of yet?

For example, if we are 5 million parts space, and one part dimensionless point particles, how is it possible that we actually have mass, hardness and “being”?

The Standard Model has this sorted out. Certainly, I don’t understand it–I’m no physicist-- but I have followed the CERN developments. Last I heard (pretty recently) they feel pretty solid that they’ve found the Higgs Boson, but they still need a lot more data to confirm it. The Higgs Boson’s discovery supports the Standard Model, showing the Higgs Field is real. The Higgs Field is what gives everything mass. So, it seems to me that physics–regular mainstream physics–has a theoretical explanation back up by empirical observation. What are you adding to that?

And again, I don’t understand all this, so maybe I’m way off base. But I’ve heard this numerous times from many sources.

Well, it’s not supposed to. It’s supposed to question the possibility of your questions. If it lends itself to an inevitability, the rest is for you to ferret out. But, perhaps that is why we are commanded to “love one another.” Perhaps that is just not self-evident.

“the possibility of my questions”? “Inevitability”?

And that’s fine. That wasn’t my big intention.

Then you are left with otherwise unanswerable contradictions and questions. Unless, you wish to propose another theory.

I’m not sure that there are any contradictions. You haven’t mentioned any that I’m aware of. And, very importantly, the OP didn’t mention a contradiction.

We will always be left with questions, no matter how many of them we answer. Thus far, you’ve not approached any of the questions that I’ve stopped asking, but instead have offered up answers to questions that science deals with in regular course, but you interject a religious explanation.

I don’t have to propose a theory about mass…mainstream physicists (particulary Dr. Higgs, in this case) have taken care of that. Furthermore, I’m only qualified to propose theories in my particular expertise, which doesn’t include anything in the natural sciences.

As I said, you are left with unanswerable contradictions and questions - unless you have another theory. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to expose the necessity of meaningful answers to the contradictions and questions brought about by Physics.

God bless,
jd

See above. Perhaps a listing of the “unanswerable contradictions and questions” would be interesting and useful to this dialogue.

I don’t believe I ever invoked or proposed any contradictions. I merely accepted that there are unanswerable questions, and don’t feel any need to answer them (if for no other reason than that they do not get me anywhere).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This gives a theological representation what it means for God to exist. He is asking for a philosophical definition.

Well Reap, it is a philosophical explanation as well. St. Thomas uses philosophy to prove the same things. He might read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser and he will see.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m a bit confused by your response. Why have you responded this way? Where in my comment have I given the impression that I think I’m “powerful and self-sufficient” as opposed to actually being resigned and completely submissive to a God that is utter mystery??? And what in my post suggests that I don’t believe in God??

You’re so flippant with your two “you’ll have a big surprise when you die” comments in this thread. Do you feel you’re being as charitable as you, as a Catholic and as a Christian (not to mention a human), are called to be?

I missintrepreted your comments. There is so much loose discussion and impresision in this thread it gets frustrating. That is no excuse for my snyde remarks, I apologize and will try to be more patient.:sad_yes:

 

[JDaniel]

So why is this not just another god of the gaps? Once any so-called “contradictions” have been sorted out by science–once those gaps have been filled in–then that god becomes smaller.

Jocko:

Do you really have any hope that science will come to your rescue? Do you really think science will be able to tell you all about quanta? Or, do you think there will be theory after lame theory that tells you nothing new, just the same old regurgitation? This is quanta we are talking about - not something science can “see” or “measure,” or “recreate in the lab.” But, be that as it may. It won’t kill you, but just read some of the following thread: here

Contradictions? Or places that we haven’t made sense of yet?

They’ve been at this for some time now. Several months ago, some new interpretations of quantum findings were slated to be made public, but, they were told to hold off.

The Standard Model has this sorted out.

No it hasn’t. It is precisely the standard model that has arrived at these questions and contradictions.

Certainly, I don’t understand it–I’m no physicist-- but I have followed the CERN developments. Last I heard (pretty recently) they feel pretty solid that they’ve found the Higgs Boson, but they still need a lot more data to confirm it.

The so-called Higgs boson is quite theoretical, and quite unproven. The so-called Higgs Field is no less hypothetical. the boson has been the subject of extensive search for a long time. And still, nothing. But the field, even if the Higgs boson is postulated to have been found, is still very hypothetical. But, that’s OK. You can keep believing whatever you want. The theory I am propounding is not my own. It belongs to someone else who is well versed in the possibilities. I’ll see if I can get him to respond to you.

The Higgs Boson’s discovery supports the Standard Model, showing the Higgs Field is real. The Higgs Field is what gives everything mass.

You speak as though these are actual, as though they have been found and as though the postulations concerning them are real. They are not.

So, it seems to me that physics–regular mainstream physics–has a theoretical explanation back up by empirical observation.

“Empirical observation?” When, where, how?

What are you adding to that?

Nothing. I do not wish to add anything to that.

And again, I don’t understand all this, so maybe I’m way off base. But I’ve heard this numerous times from many sources.

Keep reading.

I’m not sure that there are any contradictions. You haven’t mentioned any that I’m aware of. And, very importantly, the OP didn’t mention a contradiction.

The acquisition of mass is a contradiction. Even if the Higgs boson is discovered, the conjecture must still prove that mass can be acquired.

We will always be left with questions, no matter how many of them we answer. Thus far, you’ve not approached any of the questions that I’ve stopped asking, but instead have offered up answers to questions that science deals with in regular course, but you interject a religious explanation.

Except that science has not answered these questions. Do you understand that?

I don’t have to propose a theory about mass…mainstream physicists (particulary Dr. Higgs, in this case) have taken care of that.

He has done no more than I have, and probably less.

Furthermore, I’m only qualified to propose theories in my particular expertise, which doesn’t include anything in the natural sciences.

As I said, keep reading.

See above. Perhaps a listing of the “unanswerable contradictions and questions” would be interesting and useful to this dialogue.

I don’t believe I ever invoked or proposed any contradictions. I merely accepted that there are unanswerable questions, and don’t feel any need to answer them (if for no other reason than that they do not get me anywhere).

Then, I would say this conversation is over.

God bless,
jd