Why does God exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scaun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scaun said:
Thank you for your advice.

Well, I’m also wondering about the purpose God had in mind in creating the world and us, but that’s for another thread and another time.

I’m glad you liked it!

I don’t think this answer the basic question of why He exists.

That, well, doesn’t really make sense. His existence can’t be the reason of His existence.
Click to expand...
Would you mind to explain why? ::::: quote:::::::
That, well, doesn’t really make sense. His existence can’t be the reason of His existence.
Click to expand...
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
Would you mind to explain why? ::::: quote:::::::
Click to expand...
I do not know all the logical fallacies, but that certainly seems like one. I would say it’s circular reasoning, but I’m not sure. “Why does God exists? Because He exists.” Does that make sense to you?
 
Scaun said:
I do not know all the logical fallacies, but that certainly seems like one. I would say it’s circular reasoning, but I’m not sure. “Why does God exists? Because He exists.” Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...
First of all, we can’t know the ultimate answer to that question, precisely because He has never directly told us, and we know that He was not caused. But, from an ontologically sequential and logical point of view, to know the Final Cause of a thing is to be, like an Efficient Cause, exterior to it. But, we participate in Existence, so we can’t be exterior to it.

At best, our Church suggests that God’s purpose is the contemplation of Himself and all that He creates. That would be an explanation of purpose from its interior, so to speak, i.e, emanating from within “existence qua existence.”

However, since He was not brought into being, which would presuppose something that could bring Him into being, we cannot argue to an ultimate purpose from a non-possible exterior. That would be logically and ontologically impossible.

So, MoM2’s explanation will have to do.

God bless,
jd
 
Scaun said:
I do not know all the logical fallacies, but that certainly seems like one. I would say it’s circular reasoning, but I’m not sure. “Why does God exists? Because He exists.” Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...
Specifically, it’s called “begging the question.”
 
Scaun said:
I do not know all the logical fallacies, but that certainly seems like one. I would say it’s circular reasoning, but I’m not sure. “Why does God exists? Because He exists.” Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...
No fallacies around.
God said in the old Testament: “I am Who I am!” when Moses asked Him who He Was.
Extradordinary definition.
Remember your question makes no sense reagarding God. You may ask: Why does that Bridge exists?" It is a bridge. It was built “because” there was a problem to cross the river and “for” the cars to cross the river.
In God, there is no “why”, “because”, “what for”, “for”. That is human thinking, I would say that is a fallacy.
To ask why God exists is similar (but not the same thing) to ask why 1=1. This one mathematical problem we can solve , attention!
But to ask Why God exists makes no sense.
He is Existence.
So, there is no asking why He is exists for He is Existence Himself (Herself, Itself).
I can elaborate more, if needed.
 
Pfaffenhoffen nails it, as far as my undernourished philosophical sensibility tells me.
Gentle atheist’s ‘question begging’ objection makes sense though, I’d say a theist and atheist are arguing past one-another here. I’ve been both, so I hope I’m not reaching outside my intellectual limits by trying to explain.
G.a. seems to have a decent knowledge of philosophy. He’s (I’m assuming) read little theology or scriptural exegesis. Many on this board are the exact opposite. A statement like ‘I am, that I am’ seems like a tautology in pure philosophical discourse. But scripture (I’m coming to find out) doesn’t speak in philosophical language as much or as often as it does to that basic poetic modality that doesn’t take a Hume to decipher.‘I am, that I am’ has a more direct, visceral intelligibility than ‘Thank you for your question, Moses. I am, in fact, a non-contingent being, whose potential and actuality are one and the same, necessitating my having all positive attributes.’ That doesn’t make the more simplified (and aesthetic) statement tautological; it just means that it wasn’t written with the philosopher in mind.
Gentle atheist, I ask you to give your consideration to two thoughts: 1. Is something non-contingent necessary? 2. What are the consequences of admitting the ontological necessity of such a being (i.e., what must such a being be like, logically?)
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
Remember your question makes no sense reagarding God. You may ask: Why does that Bridge exists?" It is a bridge. It was built “because” there was a problem to cross the river and “for” the cars to cross the river.
In God, there is no “why”, “because”, “what for”, “for”. That is human thinking, I would say that is a fallacy.
To ask why God exists is similar (but not the same thing) to ask why 1=1. This one mathematical problem we can solve , attention!
But to ask Why God exists makes no sense.
He is Existence.
So, there is no asking why He is exists for He is Existence Himself (Herself, Itself).
I can elaborate more, if needed.
Click to expand...
Humans are frequently asking themselves “why do I exist?” Religion answers that question by saying that our purpose is (roughly) to love and serve God. However, if God himself has no purpose then our lives are ultimately without purpose as well by the associative property of purposefulness. In other words, if a bridge were built so that people could cross the river, it would seem that the bridge has a well defined purpose. However, if the people crossing the bridge do so without purpose (or no one crossed it), then there really was no reason to build the bridge in the first place, and it ultimately served no purpose. In the same way, if God created us to love and serve him, it would seem like we have a well defined purpose. However, if God himself has no purpose, then we are just like the bridge that served no purpose.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Humans are frequently asking themselves “why do I exist?” Religion answers that question by saying that our purpose is (roughly) to love and serve God. However, if God himself has no purpose then our lives are ultimately without purpose as well by the associative property of purposefulness. In other words, if a bridge were built so that people could cross the river, it would seem that the bridge has a well defined purpose. However, if the people crossing the bridge do so without purpose (or no one crossed it), then there really was no reason to build the bridge in the first place, and it ultimately served no purpose. In the same way, if God created us to love and serve him, it would seem like we have a well defined purpose. However, if God himself has no purpose, then we are just like the bridge that served no purpose.
Click to expand...
You have overlooked the fact that God’s purpose is to love… Or do you reject love as insignificant?
 
Why does God exist?

The question assumes in the “why” that something made God to exist for a purpose. But since God is existence itself, (I Am That I Am) there can be nothing that came before Him to assign Him a purpose. 😉
 
tonyrey said:
You have overlooked the fact that God’s purpose is to love… Or do you reject love as insignificant?
Click to expand...
Why then can’t atheists, in their search for meaning, conclude that our purpose is to love, and that our love is not insignificant?
 
I know you probably do not like to hear that not every question has an answer, but, truly, not every question is answerable.

For example, is this a question, with an available answer? How is the why of why a what, if it is when?

Well, it has the form of a question, but no answer can even be assumed, much less answered.

No answer can be assumed, to the why of God‘s existence.

Does that mean there is no answer to why does God exist?

Well, we have no concepts, no words, no inkling to approaching the question.

For our tools, it is truly a conundrum, wrapped in a mystery, clouded within a puzzle.

We have no basis to even assume there is an answer, much less what it is.

It would probably be easier to answer the “question” of how is the why of why a what, if it is when.

Could God answer the question of why He exists?

Of course, but only He could reveal the answer : should there be one.

Your other question of what is God’s purpose is not clear.🙂

How are you directing the use of the word: purpose? Purpose with respect to what, and in what manner?
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Why then can’t atheists, in their search for meaning, conclude that our purpose is to love, and that our love is not insignificant?
Click to expand...
There is nothing to stop them - and I sincerely hope that they do - but love in a loveless universe is an anomaly…
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Humans are frequently asking themselves “why do I exist?” Religion answers that question by saying that our purpose is (roughly) to love and serve God. However, if God himself has no purpose then our lives are ultimately without purpose as well by the associative property of purposefulness. In other words, if a bridge were built so that people could cross the river, it would seem that the bridge has a well defined purpose. However, if the people crossing the bridge do so without purpose (or no one crossed it), then there really was no reason to build the bridge in the first place, and it ultimately served no purpose. In the same way, if God created us to love and serve him, it would seem like we have a well defined purpose. However, if God himself has no purpose, then we are just like the bridge that served no purpose.
Click to expand...
Purpose needs time.
Problem- people cannot cross the river.
Sudy - alternatives.
Decision- built a bridge
Plan- architect
Calculus - engeineers
executions- Builder Company
Conclusion- people crossing easily the river.

These steps do not exist in Go, for there is no problem, no time, no planning, no execution.

In Heaven there are no bridges because there in no need for them.
there is no food, for there is no need for it.
there are no clothes for they are needless.

So, In Heaven, there are no purposes.
At least for God, Men could have maybe.
But not God.
Your conclusion is wrong.
You wais that for there in no Purpose in God, there is no need for God.
No. God inclues ALL purposes, He is the Infinite Purpose.
 
Curious_Seed said:
I know you probably do not like to hear that not every question has an answer, but, truly, not every question is answerable.

For example, is this a question, with an available answer? How is the why of why a what, if it is when?

Well, it has the form of a question, but no answer can even be assumed, much less answered.

No answer can be assumed, to the why of God‘s existence.

Does that mean there is no answer to why does God exist?

Well, we have no concepts, no words, no inkling to approaching the question.

For our tools, it is truly a conundrum, wrapped in a mystery, clouded within a puzzle.

We have no basis to even assume there is an answer, much less what it is.

It would probably be easier to answer the “question” of how is the why of why a what, if it is when.

Could God answer the question of why He exists?

Of course, but only He could reveal the answer : should there be one.

Your other question of what is God’s purpose is not clear.🙂

How are you directing the use of the word: purpose? Purpose with respect to what, and in what manner?
Click to expand...
I do not think “why” needs a purpose. That can be a cause, only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top