wiegraf:

Exactly what he seems to be doing in another thread...

......the bolded being the operative word. I've only decided to go to the root of things dispassionately. When we talk Christianity, everybody bases their atheism on objections to a Christianity that even a Christian is hard-pressed to recognize as such. So, let's simply discuss existentiality. Does God exist at all? If it does, what is it? At the latter point, I'll open the Bible. Until then, just prove to me that your atheism makes sense in the light of bare reality.

Ihedinobi:

......the bolded being the operative word. I've only decided to go to the root of things dispassionately. When we talk Christianity, everybody bases their atheism on objections to a Christianity that even a Christian is hard-pressed to recognize as such. So, let's simply discuss existentiality. Does God exist at all? If it does, what is it? At the latter point, I'll open the Bible. Until then, just prove to me that your atheism makes sense in the light of bare reality.

Burden of proof bro.
Anyways, I have no problem with you not using christian god, but you'll have to describe what god you speak of. What you seem to be implying in that thread is pantheist god. Could you clarify over there? I might not answer right away though as I might need to hit the road soon.

Ihedinobi:

I think I better put it in an absolute way so that the absurdity of your question becomes crystal.

It is actually not totally correct to say, "God exists" especially if that can be taken to mean that God is an entity experiencing an event called existence. The correct and absolute form is "God is existence". The error that is easy to fall into in this regard is to think that everything that exists is God. But if we unraveled that latter thought, it would become, "everything that experiences existence is God" which is obviously absurd. God is that which is.

As such, God is not subject to any thing or condition. That which is God is that which is the final explanation for everything and every condition that experiences existence.

Again, God did not create existence. Rather, God is the meaning of existence. "Why is there existence?" can only be answered thus: "because there is God". To proceed then to ask why there is God is to speak nonsense. If you disagree, please feel free to show what sense there is in the question.

Existence in very simple terms: a state of being, of present. Also that the concepts of existence and God are very distinct and separate, its absurd to equate both, which will lead to concluding that all existent entities are God.

Existence is more of a quality, experiencing such is limited to conscious entities, at least sentient beings. Experience implies a level of perception. So whatever is existing is first "is" then depending on its limitations can perceive it.

Besides if you still insist God is existence, then in answering "why is there existence", you because THERE IS God, obviously doesn't resolve the question, rather you paraphrased. In other words, "there is existence because of existence."

Kay 17:

Existence in very simple terms: a state of being, of present. Also that the concepts of existence and God are very distinct and separate, its absurd to equate both, which will lead to concluding that all existent entities are God.

God and existence are distinct, you say. And your reason for saying so is that all existent entities would be God if it were true.

May I ask if you read my post, sir? Because in it I said that it cannot be said that existent entities are God simply because God is existence. I pointed out that existent entities necessarily experience existence as a condition or event whereas the self-existent does not. Self-existence implies that the self-existent entity does not experience a condition or event called existence. It is itself that condition. Everything that exists necessarily experiences this entity as the condition of existence.

Existence is more of a quality, experiencing such is limited to conscious entities, at least sentient beings. Experience implies a level of perception. So whatever is existing is first "is" then depending on its limitations can perceive it.

We have no arguments here. Existence is, of course, a quality, even though I personally prefer a condition or state. Everything that "is" experiences it. But as a matter of contingency.

Existence is a condition external to the entity which experiences it. It's like the canvas of a painting. Without a canvas, there is no painting. But there can be a canvas without a painting. So, unless the very paintings are woven into the canvas essentially becoming part of it, their existence is a matter of contingency. You can see obviously that the canvas is not contingent. So that which is existence itself cannot be said to be experiencing a state called existence as an event external to it.

Besides if you still insist God is existence, then in answering "why is there existence", you because THERE IS God, obviously doesn't resolve the question, rather you paraphrased. In other words, "there is existence because of existence."

No problems there. Existence is because God is. If there were no God, there would be no existence. If we premised "why existence?" on "there is a God" then we can expect an answer. Because then we would not be asking why existence exists. We would be asking why contingent entities exist. But destroy the premise of God, and your question becomes meaningless.

Because in it I said that it cannot be said that existent entities are God simply because God is existence.

By necessary inference, it is. I see no difference btw God existing and any other entity. If existence is an event to one entity, then it is to God. If not accept the necessary conclusion.

Kay 17:

By necessary inference, it is. I see no difference btw God existing and any other entity. If existence is an event to one entity, then it is to God. If not accept the necessary conclusion.

Here you're still making the grave mistake of holding God as an "entity". What is God if not that which self-exists? If God is that which self-exists, then existence is no event that God experiences. Ignore for a minute whether Jesus or Allah or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is God. Just consider the bare concept of God. That which is God, that is, which self-exists, cannot experience existence apart from itself.

That being so, your position is still absurd.

What does self existent mean to you?

Kay 17: What does self existent mean to you?

Ordinarily, the dynamics of this argument would have me asking you that question. Regardless, self-existence means non-contingent existence. In other words, it means that which exists upon itself, not another. Its very own self is its existence.

Lovely, Ihedinobi, Just lovely!

Self existent entity is such independent from a cause, simple. However it shares as much characteristics as other existing entities as with the "IS" attribute.

Ihedinobi:

Regardless, self-existence means non-contingent existence. In other words, it means that which exists upon itself, not another. Its very own self is its existence.

You haven't been able to merge the concept of existence with a necessary being into one. You are still touching on its causeless nature. How does an entity establish itself as a state whuich itself is subject to?! Its ridiculous

Kay 17: Self existent entity is such independent from a cause, simple. However it shares as much characteristics as other existing entities as with the "IS" attribute.

You would be more correct, sir, if you said that the self-existent lends some of its characteristics to contingent entities.

You haven't been able to merge the concept of existence with a necessary being into one. You are still touching on its causeless nature. How does an entity establish itself as a state whuich itself is subject to?! Its ridiculous

Sir, the above is the same as "how does a being or entity that has no beginning come into being?" or "how does an entity that is itself existence begin to exist?" And to be able to ask such an absurd question, you have to separate causelessness from self-existence, a very absurd thing to do. Causelessness = self-existence. By one, you necessarily mean the other.

If I must break it down further, that which was never caused never began to exist. If it never began to exist, then either it is itself existence or else it does not exists. If there is anything experiencing a condition of existence, then the latter is irrelevant. Since we exist, there must necessarily be a first uncaused cause that is itself existence. Therefore, self-existence = causelessness.

By the foregoing, it is then absurd to consider a self-existent entity as subject to the condition of existence which itself is. If that is absurd, then it is absurd to ask how such an entity came to establish itself in a condition that is not external to it, but is the same as itself.

Do you understand me now, sir?

Edited

Mr_Anony: Lovely, Ihedinobi, Just lovely!

Thank you, twin bro

So in your view, a causeless entity is existence itself?

Kay 17: So in your view, a causeless entity is existence itself?

Lol, How did you arrive at that from what Ihedinobi has been saying so far?

Kay 17 please stop trying so hard to misunderstand. It helps you not.

Kay 17: So in your view, a causeless entity is existence itself?

Yes, but to avoid misunderstanding, by causeless, I mean uncaused.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, How did you arrive at that from what Ihedinobi has been saying so far?

Kay 17 please stop trying so hard to misunderstand. It helps you not.

Twin bro, in this case, his understanding appears to be on point, but we'll see where he might head with it. What I've been trying to bring him home to is the fact that whereas contingent entities experience existence as an event external to their beings, the self-existent does not, but is itself the existence that all contingent entities experience. Therefore, the question as to how the self-existent established itself in a condition of existence external to it has a flawed premise and is therefore absurd.

You know what, i will assume your position for a while, if God is existence then I can equally replace the question "why is there existence", with why is there God?

Kay 17: You know what, i will assume your position for a while, if God is existence then I can equally replace the question "why is there existence", with why is there God?

Same absurdity as before. "Why does existence exist?"

Why is the first question absurd?

Kay 17: Why is the first question absurd?

Explain to me, if you please, why it's not.

LOOL!

Kay 17: LOOL!

Same here

How disappointing, @Kay 17. You've no answer to my demand? Don't tell me you ran out of "twisters".

Mr_Anony:
Lol, How did you arrive at that from what Ihedinobi has been saying so far?

Kay 17 please stop trying so hard to misunderstand. It helps you not.

Twin bro, you know how I am with unfinished thoughts. What do you think of Acts 17:18 and the surrounding context?

Ihedinobi:

Twin bro, you know how I am with unfinished thoughts. What do you think of Acts 17:18 and the surrounding context?

It describes Nairaland Religion Forum. Verse 34 is the beauty. Verse 33 I am soon gonna do.

tevinsolt: Why does life exist....why does anything exists?
Why does life exist?

Life exists to combat and destroy itself. Eventually everything will die, it's like a cycle that is pointless and useless. A dead end, life is another pointless creation.

why was mother Theresa good when she could have been Hitler

why judge cannibals, war mongers since everything is headed for doom

why question/judge women who abort their babies, in short why anything?

Everything is pointless, meaningless, worthless because it all goes to extinction!

Anything that exists deserves to exist.

ifeness:
Anything that exists deserves to exist.

Lol, and what did they do to deserve existence?

ifeness:


Anything that exists deserves to exist.

Will this answer anything?

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
this is the purpose for existence.

Mr_Anony:
It describes Nairaland Religion Forum. Verse 34 is the beauty. Verse 33 I am soon gonna do.

I see Yeah, me too. Things seem to be working toward my getting busy as well.

@Kay 17

Ok. You went awol because if God is existence, the question "what is the purpose for existence?" can be rephrased "what is the purpose for God?"

I don't expect to see you around these parts again, but to posit that the op's question can be rephrased that way is misconstruing every explanation that I have made like Mr Anony said you did and I suspected that you would. Anyway, I made abundantly clear to you that God, being self-existent, is Himself the condition of existence. As such it does not make sense to ask, "why existence?" Like I said, existence or self-existence is causelessness and therefore necessarily arbitrary. But it makes every sense to ask, "why does anything exist?" This latter question does not address the condition of existence, rather does it address the things that experience it. It is a logical question because it takes for granted a condition of existence and a first cause.

Such a question can be answered with "because God exists." God, being Himself existence, is the reason, final explanation and ultimate purpose for everything that exists. But it is nonsense to ask why He Himself exists. The instant a reason can be established for His existence that is independent of Himself, He is no longer God. Rather that which provides reason for God's existence becomes God. That is logic.

So, sir, your question is still necessarily absurd and nonsense.

^^
As I mentioned earlier, I seek for a rational justification for existence. Its either we are here or not. We can well imagine nothing.

Your attempt in trying to equate a being with its distinct personality with a state of "is" is unsuccessful.

I simply exist, you exist, God exists. Existence is a background from which other things, knowledge, awareness, experience stand. I can't experience existence as an event or a condition, rather a precondition. A pre requisite for everything. It is impossible to separate/isolate existence as an event.