Autonemesis

But we haven't established that god provides motivation to people. Helen has stated such a thesis, but offered nothing to substantiate it. I think there is plenty of room to argue that believing in god does not motivate people's behavior. The good old Question of Evil gives good reason to suspect that Helen's thesis is in error. Child molesting priests suggest more problems with Helen's idea. I think there is ample evidence that people do whatever the hell they want, and evoke god after the fact to justify or rationalize their actions.

Philosoft

RW:<strong> I don't know about this. I'm having a hard time picturing a non-physical entity doing anything, much less creating a universe. I can tell myself the entity I'm picturing is non-physical but it sure looks like a human.

<strong> Well, I for one am totally unable to picture a formless, massless entity at all, much less one performing any actions.

<strong> Indeed, I believe Christians actually do this very thing. But I don't believe they think God actually looks like their fathers. They have to give physical structure to the concept (else they couldn't conceive it) and since they don't know what a non-physical being is (because the concept is self-contradictory), they do the next best thing.

<strong> Right. There are good cognitive models that do explain this.

<strong> Interesting thought. But no, all I'm saying is that her experience can be described in perceptual terms, regardless of the feeling she has about it.

rainbow walking

rw: There's a misunderstanding afoot here. Yes, the concept of Odin exists, as does the concept of god. But I never said nor implied that this translates into a literal existence beyond the concept. Hope this helps to clarify things.

rainbow walking

rw: I'm not aware of any child molesting priest who claims to have been motivated by a belief in god to commit these crimes...are you?

More to the point, the motivational factor I was referring to was specific: The WTC incident. While I'm no expert on the psychology of Muslim fundamentalist fanatics I don't think it's arguable that the ones involved in the WTC incident were, in some way, motivated to do so by their beliefs.

I find it hard to grasp that these men just got up one day and decided they wanted to crash planes into these buildings. I'm inclined to suspect they were brain washed into believing this was what their version of a god wanted them to do and by the rewards they were promised if they would martyr themselves for this cause.

While I'm sure there have been cases similar to the ones you've posited, I don't think this particular incident fits the bill, so there is some precedent to support Helen's contention.

Autonemesis

Wow, I like, totally blew that one. Bummer.

Autonemesis

Neither am I, but that's not what I meant. The priests did what they did, despite their professed belief and indeed while acting as representatives of god, while at the same time the hierarchy of the church acted to protect those priests, and by extension the church itself, from exposure. They did this because they believed the church is god's house and is worth protecting. At least, that is a very charitable, if oversimplified interpretation. I feel pretty safe in guessing that at some level of their rationalization, the church hierarchy felt they were doing right by god, and the church.

But I while I cited a specific example, as did you, my remarks about belief in god as motivation for actions were referring to people in general, since that's what Helen and you seemed to be addressing. But since you mentioned it, I think it's an open question whether the 9/11 terrorists were motivated entirely or primarily by belief in god, or a reward from god. The political nature, and high profile of the targets, argues otherwise. Muslim apologists would have us believe that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Religion certainly seems to have played a role, but was it the primary motivation?

hal9000

Does...god...exist?
Uh no. Next question.

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: hal900069 ]</p>

rainbow walking

Greetings Rainbow Walking!

Greetings E-muse,

E: Before I attempt to respond to your opening post, may I thank you for an interesting and stimulating topic!

Rw: Yes you may and may I reciprocate with a hearty you’re welcome!

E: Firstly I would like to summarize the definitions that you presented. I am only interested in BEING and EXISTENCE as it is the relationship between these two terms that you seem to be discussing - at least initially.

Rw: More specifically: A BEING and EXISTENCE The distinction between being and A BEING is not a trivial one, I can assure you.

E: Apologies for cutting this short but at present I am not too concerned with the nature of God's being (omnipresent, etc) or whether he actually exists but simply the defenition of the terms and the relationship that you describe between the two terms.

So firstly we learn that God is a being. Simply, he is thought of as one who is!

Rw: Well, I hate to seem pedantic but I find no reference in the definitions given that god is thought of as one who is. Is what? The dictionary was specific in defining god as A BEING.

E: Before considering point 3 (Exist), I shall move on to 4 as this defines being for us.

E: Again, cut short, but here we see that being is defined as having existence. So... on to the defintion of exist.

E: So here we have a defintion of exist.. which is to have being.. and it is definitions that I am primarily concerned about here. I'm happy to leave God out of the equation for the moment.
We have the following:

1. Being - to have existence.

2. Exist - to have actual being.

Therefore the two terms appear synominous.
This seems to make sense to me. If something exists then it is and if something is then it exists. I hope that makes some kind of sense!

Rw: Yes, it does make sense, and if that something is called GOD and defined as A BEING then we can see that EXISTENCE, which has no mathematical limitations, (such as A BEING which implies a singular entity),cannot be synonymous with A BEING but only with ACTUAL BEING. Again the distinction is critical to the apprehension of the proper assignment of the correct values to each concept.

E: But exist is defined as having actual being and being is defined as having existence (in basic terms) which seems to take us around in a circle. They both seem to be saying that same thing.

Rw: Yes, but keep in mind the distinction between “being” and A BEING. When you say A BEING you are beginning to narrow the field of “being” down to a particular single entity. EXISTENCE encompasses everything that has both actual and/or imagined being. A BEING is a single entity within the larger framework of EXISTENCE.

E: Agreed.

Rw: A BEING…not just being. An important distinction.

E: And the qualification for EXISTENCE is ACTUALLY BEING.

Rw: That is correct.

E: Leaving God out of it for the moment, how can EXISTENCE be without anything that IS?

Rw: If what you mean by “IS” here is actual being, it can’t.

E: How can EXISTENCE be a necessary cause of being before anything is?

Rw: It can’t. EXISTENCE must have always been and always be. The only alternative is non-existence. That is why you cannot invoke god, A BEING, prior to EXISTENCE. The more pertinent question here is: Does existence stand alone as actual being or does it require something more or other than actual being for substance?

E: But how is existence a meaningful concept without anything that is?

Rw: Again I can only assume “anything that is” to be equivalent to actual being. Existence and actual being are synonymous. Neither would be a meaningful concept without the other. What I meant by the above statement is that A BEING called GOD requires existence to be a meaningful concept, whether the concept has actual being or not. But EXISTENCE requires no concept of A BEING to be meaningful…only actual being.

E: Let me give a silly example to try and convey what I am thinking.

Imagine nothing. Nothing exists. What would be required in order for something to exist?

Rw: Existence

E: Wouldn't it require the presence of something that is?

Rw: Yes, EXISTENCE

E: O.K, in our imaginary scenario, a pink unicorn suddenly appears. We can confidently say that in our imaginary scenario the pink unicorn is, in other words it has being, but also it can be said to exist. The two seem one and the same to me - forgive me if I'm missing something.

Rw: What distinctive attribute causes it to have being? Pinkness. What distinctive attribute is listed in the definition of the concept of god? Mathematics; remember the concept was defined as A BEING meaning ONE BEING. Existence does not require these distinctions therefore EXISTENCE is the antecedent.

E: Indeed, I'm not arguing this. I am saying that EXISTENCE requires SOMETHING.

Rw: Yes, something that has actual being…remember. God is defined as A BEING but has not been established as having ACTUAL BEING outside of the concept itself.

E: I think that it may be helpful (for me anyway ), to leave God out of it for a second.
I cannot see how the term 'existence' has any power over anything because it is meaningless in the absence of something that IS.

Rw: The universe, as IS, provides us with plenty of everything that has actual being to make existence meaningful. A BEING called God is not required or necessary. There is a balance of power between EXISTENCE and NON-EXISTENCE.

E: Whatever is has power of existence because it's presence gives meaning to the term existence.

Rw: Nothing within EXISTENCE has any power over EXISTENCE itself but is dependent upon everything else that IS for both its presence and meaning WITHIN the greater context of EXISTENCE. Hence we have compressed all that we know about EXISTENCE into a concept defined as THIS UNIVERSE.

E: This seems a little over complicated.

E: You can't have anything outside of existence because the breadth of what exists is defined by what is.

Rw: Well, I wasn’t referring to ANYTHING but to a specific something defined as having a specific attribute of omnipresence. But since you don’t want to talk about god in the context of this discussion I am at a disadvantage in justifying my claim.

E: Nothing exists outside of existence surely?! The moment that something IS anywhere, something can then be said to EXIST there. It is no longer nothing.

Rw: Neither concept of NOTHING or SOMETHING have been defined as A BEING or having an attribute of omniscience, so your objection is irrelevant.

E: Are you saying that God must be contingent?

Rw: Precisely.

E: This seems a little clearer.

E: In terms of our ability to perceive.. yes. But perceptual verification is governed by the limitations of human perception. Consider the size of the universe and how much of it we can actually examine close up.

Do you mean, considered concrete within the confines of human perception or are you speaking of actual being in an objective sense.

Rw: I mean both. Any object that has ACTUAL BEING must be perceivable to exist. That doesn’t mean it has already been perceived but, in order to have actual being, it must be subject to perceptual verification.

E: Do you accept that, in such an enormous universe, things actually exist that we may never be able to perceive?

Rw: No, if what you mean by WE is the human species. Yes, if what you mean by WE is limited to the human species in this time frame.

E: God only exists as a thought?

Rw: As a concept comprised of various and sundry definitions and IDEAS. It has not been perceptually verified that god exists as an actual being. It has not been verified that the concept does not represent a concrete being. In short…the CONCEPT of god defined by specific attributes and deeds is all that can be said to factually exist in the abstract category of EXISTENCE.

E: Possibly. However, I'm anxious to come to a common understanding on the relationship between being and existence first.

Rw: I hope we are closer to relieving you of that anxiety than when we first began.

E: This would entail a debate concerning the nature of the first cause - the necessary something that is the ground for all being.

Rw: But, that is precisely what we’ve been discussing. EXISTENCE is the ground of all being, both actual and imagined. It is the necessary requisite for all that is and it is timeless so there is no question of first cause unless you wish to limit your discussion to THIS UNIVERSE.

Now I will ask you to speculate: Does this universe exist as an end in itself or does it exist as a means to another end?

Thank you, E-muse, for your thoughtful enquiries. I look forward to hearing more from you on this subject in the future and wish for you good health and long life.

Ron Singh

Existence is an attribute of God. We being the creation have been granted this attribute too. For anything to Exist, there must be God. God exists, not to say that God is a byproduct of existence, rather existence is the byproduct of existence. Moreover, God being non-contingent, would enforce the fact that omniscience and omnipotence are alongside the fact that God exists.

HelenM

Hi Kind Bud

Actually the problem here is that you miscontrued my thesis.

My thesis is that 'belief is powerfully motivational'. Not that everyone who claims to believe in God has a strong enough belief in God that that belief will overcome his/her other beliefs.

When people do things against their professed belief system, all it shows is that they are acting on other beliefs that are more powerful to them than what they profess.

If I say I believe (for example)

...but I deliberately use words that will tear someone else down (say) then I demonstrate that my belief in my right to do so is stronger than my belief that I ought to do what this passage says.

Do you see what I mean, Kind Bud? I hope so.

For what it's worth, I definitely agree that sometimes people use belief systems merely to try to justify the legitimacy of them doing whatever they want to do. At other times I think they have some sort of genuine belief in benign aspects of a system but their other beliefs continue to dictate their behavior, being more powerful and being somewhat in conflict with the belief system and that conflict not having been resolved to date by the person.

love
Helen