One more proposal about a creator ("iT")
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I've watched and read multiple arguments about "God" and have rarely found one that did not conflate the issue of existence with that of essence. It may be they are inextricably linked, but I think they are separable.
In a previous proposed question on this forum, I asked whether existence could be addressed without devolving into an essence-discussion based on preconceived notions (e.g., Bhagavad Gita, Bible (OT/NT), Koran).
Since my position is that iT exists (a propositional axiom that I regard simply as a basis or foundation), the further arguments I'm looking for are proposals of necessary essences (if any), or other consequences that logically follow from existence or, for that matter, consequences that can not follow solely from the proposition.
For example: iT exists but has nothing whatever to do with the separate existence of the Universe. Or, iT exists and by extension of iT's nature, "is" the Universe. Or iT exists and by chosen action enacted processes like some massive puzzle we consider the Universe, a puzzle that's internally consistent without additional action or interaction.
When one argues, one is attempting to convince, but in this matter my purpose is to open a topic for review and engagement. If I convince anyone, it will be that it's a useful process that benefits from logical analysis and discussion such as has occurred here.
BTW, I've used "iT" to avoid the inadvertent gender/respect of capital "H", "He" and also so that where "it" has the usual meaning, it's clear.
Comments on Question
Answers
1
Hi, DrBill!
I came to this newer post to try and further understand what your position is, where you are coming from and what exactly you hope to get from discussing with us (or maybe just me, apparently).
The conflation of essence with existence is something you say that you have noticed especially within the context of arguments for God's existence. I suspect you are referring to arguments that are defended within the tradition of classical theism. Classical theists believe that God's essence is identical to God's existence and many of them defend arguments for that belief. Are these the kind of arguments and is this the theistic tradition that you are referring to? Are you basically trying to say that iT's (God's) essence and existence would not be identical, if iT (God) existed?
Based on the third and fourth paragraphs of your Question, starting with "since my position..." and ending with "...action or interaction", I think you are attempting to engage in what is known as creation theology. Creation theology is "a method of articulating a conception of God that centers around the claim that God is to be understood as the ultimate creator of every reality which exists distinct from [iTself]"*. Basically, in carrying out this method, philosophical theologians are conceiving of what God would have to be like in order to suffice for the existence of the cosmos or in order to be the ultimate cause. You, DrBill, are assuming that there is a Creator and then asking yourself: what would such a being have to be like in order to be the Creator? Would the Creator have to transcend the universe? or be part of the universe? or exist necessarily? or have free choice? So that has me wondering: is creation theology the project that you are pursuing?
There is a tough relationship between your axiom and your desire for answers about the nature of iT. You see, I've noticed that many creation theologists kick off by arguing that there must be a Creator. I understand this priority. After all, if a Creator is not needed in order to account for the features of the world, then it would probably be pointless, I think, to talk about what the Creator would have to be like in order to...well, suffice for the features of the world. Aquinas, for instance, wrote the Summa by pretty much starting off with arguments for God's existence. Within those arguments, and from those arguments, claims about the nature of God flowed throughout the rest of the Summa. Many modern-day classical theists (and theistic-personalists) proceed in a similar fashion. Their understanding of God comes in large part from the very arguments for God's existence that they defend, because the arguments themselves state or imply certain things about God in order to account for the features of the world. That is indeed the purpose of the majority of classical theist arguments: to show that there are certain facts or things about reality that can only be accounted for by, say, a First Cause. Motion is a famous example. And so the connection between Natural theology and creation theology is quite understandable.
In your case, however, you are just throwing down an axiom containing the mysterious word "iT" and with no argumentative background, and asking us what is supposed to follow from what you've got. I don't think this sets us up for a profitable discussion, which might be why few have responded. Arguments for a Creator have been useful not merely as projects aimed at justifying belief, but as projects that elaborate on what it even is that is believed in. Hence, you may find that defending the statement contained in your axiom will actually better prepare you to answer the question of what follows from it and to flesh out your perspective on the nature of iT.
In sum, I have asked if I have correctly understood what you are trying to say about essence/existence and, moreover, if a creation theology is some of what you are looking for. Finally, I think that you should consider the potential benefits that developing arguments for iT's existence could have, with respect to fleshing out a clearer position and direction for your conception of iT.
Thank you, DrBill, for your interesting post.
From, Kaiden
*Our Idea of God, by Thomas V. Morris, page 32.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
It is not an axiom.