In a message dated May 8, 1998 HOWARD8984 writes:

Howard,

No matter where or how you think your ‘god’ exists, you are arguing that it exists. Just by positing ‘god’ you are presupposing EXISTENCE. Before one can say that anything exists - whether real or imagined - one must presume that existence exists.

You are saying that your ‘god’ exists, correct? Therefore, you presuppose existence, whether you know it or not, and whether you like it or not.

Arguing that your ‘god’ exists as an ‘immaterial’ being ‘distinct from the created, natural realm’, is trifling at best, and missing the point in general. You are positing a form of existence, and therefore, you are presupposing existence.

* * * * * * * * * $

Osareya was correct to point out that things other than just ‘matter’ exist, such as energy, spacetime, etc. In the realm of higher-order living beings, consciousness also exists. All these things are said to exist, and thus presuppose that existence exists. Energy, static electricity, sound waves, radiation, light waves, sensations, perceptions, consciousness, ideas, abstractions and anything else that exists EXIST, whether one wants to argue that any of these are dependent ultimately on matter or not, and therefore PRESUPPOSE THAT EXISTENCE EXISTS. Existence is the ‘ultimate presupposition’ - if that is how you would like to phrase it - that you have been looking for, not ‘god’. Positing ‘god’ only presupposes existence; ‘god’ cannot be an ‘ultimate presupposition’ precisely for this very reason.

The only fundamental primary that everything man is, thinks, does, feels, imagines and produces, presupposes that EXISTENCE EXISTS.

Existence is the ONLY NECESSARY primary required to constitute a universe. Even if the ONLY THING that exists is a tiny pebble, that pebble exists, and therefore, the universe, which consists of the entire realm of existence, and ONLY that, would consist of just one little pebble.

Arguing as Howard does that "the universe cannot be eternal, for it is composed of contingent processes, events and states," also fails to contest or invalidate the absolute nature of EXISTENCE. A pebble is NOT a process, event or a state. A pebble merely exists. Howard is correct, however, in stating that ‘processes, events and states’ are contingent. Upon WHAT are these things contingent?????

You guessed it: EXISTENCE.

What Howard wants to demonstrate is that existence is contingent, however, he still fails to isolate the concept and its associated principles, as his attempted contention above reveals. I will explain it to him AGAIN:

Existence exists. Existence exists absolutely, indisputably, undeniably. There is no disputing the fact of existence. Existence is THE ESSENTIAL IRREDUCIBLE PRIMARY TO EVERYTHING. The concept ‘entity’ - no matter what its nature, composition or form, PRESUPPOSES EXISTENCE. Existence exists.

Existence is uncreatable, indestructible; existence is eternal. Existence is not contingent on any a priori cause or force, as these would presuppose that existence exists already as a necessary condition. Existence exists independent of consciousness: existence does not proceed from consciousness, as the assertion of consciousness necessarily presupposes existence exists.

Existence does not exist for a purpose. It simply exists. Existence has no purpose to serve, nor does it require a purpose in order to exist, nor does it need to justify itself. Existence exists.

Nor is man accountable FOR existence; existence exists whether he does or not. On the contrary, man - if he is to survive - is accountable TO existence, i.e., to reality, to nature, to objectivity.

Everything man is, does, thinks and imagines presupposes existence. Everything that exists rests on the axiom EXISTENCE EXISTS.

The religionist posits the notion ‘god’ to explain all natural phenomena. The religionist posits ‘god’ as the cause of all existence. However, the religionist is positing something that EXISTS as the cause of EXISTENCE.

The view that reality (the realm of existence) finds its ‘source’ in a form of consciousness, is called SUBJECTIVISM. It is a doctrine that attempts to dispute the fact of existence, but fails.

The only way one can argue for a ‘god’ is to attempt to reject the axiom existence exists.

However, Existence exists.

Can any religionist in this debate demonstrate that existence is NOT absolute?

Again, positing GOD posits a ‘form’ of existence, and THEREFORE presupposes EXISTENCE.

I for one am very curious how Howard or anyone else would attempt to disqualify or invalidate the fact of existence. Each attempt to do so has failed to date. (Of course, any attempt to do so would necessarily presuppose existence, so I guess you’re automatically stumped. Oh well, keep trying, I know you will.)

* * * * * * * * * *

Here is another question I have: Note that in Genesis chapter one, God is reported to have "created the heaven and the earth" in verse one. Then in verse three, God created light. It appears by this account that the early writers of Genesis thought that their deity created the heaven and the earth first, then light. (Did God live in darkness until this act? Did God create the darkness, or the 'void'?) However, in I John 1:5, it says "God is light", which seems to suggest that someone had it turned around. According to the Bible, there is no mention of light existing until AFTER the creation of the heaven and the earth. However, John referred to God as "light" (there are other references similar to John’s in other books of the Bible by other, equally misguided [and anonymous] authors).

However, I wonder why God is said to have started with creating the heaven and the earth (i.e., particulars) and not with existence. In fact, nowhere in the Bible have I read God created existence, he’s only reported creating concrete particulars, not the condition by which concrete particulars are possible, which is: EXISTENCE.

Of course, if the Bible did come along and suggest that God created existence, the Bible would expose itself blatantly for the hokum it indeed is. If the Bible were to say "God created existence" then one would automatically have to conclude that existence did not exist UNTIL God got around to creating it. How, then, could the theist say "God exists"?

The Bible also states that this ‘god’ called himself at one point "I AM" (Exodus 3:14). However, as this is a statement that presupposes both existence and consciousness, it disqualifies completely the claim that ‘god created everything’. Again, existence exists.

In order to evade the reality of existence, the theist then posits that God is from ‘another dimension’, when the Bible never makes any mention of this ‘other dimension’ at all (in fact, according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, there is no entry for the word ‘dimension’ at all, suggesting to me that the early Hebrews were in general completely ignorant of this concept).

As long as the theist attempts to defend his god-beliefs, he is struggling against reality, which is the realm of existence. He is saying in essence that existence is not an absolute, yet he posits his ‘god’ as existing absolutely. Existence exists. Even if there were a ‘god’, his ‘existence’ would presuppose existence in the first place. The Argument from Existence is indisputable. Any counter-argument itself presupposes existence. No one, not even the most devout religionist, can dispute the unalterable fact of existence.

As for the claim that ‘God created logic’, this is absurd. There is no mention of Logic anywhere in the Bible (Strong’s gives the word ‘logic’ a miss and goes from ‘log’ to ‘loins’ - rather ironic, ain’t it???). Logic was first developed by the Greeks - particularly Aristotle ("A is A"), yet the authors and editors of the Bible clearly disapproved of the ‘foolishness’ of Greeks (see I Corinthians, chapters 1 and 2). Yet nowadays the Christian attempts at every turn to pilfer like a thief in the night (okay, pun intended) the credit of man’s success in his allegiance to reason. Jesus must be rolling in his tomb!! For he would never have approved of a means of knowledge whereby men put down threats and appeals to force (i.e., the means of enforcing faith) in favor of REASON.

On this point, George H. Smith in his book Atheism: The Case Against God, contrasts the methods of the Greeks with that of Jesus:

Now, would you rather follow a man who uses threats of force to back his proclamations, or listen to and judge the words of men who establish their convictions by use of REASON???

Again, as Ayn Rand stated many times before: "Faith and force are corollaries."

Hence, the religionist says: "Believe, or BURN IN HELL."

If that’s not a threat of force, then please, someone, tell me what it is!!!

On that note, have any religionists provided any EVIDENCE for their ‘god’ yet?

I’m still waiting!!!

Enjoying the virtues of reason and a sound mind,

Tindrbox

_________________________________