If God DOES exist

  • Thread starter hypnagogue
  • Start date
  • #26
1,648
0
Objective existence vs. Subjective existence

Or: why a mere subjective form of existence, can not be all there is without there being an objective material world.

" (...) Hunger is a natural need; it therefore needs a nature outside itself, an object outside itself, in order to satisfy itself, to be stilled. Hunger is an acknowledged need of my body for an object existing outside it, indispensable to its integration and to the expression of its essential being. The sun is the object of the plant — an indispensable object to it, confirming its life — just as the plant is an object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the sun, of the sun’s objective essential power.

A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.

Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object. (...)"

Excerpt from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
231
0
I think it's a little funny how we people in general must have become much more agnostic or unsure the latter decades.

I mean, before say back 1000 years we were all running around and yelling to people BEWARE! DEMONS! etc. so sure of our own veiw, but maybe now we see more oppinions, I dunno.
Maybe it's all the change that makes us so unsure, and not that we are more.
Maybe in 500 years when we the heavy globalization is mostly over, we will turn back to more sure oppinions.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
Objective existence vs. Subjective existence

Or: why a mere subjective form of existence, can not be all there is without there being an objective material world.
I think it stands to reason that an objective reality exitsts -- but, "who's" going to interpret it? You? ... Me? ... the Easter Bunny?

Therefore, if an external reality cannot even be comprehended without an internal reality, what does that say? That the external reality "must" be the extension of the internal reality. Not vice versa. :wink:

So what it all boils down to is who are you going to trust? Are you going to trust science, which by no means has solved all the answers? ... and does very little to address what is meaningful? Or, are you going to trust your own intstincts, and give some credit to Mother Nature, who gave you the brain to think with in the first place? ...

Do you realize that everything which exists outside of this "little sphere" you call yourself is non-existent? Or, at least it is to the extent that you're not aware of it. Which is to say, you can only experience those things which are closest to you, and hence "subjective" to your experience.
 
  • #29
1,648
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think it stands to reason that an objective reality exitsts -- but, "who's" going to interpret it? You? ... Me? ... the Easter Bunny?

Therefore, if an external reality cannot even be comprehended without an internal reality, what does that say? That the external reality "must" be the extension of the internal reality. Not vice versa. :wink:


Your argument makes no sense, all you state is that we can not comprehend "external" reality without consciousness, therefore consciousness has to exist.

What does that have to do with the existence of external reality itself, independend from one's consciousness?

Would at the moment all consciouss beings would have died, the world cease to exist???


So what it all boils down to is who are you going to trust? Are you going to trust science, which by no means has solved all the answers? ... and does very little to address what is meaningful? Or, are you going to trust your own intstincts, and give some credit to Mother Nature, who gave you the brain to think with in the first place? ...

Do you realize that everything which exists outside of this "little sphere" you call yourself is non-existent? Or, at least it is to the extent that you're not aware of it. Which is to say, you can only experience those things which are closest to you, and hence "subjective" to your experience.
Same unfruitfull attempt to introduce the wrong vision that material reality would not be a reality onto itself, but only would exists "thanks" to human consciousness.

If human consciousness would be the primary substance, then please provide me the reason and cause for consciousness itself. Has it created itself? Had it existed always?

Without the existence of matter, independend of consciousness, you can not answer that question.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
2,225
0
Originally posted by heusdens
Your argument makes no sense, all you state is that we can not comprehend "external" reality without consciousness, therefore consciousness has to exist.
No, not even saying that. I'm saying that in order for it to "mean" anything, consciousness has to exist.


What does that have to do with the existence of external reality itself, independend from one's consciousness?
How could we even conceive of it, let alone talk about it then? So it does suggest some sort of relationship exists.


Would at the moment all consciouss beings would have died, the world cease to exist???
If there were no conscious humans to recogize it, so what? It still doesn't mean the external reality doesn't arise from an "internal reality."


Same unfruitfull attempt to introduce the wrong vision that material reality would not be a reality onto itself, but only would exists "thanks" to human consciousness.
Without consciousness, of "any form," it would go unacknowledged. Therefore, it seems to suggest that consciousness which, is an "internal quality," is somehow tied to "external reality."


If human consciousness would be the primary substance, then please provide me the reason and cause for consciousness itself. Has it created itself? Had it existed always?
Human consciousness? No, I doubt it. However, it does bring up the possible notion of an omniscient, everpresent Being ...


Without the existence of matter, independend of consciousness, you can not answer that question.
Without God perhaps it wouldn't matter, because there would be "no matter?" Hmm ... Did I just repeat myself? :wink:
 
  • #31
1,648
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, not even saying that. I'm saying that in order for it to "mean" anything, consciousness has to exist.


That in itself is correct. There is no meaning, purpose or intend without consciouss beings that determine those terms to have meaning.


How could we even conceive of it, let alone talk about it then? So it does suggest some sort of relationship exists.


Right, and neither does a materialist deny that, since materialism states that the material development itself, in both anorganic, organic and human society, has formed the causes of any existing entity. We are therefore related to all of the material reality, and share a development history.
Even with the material world itself, since we know from the BB theory all matter once existed in a very condense form and expanded from there.


If there were no conscious humans to recogize it, so what? It still doesn't mean the external reality doesn't arise from an "internal reality."


What form of "internal" reality are you suggesting then?


Without consciousness, of "any form," it would go unacknowledged. Therefore, it seems to suggest that consciousness which, is an "internal quality," is somehow tied to "external reality."


Yes it is, but the relationship is that matter exists primary and consciousness only secondary, as a development product of matter.


Human consciousness? No, I doubt it. However, it does bring up the possible notion of an omniscient, everpresent Being ...


Omnipresent being I could conceive of, since that could refer to a material reality which is everywhere and exists objectively.

A consciouss being however, is something more difficult cause - part from an existing objective world - consciousness is just something abstract.


Without God perhaps it wouldn't matter, because there would be "no matter?" Hmm ... Did I just repeat myself? :wink:
BIG speculation there, but you in fact already gave the answer to that one. Without us consciouss beings, there would be no intend, purpose or will, so that would mean also there would be no God either.

Just matter.
 

Related Threads on If God DOES exist

  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • Last Post
9
Replies
200
Views
11K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
21K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
10K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
186
Views
16K
Top