Existence trumps God

What caused X? If we ask this recursively, repeatedly directing it at the answer of the previous iteration, we will either keep going forever, an infinite regress, or there will be a point at which we reach a first cause, an ultimate foundation.

Whatever the most promising theory about the origin of the universe happens to be at any time, theists insist that their god is required as the cause of that beginning. God is seen as a kind of creative consciousness. So why do so many people seem to think that it has to be a consciousness that terminates the regress rather than something dumb?

It looks like this tendency can be traced to the illusion of free will.

Naive self-reflection points to the idea that consciousness creates thought from nothing. The causes of our thoughts are never available to us for examination before we've thought them. We can never experience the causation of our thoughts. This perpetual blind-spot gives us the impression that our thoughts are manufactured by a radically free, uncaused self.

So, considered naively, consciousness appears to be capable to creating things 'from nothing'. If we extrapolate from this we can imagine some kind of creative consciousness that created the universe from nothing. And that's exactly the kind of creation myth that pre-scientific societies have come up with.

Metaphysical Primacy

Is it correct to terminate the regress with a consciousness? Can consciousness be the most foundational thing? No it can't. The reason for this is made clear when we examine the case for the primacy of existence, as spelled out by Objectivism.

Imagine that we say that the regress terminates with a consciousness. In doing so we're implicitly saying that this ultimate consciousness _exists_. If we look closely we notice that this very act of positing consciousness as an ultimate foundation is performatively inconsistent. It defeats itself because it contains an implicit admission that existence itself is even more foundational than that consciousness.

In other words existence itself is foundational and necessary, and there's no arguing with that fact. Any attempted solution to the regress will depend on the brute fact of existence. There's no getting behind existence to explain it in terms of something else. Realising this, we can skip the middle man and acknowledge that existence itself is necessarily the most foundational thing. The primacy of consciousness is toppled by the primacy of existence. Objectivists have a snappy way of encapsulating this realisation: "existence exists"

Having accepted the primacy of existence we see that holding out for an ultimate consciousness is futile, because even if something like a god existed, behind that god would be dumb, brute existence--which we cannot explain beyond saying "existence exists". Once we've come to terms with this, the project of trying to attribute the universe to a godlike agent loses its appeal because we already know that such an intelligence is contingent on existence itself, which is the real uncaused cause.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• veritas48
• god
• teleological
• objectivism
• existence
• primacy
• consciousness

[rxangel18]

It is not possible for anything to create possibility without it being possible fore possibility to be created, thus, given the exisance of reality, possibility IS the prime attribute of reality.

[bitbutter]

'possibility IS the prime attribute of reality.'

Possibility isn't foundational because it depends on other concepts, and existence is necessarily among those concepts.

[VeridicusX]

@bitbutter

No, what you're saying is incorrect.

You seem to be reifying.

Existents exist, existence doesn't.

[bitbutter]

@VeridicusX Existence refers to the totality of existents. So existence exists.

[TheLovesoul1]

@JohananRaatz existence is ALL'S MIND ONLY THE ALL EXIST THE ALL IS IN ALL AND IS ALL OMNIPRESENT OMNIAWARE OMNISCIENT UNITY OF ALL EXISTENCE. JUST MY VIEW DON'T GO SAYING PEOPLE ARE WRONG IN THERE VIEW THEY SOME ARE JUST AT A LOWER LEVEL OF AWARENESS.

[JohananRaatz]

@bitbutter The totality of existents is the wave-fcn of the universe.

1.) The wave-fcn of the universe is self-collapsing (since there is nothing external to it to measure and collapse it).

2.) Self-collapsing wave-fcns are minds. (Roger Penrose's quantum mind model Orch-OR)

Thus, the wave-function of the universe is a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8

The empirical existents of our physical universe would then be the product of the wave-function collapse of this mind.

Existence IS God's mind.

[multard]

The logic of this video seems undeniable to me, and this isn't the first time I've heard the basic concept. In order for something to have caused existence, it first would have to exist. So, if God exists, he exists inside of existence. Another way of saying it is........the existence of existence must be independent of God if God exists. Existence CANNOT have a cause because that cause would have to not exist.

[JerryTheHeretic]

@bitbutter Isn't it something the lengths people will go playing with words to try an prove something so rock solid as this wrong? amazing!

[cantleysugar]

The phrase "dancing on the head of a pin" comes to mind. Have you ever asked yourself why you want a godless universe?

[VeridicusX]

@bitbutter

Kant showed that "existence" is not a real predicate.

The Objectivist's formulation is reification.

Existents exist *as* something. You can't take everything away and be left with "existence" - especially given that this is precisely the meaning of non-existence!.

Objectivists are misusing the word "existence" to mean "reality".

Existents exist. Existence most definitely doesn't.