Why does existence have to have a pure essence ("God")?

An essence is the potentiality of anything which exists. Therefore an essence is not a real thing apart from actual existence. There is no "pure essence" devoid of existence because an essence without existence.....does not exist! Existence is the first thing in reality then, prior to essence, and the most real reality is existence AS existence. It follows than that essence and existence are not distinct in PURE ACTUALITY......because such cannot have any unactualized potential. God then is not an essence....he is only existence.

bumble wrote:We can exist without a prior and pure "actual existence"

What sort of "existence" do you propose in place of "pure 'actual existence'"?

Let me say this one more time.......that existence AS existence is not demonstrable, yet it is an undeniable and necessary fact.

How do you know that existence is "an undeniable and necessary fact"? What are you basing that on?

...it is clear that there must be some existent thing which exists AS existence itself, otherwise existence=not-existence and such is an absurdity.

Why must there be "some existent thing" other than things that are known to exist? In other words, we all agree (I think) that cars exist. We can empirically demonstrate this. Why must there be a separate thing called existence? What are you basing this on?

...any material thing we can see can potentially be a vast number of things other than what it actually is...

Could you provide examples of this? A car can potentially be "a vast number of things other than what it actually is"?

If anything, I have shown that God=ACTUAL EXISTENCE ITSELF and thus cannot be a concept. You're nothing think clearly.

What if I say "actual existence itself" is not god, but the devil. Because the devil is supreme reality, IMHO (for the sake of this argument). Why is this less plausible than your idea about supreme reality being synonymous with god?

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:God is supposed to be a supernatural concept that transcends science.

If anything, I have shown that God=ACTUAL EXISTENCE ITSELF and thus cannot be a concept but only a reality. You're nothing thinking clearly.

You have not shown God, so you are not permitted to show what God equates to. Every reality I have ever known can be proved to exist, and God cannot be. Again, I ask you: what drives your compulsion to make God be both an object of faith and a subject of science?

clocker bob wrote:

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:God is supposed to be a supernatural concept that transcends science.

If anything, I have shown that God=ACTUAL EXISTENCE ITSELF and thus cannot be a concept but only a reality. You're nothing thinking clearly.

You have not shown God, so you are not permitted to show what God equates to. Every reality I have ever known can be proved to exist, and God cannot be.

I've already explained why you cannot "show" (demonstrate) God, because It is not able to be conceived, yet Its nature inasfar as I have defined it must necessarily BE.

You, too, are facing two choices:

Existence=IS-NOT

or,

Existence=IS

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:God is supposed to be a supernatural concept that transcends science.

If anything, I have shown that God=ACTUAL EXISTENCE ITSELF and thus cannot be a concept but only a reality. You're nothing thinking clearly.

You have not shown God, so you are not permitted to show what God equates to. Every reality I have ever known can be proved to exist, and God cannot be.

I've already explained why you cannot "show" (demonstrate) God, because It is not able to be conceived

Then why won't you stop trying?

matthew wrote:, yet Its nature inasfar as I have defined it must necessarily BE.

Key words: 'as I have defined it'. You have taken on quite a task there, Earthling.

matthew wrote:You, too, are facing two choices:

Existence=IS-NOT

or,

Existence=IS

Okay, I choose Existence=IS. Existence=IS-NOT is like saying that up=down.

Matthew, if you don't mind, I'm curious to hear your response to my last post.

newberry wrote:How do you know that existence is "an undeniable and necessary fact"? What are you basing that on?

Sitting right here seeing that things exist.

Why must there be "some existent thing" other than things that are known to exist? In other words, we all agree (I think) that cars exist. We can empirically demonstrate this. Why must there be a separate thing called existence? What are you basing this on?

Because without existence AS existence, no cars would exist!

matthew wrote:...any material thing we can see can potentially be a vast number of things other than what it actually is...

Could you provide examples of this? A car can potentially be "a vast number of things other than what it actually is"?

A piece of wood is potentially many things. It can be hewn into a guitar neck, a baseball bat.....it can be used as a component in a building. Those are a few common examples. But let's go a little further. Let's say that piece of wood is hewn into a Louisville Slugger. Inasfar as it is used to strike a baseball it has the actuality of being a baseball bat. But suppose I use it to strike someone over the head who is attacking me- the actuality in that instance is not that of a baseball bat but of a weapon, though the potential for it to strike a baseball is still there. This not only illustrates what we mean when we say potential, but also how "existence" is synoymous with "act", and thus how "act" must not out of necessity be a purely material thing.....the "actuality" of something is not a static "essence" or "concept" but a dynamic act of existing in a certain way, and what better way to demonstrate this than with the act of a baseball being struck by a bat- the actuality of the bat is in that which it actually does.

matthew wrote:If anything, I have shown that God=ACTUAL EXISTENCE ITSELF and thus cannot be a concept. You're nothing think clearly.

What if I say "actual existence itself" is not god, but the devil. Because the devil is supreme reality, IMHO (for the sake of this argument). Why is this less plausible than your idea about supreme reality being synonymous with god?

You, like LVP and Captain_Kirk, are also utilizing the conventionality of language in an an attempt to obscure the reality of actually existing things. Merely uttering "ACTUAL EXISTENCE ITSELF is The Devil" is just little more than just that: an utterance, and when examined closer can be seen to be an absurdity when we examine the definitions designated to the phrase "The Devil" or "devil".

Sitting right here seeing that things exist.

Yes, you see that your computer monitor exists. Where is the evidence that there is a separate entity called "existence"? How do you know that is an "undeniable and necessary fact"?

Because without existence AS existence, no cars would exist!

How do you know that? I disagree. Cars exist, we agree. Why wouldn't they exist without "existence AS existence"?

You claim that only material things exist, yet if we follow this assertation to its end we end up with the statement that "matter AS existence IS", which is obviously an absurdity because any material thing we can see can potentially be a vast number of things other than what it actually is and it can never be all actually existing things at once.

A piece of wood is potentially many things.

Yes, a piece of wood can be used in many different ways. A toothpick, a baseball bat, guitar, a weapon. This is not metaphysical or supernatural. It's a simple obvious fact. Of course a piece of wood can't be all things at once, but it can be many things at once--a baseball bat can be used to play baseball and as a weapon and as a cane. So what?

matthew wrote:You, like LVP and Captain_Kirk, are also utilizing the conventionality of language in an an attempt to obscure the reality of actually existing things.

Show me the reality of God.
Show me the actuality of God.
Show me the existence of God.
Show me that God is a thing.

And who is trying to obscure the truth here??

Quit stroking your wood analogy, and get back to answering the question: if the concept of God begins and ends in the human mind, how can you place God into our physical world?

newberry wrote:....it can be many things at once--a baseball bat can be used to play baseball and as a weapon and as a cane. So what?

But inasfar as you are using it to play baseball, strike an aggressor or support your frame, it only has the actuality of being as bat, as weapon or as cane in each respective instance.