Who?What Is God?

[daniel j lavender]

What do you claim in your essay? In one line?

What you can't address has been well addressed for 800 years.

You do not understand what is being presented yet claim something remains unaddressed?

Review the Abstract and the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Abstract

Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.

God is, would necessarily be, existence.

Agree.

As expressed:

If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

[Belinda]

What do you claim in your essay? In one line?

What you can't address has been well addressed for 800 years.

The concept of “existence,” as applied to contingent beings, should not be applied to God, who is not one being among others but the very ground or condition of being itself.

Classical Theistic Argument: God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens
Thomas Aquinas famously argued that God is not a being but Being Itself—ipsum esse subsistens *.
That is:
Created beings have essence and existence as distinct principles.
God’s essence is existence; there is no distinction.
Therefore, God does not “exist” in the way creatures do—God is the act of existence itself.
To say “God exists” is almost tautological or misleading, like saying “Existence exists.” It risks reducing God to a member of a category.

* "being itself subsisting." It describes the essence of God as being identical to his existence, distinguishing him from created beings where essence and existence are distinct. Aquinas derives this concept from Aristotle and Avicenna, emphasizing that God is his own existence or act of being, which is central to his metaphysics.

Get that? In God, essence, nature, Being, is, equals, is coterminous with, being, substance. This is Divine Simplicity. God is absolutely simple — meaning He has no parts, no dimensions - including time - no composition. Therefore, His essence is His existence, and His substance is His essence. There is no real distinction between them.

Heideggerian Critique: Ontological Difference
Martin Heidegger draws a sharp line between “beings” (Seiendes) and “Being” (Sein):
Most metaphysical systems treat God as the highest being.
Heidegger insists that Being is not a being—it is what makes beings intelligible.
Applying “existence” to God risks collapsing the ontological difference and turning God into a super-object.
In this view, God is not “existent” but the clearing or horizon in which existence becomes possible.

Tillich’s Depth Metaphor: Ground of Being
Paul Tillich, influenced by existentialism and ontology, reframes God as the “ground of being”:
God is not a “being” but the depth of being.
Saying “God exists” is misleading—it implies God is one item in the inventory of reality.
Instead, God is that which makes existence possible, the unconditional depth beneath all conditions.
This aligns with your own poetic framing: God as prevenient, sustaining, instantiating spacetime—not contained by it.

Logical Implication: Category Error?
Some philosophers argue that applying “existence” to God is a category mistake:
“Existence” is a second-order property (a property of properties), not a first-order attribute of individuals
To say “God exists” is to misapply a predicate that belongs to contingent beings.
If God is necessary, transcendent, and non-contingent, then “existence” as a predicate may not even apply.

From conversation with ChatGPT.

Whether He grounds being or not, He does not exist as anything else does.

God is, would necessarily be, existence.

With thanks to Old Thom.

I particularly enjoyed this bit:- "Heidegger insists that Being is not a being—it is what makes beings intelligible." That bit reminds me of Spinoza : Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata.

I took the comparison to ChatGPT which summed up:-
----------------------------------

In short: Heidegger would probably bristle at the comparison, but from our perspective, Being vs. beings functions very much like Natura naturans vs. Natura naturata — except that Heidegger refuses to call the generative ground a “substance” at all, preferring the language of event, clearing, or happening.

Do you want me to sketch this comparison in a side-by-side table (so it’s easier to see the structural parallels vs. divergences)?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What do you claim in your essay? In one line?

What you can't address has been well addressed for 800 years.

You do not understand what is being presented yet claim something remains unaddressed?

Review the Abstract and the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Abstract

Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.

God is, would necessarily be, existence.

Agree.

As expressed:

If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

I understand everything being presented here. You obviously do not, can not; will not. God has, needs, no extent or duration. They only apply to the contingent.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What do you claim in your essay? In one line?

What you can't address has been well addressed for 800 years.

The concept of “existence,” as applied to contingent beings, should not be applied to God, who is not one being among others but the very ground or condition of being itself.

Classical Theistic Argument: God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens
Thomas Aquinas famously argued that God is not a being but Being Itself—ipsum esse subsistens *.
That is:
Created beings have essence and existence as distinct principles.
God’s essence is existence; there is no distinction.
Therefore, God does not “exist” in the way creatures do—God is the act of existence itself.
To say “God exists” is almost tautological or misleading, like saying “Existence exists.” It risks reducing God to a member of a category.

* "being itself subsisting." It describes the essence of God as being identical to his existence, distinguishing him from created beings where essence and existence are distinct. Aquinas derives this concept from Aristotle and Avicenna, emphasizing that God is his own existence or act of being, which is central to his metaphysics.

Get that? In God, essence, nature, Being, is, equals, is coterminous with, being, substance. This is Divine Simplicity. God is absolutely simple — meaning He has no parts, no dimensions - including time - no composition. Therefore, His essence is His existence, and His substance is His essence. There is no real distinction between them.

Heideggerian Critique: Ontological Difference
Martin Heidegger draws a sharp line between “beings” (Seiendes) and “Being” (Sein):
Most metaphysical systems treat God as the highest being.
Heidegger insists that Being is not a being—it is what makes beings intelligible.
Applying “existence” to God risks collapsing the ontological difference and turning God into a super-object.
In this view, God is not “existent” but the clearing or horizon in which existence becomes possible.

Tillich’s Depth Metaphor: Ground of Being
Paul Tillich, influenced by existentialism and ontology, reframes God as the “ground of being”:
God is not a “being” but the depth of being.
Saying “God exists” is misleading—it implies God is one item in the inventory of reality.
Instead, God is that which makes existence possible, the unconditional depth beneath all conditions.
This aligns with your own poetic framing: God as prevenient, sustaining, instantiating spacetime—not contained by it.

Logical Implication: Category Error?
Some philosophers argue that applying “existence” to God is a category mistake:
“Existence” is a second-order property (a property of properties), not a first-order attribute of individuals
To say “God exists” is to misapply a predicate that belongs to contingent beings.
If God is necessary, transcendent, and non-contingent, then “existence” as a predicate may not even apply.

From conversation with ChatGPT.

Whether He grounds being or not, He does not exist as anything else does.

God is, would necessarily be, existence.

With thanks to Old Thom.

I particularly enjoyed this bit:- "Heidegger insists that Being is not a being—it is what makes beings intelligible." That bit reminds me of Spinoza : Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata.

I took the comparison to ChatGPT which summed up:-
----------------------------------

In short: Heidegger would probably bristle at the comparison, but from our perspective, Being vs. beings functions very much like Natura naturans vs. Natura naturata — except that Heidegger refuses to call the generative ground a “substance” at all, preferring the language of event, clearing, or happening.

Do you want me to sketch this comparison in a side-by-side table (so it’s easier to see the structural parallels vs. divergences)?

I knew you would!

[Age]

'Existence' simply is 'what', exactly?

Or, in other words, when you use the words, 'Existence', what are you meaning, and/or referring to, exactly?

Existence simply is.

Again, a statement that means absolutely no thing at all, really.

And, you actually just proved 'this Fact' for 'the readers', here.

Existence is defined in the essay. Review the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

LOL Another one who believes that its own personal and subjective definition for words is 'the definition' everyone else should follow, accept, and agree with.

Existence does not depend on any definition.

How then do you 'know' what 'that word' means, and/or is referring to, exactly?

Because it is explicitly defined in the essay.

Is that an essay that 'you' wrote, or someone else wrote?

If the former, then what a coincidence that 'you' know what the word, 'Existence', means.

The definition of the term pertains to conscious beings, to humans and their understanding. It is not an ontological requirement.

Review the essay.

So, 'how' you know what the word, 'Existence', means is in direct relation to 'how' you defined the word, 'Existence', although you also do 'try to' say and claim that, 'Existence', does not depend upon 'any' definition.

Existence does not depend on any thing.

Are you absolutely sure?

A thing may depend on another however those are things, parts of existence. Not existence as all, which is the context of that statement.

My question asked, 'Are you absolutely sure?'

In case you are unaware 'the answer' to 'my question', here, is either,

1. Yes.

2. No. Or,

3. I do not know.

Could 'Existence', Itself, exist if there were no thing at all?

That is an “if” premise which does not apply. There are observably things, not no thing.

LOL In other words, of course 'Existence', Itself, would not exist if there was no thing at all.

Now that 'that' is settled. 'Existence', Itself, literally, relies and/or depends on 'things', themselves.

There is no other upon which to depend.

Except, I just showed and proved how 'Existence', Itself, does depend on 'other things'. Again, if there were no other things, then 'Existence', Itself, would not exist. So, 'Existence', Itself, does depend on 'things' and/or on 'others'.

Now, if you do not believe nor accept and agree with 'this', then let 'us' have 'a discussion'.

If you do not, then some might infer that you can not counter nor refute 'this example and claim' of mine, here.

Again, existence does not depend on a thing.

LOL So, instead of having an 'actual discussion' 'this one' just says and states, 'existence does not depend on a thing', only.

Which is another pure example of how having a belief can, and will, stop and prevent you people from actually 'looking at', and 'discussing', 'things', themselves.

Existence is the thing.

Using the 'the' word, here, does not mean that 'Existence' is the 'only thing' nor that 'Existence', Itself, could nor would even exist without anything else.

'I' showed and proved to the other readers, here, how and why 'Existence' could and would not exist without other things. you, obviously, have not countered nor refuted 'this'.

What you have also not yet done is show and prove how 'Existence', Itself, could and would exist without anything else.

Would you like to 'try' either? That is would you like to 'try to' counter and/or refute what I said and claimed above, here, and/or back up and support your claim with any actual proof?

If no, then why not?

After all 'we' are in a philosophy forum, here.

'I' am also wondering what you are saying, and claiming, here, has to do with the question, 'Who and what is God?' and what 'my answer' to 'that question', exactly?

As expressed, your system is relatively rigid and dogmatic.

Imagine being so stupid and so foolish to just repeat the exact same most inane thing, which you had already previously claimed.

What even is my so-called and so-claimed 'system', exactly?

So what if 'some words' are claimed to be so-called 'relatively rigid and dogmatic'? If as you keep showing and proving, here, one could not even counter nor refuted 'those words', then 'this' is all that really matters, here.

It suggests a pantheistic-style system. It is closed compared to the ontology presented.

Re-repeating your own previous claims is not helping you at all, here.

If fact you are showing and confirming just how Truly closed, and thus how stupid, you really are being, here.

Yet you constantly emphasize openness in your comments:

you speak and write, here, as though you are, laughingly, open in some way.

See, unlike 'you' what 'I' say and claim, here, can not be refuted. So, if 'you' also became open, and then remain open, then 'you' too would also never be Wrong, here.

Your system does not reflect that openness.

If absolutely any one knows what the words, 'your system', even is, exactly, then will you please inform the rest of 'us', here?

Look "daniel j lavender" you only chose to reply to some of 'the points' I have made, here, which could imply you are even less capable of countering and/or refuting 'my claims', and less capable of backing up and supporting 'your claims', as well as less capable of clarifying and elaborating.

Now, the Fact if what is said and written, by any one, can not be refuted, then what is being said and written is just the irrefutable Truth, of things.

And, the Fact that you can not even counter, let alone get anywhere even close to refuting, 'my words', here, just goes to show and prove what 'my words' actually mean and/or are proving, here.

[Age]

Age wrote: “Learning, and understanding, comes from 'what makes sense', within, and is not done through 'competing' nor by 'winning', nor 'losing'.”

——-

Response: You can master anything simply by doing it long enough. All you have to do to achieve mastery is:
1) WANT IT
2) DO IT EVERY WEEK
3) NEVER QUIT

You cannot master something you don’t love. So love is of course the key. Find what you love and go all-in on it.

We all get by with a little help from our friends. It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. A man cannot serve two masters.

Yet, here you people are continually expressing 'that', what you think you already know, as though 'that' is what is actually true and right.

[Age]

Age wrote:“There is no 'winning', nor, 'losing', here. Some 'arguments are just sound and valid', while others are not. The 'advantage', here, is being able to recognize and tell 'the difference'.”

——

Response: There’s absolutely no difference between winning and losing. When you win you lose, and when you lose you win.

There’s only one mind remember.

Who and/or what are you saying, 'remember', to, exactly?

God’s mind being this infinite unconditional limitless Love aka God

Who and/or what is 'God', exactly, which 'you' claim has Its own mind, laughingly?

Infinite God taking shape in the form of multiple finite bodies for the love of experiencing everything from every unique perspective as and through God’s individuated unity.

Unity has no argument with itself, that’s the correct logic here. Better than other’s mentality is a deeply flawed error of judgement.

'This one' speaks as though it is speaking for God, Itself.

[Fairy]

Age wrote:“There is no 'winning', nor, 'losing', here. Some 'arguments are just sound and valid', while others are not. The 'advantage', here, is being able to recognize and tell 'the difference'.”

——

Response: There’s absolutely no difference between winning and losing. When you win you lose, and when you lose you win.

There’s only one mind remember.

Who and/or what are you saying, 'remember', to, exactly?

God’s mind being this infinite unconditional limitless Love aka God

Who and/or what is 'God', exactly, which 'you' claim has Its own mind, laughingly?

Infinite God taking shape in the form of multiple finite bodies for the love of experiencing everything from every unique perspective as and through God’s individuated unity.

Unity has no argument with itself, that’s the correct logic here. Better than other’s mentality is a deeply flawed error of judgement.

'This one' speaks as though it is speaking for God, Itself.

That’s it, I’m totally done conversing with you.

You’ll never hear from me again.

[Age]

Age wrote: “See, it is only 'sound and valid arguments', alone, which are better off being expressed and repeated, only. The rest are, literally, what is called 'just a waste of time and of energy'.”

——-

Response: No expression is a waste of time and energy, it’s just all the same one energy dancing with itself. From source to source an endless spring.

Did 'you' not notice the words, "just a waste of time and of energy", in double quotation marks.

For surely 'you' would have asked, 'What are the double quotation marks for, exactly?' before you came, here, speaking and writing from your own personal limited assumptions and opinions, only, especially considering that 'the one' known as "fairy" is just a finite part of God, Itself.

Surely, by 'now', "fairy" knows how to know what is coming from the 'whole' or God, Itself, instead of 'only that', which just comes from only 'a part of' God, Itself.

The source of all expression is the same one source behind every expression.

But 'this' in no way means that what is expressed aligns with the Source, Itself, obviously.

The one looking through multiple different eyes appearing different and yet is sourced from the exact same place, the one and only.

Again, what 'you' human beings express is never ever necessarily with what is actually irrefutably True, and Right, in Life. Which obviously comes from the One, Life and energy Source, Itself.

In every person there lies one same seer looking at itself from multiple perspectives, every pixel being a unique aspect of the whole picture.

Once 'you' learn how to use words like, 'seer', and, 'Seer', properly and Correctly, then the quicker 'you' will become better heard, and understood.

in·sight
noun
penetrating mental vision or discernment.
the sudden act of grasping the inner nature or truth of a situation.
a deep understanding of a person or thing.

No need to back up ANY claim made AGE… because it’s all the one love in action dreaming difference where there’s NON

But, and again, the One does not 'dream up stuff', like only 'you' human beings do, here.

The One sees and knows, exactly, all of what is going on, HERE.

As 'I' keep pointing out, showing, and revealing, here.

[Age]

What do you claim in your essay? In one line?

What you can't address has been well addressed for 800 years.

The concept of “existence,” as applied to contingent beings, should not be applied to God, who is not one being among others but the very ground or condition of being itself.

Classical Theistic Argument: God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens
Thomas Aquinas famously argued that God is not a being but Being Itself—ipsum esse subsistens *.

In another word, 'Mind'.

Just like you 'human beings' are 'are beings', also in and from the invisible sense. That is, 'you' are all 'a being' because it is the 'invisible thoughts' that make 'you' all 'be' who you all individually are, God is 'Being', Itself, because this is how the, invisible, 'Mind' works.

That is:
Created beings have essence and existence as distinct principles.
God’s essence is existence; there is no distinction.
Therefore, God does not “exist” in the way creatures do—God is the act of existence itself.
To say “God exists” is almost tautological or misleading, like saying “Existence exists.” It risks reducing God to a member of a category.

The Universe, and, the Mind always exist, infinite and eternal, HERE and NOW. And, remember how 'I' define the, 'God', word, here.

* "being itself subsisting." It describes the essence of God as being identical to his existence, distinguishing him from created beings where essence and existence are distinct.

'you', 'human beings', were born, and thus through evolution were created. Whereas, 'I', God', it could be said and argued, am 'Existence', Itself, also always HERE, NOW, and so not 'created' but always in 'Creation', Itself, or always Creating thy Self. Through the eternal continual constant-change of evolution 'I', God, am always changing in shape and/or form, and through and from 'you' always evolving 'human beings' have come-to, consciously, know thy 'Self'.

Aquinas derives this concept from Aristotle and Avicenna, emphasizing that God is his own existence or act of being, which is central to his metaphysics.

The Universe/God is 'Existence', Itself.
The Mind/God is 'Being', Itself.

Get that? In God, essence, nature, Being, is, equals, is coterminous with, being, substance. This is Divine Simplicity. God is absolutely simple — meaning He has no parts, no dimensions - including time - no composition.

And, God even has 'no gender', as well. Although, and obviously, 'this' was just some thing that 'the people' in the days when this was being written just did not comprehend and 'get a handle on', as some would say.

Therefore, His essence is His existence, and His substance is His essence. There is no real distinction between them.

Heideggerian Critique: Ontological Difference
Martin Heidegger draws a sharp line between “beings” (Seiendes) and “Being” (Sein):

And, if any one had taken notice throughout 'My' coming, here, into this forum, 'I' use the words, 'Being', and, 'being' for a very specific and particular reason. Which, obvious, so far has ever yet to seek out and obtain clarification, and thus clarity, over.

Most metaphysical systems treat God as the highest being.

Thus 'I' write and use the word, 'Being', instead of 'being', so that 'things' do not get confused, here. But, obviously this only works when people stop assuming and/or believing things and seek and obtain and gain actual clarification, first.

The very reason why 'I' write and use, 'Truth', instead of 'truth', and, 'Existence', instead of 'existence' is for the exact same reason.

Heidegger insists that Being is not a being—it is what makes beings intelligible.
Applying “existence” to God risks collapsing the ontological difference and turning God into a super-object.
In this view, God is not “existent” but the clearing or horizon in which existence becomes possible.

Why was not just the use of 'Existence' instead of 'existence' used, like when 'Being' instead of 'being' was used, here?

Tillich’s Depth Metaphor: Ground of Being
Paul Tillich, influenced by existentialism and ontology, reframes God as the “ground of being”:
God is not a “being” but the depth of being.
Saying “God exists” is misleading—it implies God is one item in the inventory of reality.

What exists, like 'you', 'human beings', is not 'Existence', Itself, as 'Existence', Itself, is obviously a very different thing.

Just like 'you', a created 'human being', is not 'Being', Itself.

Instead, God is that which makes existence possible, the unconditional depth beneath all conditions.

And, what creates and causes 'Existence', Itself, is 'matter', and, 'space', itself, the Life, and/or energy, Source that is with(and)in all 'things'.

This aligns with your own poetic framing: God as prevenient, sustaining, instantiating spacetime—not contained by it.

Logical Implication: Category Error?
Some philosophers argue that applying “existence” to God is a category mistake:
“Existence” is a second-order property (a property of properties), not a first-order attribute of individuals
To say “God exists” is to misapply a predicate that belongs to contingent beings.
If God is necessary, transcendent, and non-contingent, then “existence” as a predicate may not even apply.

But, the same so-called "philosophers" might also say and/or claim that, 'The Universe exists', where someone else might say and claim, 'To claim 'The Universe exists', is to misapply a predicate that belongs to contingent things.

From conversation with ChatGPT.

Whether He grounds being or not, He does not exist as anything else does.

Because God is infinite and eternal whereas all other things are not infinite, and only two other things are eternal. Which, literally, means that God does not exist as anything else exists.

God is, would necessarily be, existence.

With thanks to Old Thom.

So 'that' is, and would necessarily be, 'Existence', Itself, and not just 'existence', which means and refers to something else, entirely.

[boyjohn]

Sadly God or Gods are whatever you imagine them to be!

[Age]

What do you claim in your essay? In one line?

What you can't address has been well addressed for 800 years.

You do not understand what is being presented yet claim something remains unaddressed?

Review the Abstract and the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Abstract

Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.

What do you even mean by, 'nothing or nonexistence is not and can not be', exactly?

God is, would necessarily be, existence.

Agree.

As expressed:

If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

Why would you say and write, here, 'If God is beyond existence, when you, previously, said and claimed that 'Existence' is infinite?

[Age]

Age wrote:“There is no 'winning', nor, 'losing', here. Some 'arguments are just sound and valid', while others are not. The 'advantage', here, is being able to recognize and tell 'the difference'.”

——

Response: There’s absolutely no difference between winning and losing. When you win you lose, and when you lose you win.

There’s only one mind remember.

Who and/or what are you saying, 'remember', to, exactly?

God’s mind being this infinite unconditional limitless Love aka God

Who and/or what is 'God', exactly, which 'you' claim has Its own mind, laughingly?

Infinite God taking shape in the form of multiple finite bodies for the love of experiencing everything from every unique perspective as and through God’s individuated unity.

Unity has no argument with itself, that’s the correct logic here. Better than other’s mentality is a deeply flawed error of judgement.

'This one' speaks as though it is speaking for God, Itself.

That’s it, I’m totally done conversing with you.

You’ll never hear from me again.

'i' have forgotten how many times 'you' have said and claimed 'this', to 'me'.

[Age]

Sadly God or Gods are whatever you imagine them to be!

Do 'you' have some way of 'knowing' what God or Gods are without 'imagining'?

if yes, then will 'you' inform 'us' of how 'you' do 'this'?

But, if you do not have any other way, then 'you' also 'imagine' 'them' to be whatever 'you' imagine 'they are'. Just like every other one of 'you', human beings.

[daniel j lavender]

What do you claim in your essay? In one line?

What you can't address has been well addressed for 800 years.

You do not understand what is being presented yet claim something remains unaddressed?

Review the Abstract and the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Abstract

Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.

God is, would necessarily be, existence.

Agree.

As expressed:

If God is beyond existence God does not exist.

I understand everything being presented here. You obviously do not, can not; will not. God has, needs, no extent or duration. They only apply to the contingent.

That aligns with existence simply is, a core tenet of the ontology: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Additionally the essay clearly states existence is not limited by duration:

existence; that which is not limited by duration.

…meaning existence transcends time.

Unfortunately it’s difficult to convey the idea of transcending time without invoking the concept of time. That’s largely the issue here.

Again, existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part. Your acknowledgement of God here, which you seem to know much about, indicates some level of perception. You are perceiving God on some level to make those statements. That is existence, regardless of the other claims.