What does it mean to exist?
I saw the discussion of idealism which sort of went in lots of directions. But what about the very basic question of what do we mean we say something exists or doesn't exist?
For simplicity sake, the material world exists. Physical objects are physical, you can touch them. It gets complicated because our sense perceptions and mental constructs aren't the same as the thing itself, but assuming we are not delusional in regard to reality that we can say rocks and trees and houses "exist"
But what about thoughts and emotions? They are experienced but don't have material substance, right? Yet neuroscience is beginning to explain to us how these experiences arise out of physical reality.
Then what about spiritual reality (assuming it's not completely fictional)? Obviously it doesn't physically exist (sorry to any Mormons) and I wonder if we can even say it is experienced (in the way we perceive thoughts and emotions). I think the theologian Paul Tillich was right to say God doesn't "exist" by which means God is not subject to any of the rules nor shares any commanalities with any material or experienced thing. In common day terms, "spiritual" reality makes no sense as non-material but can be a ghostly thing caught by cameras of a transcendent thing we can feel in our minds. Obviously it's not totally transcendent or unpercievable or else we would never talk about it.
What do you all think about my existing (body) and experienced (mind) disctiction?
What about the Forms and the Soul? Are these spiritual reality? I think I'd like to say these things don't exist physically nor are experienced directly or fully. Perhaps the Soul is a person's form and all Forms are in and thru the "mind" of God. That is God knows of every thing and has a plan for it and He has a knowledge of our potential and purpose as well. Our soul is God's dream for us (Desmond Tutu talks about God's dream for us and the world).
What do you all think?
For simplicity sake, the material world exists. Physical objects are physical, you can touch them. It gets complicated because our sense perceptions and mental constructs aren't the same as the thing itself, but assuming we are not delusional in regard to reality that we can say rocks and trees and houses "exist"
But what about thoughts and emotions? They are experienced but don't have material substance, right? Yet neuroscience is beginning to explain to us how these experiences arise out of physical reality.
Then what about spiritual reality (assuming it's not completely fictional)? Obviously it doesn't physically exist (sorry to any Mormons) and I wonder if we can even say it is experienced (in the way we perceive thoughts and emotions). I think the theologian Paul Tillich was right to say God doesn't "exist" by which means God is not subject to any of the rules nor shares any commanalities with any material or experienced thing. In common day terms, "spiritual" reality makes no sense as non-material but can be a ghostly thing caught by cameras of a transcendent thing we can feel in our minds. Obviously it's not totally transcendent or unpercievable or else we would never talk about it.
What do you all think about my existing (body) and experienced (mind) disctiction?
What about the Forms and the Soul? Are these spiritual reality? I think I'd like to say these things don't exist physically nor are experienced directly or fully. Perhaps the Soul is a person's form and all Forms are in and thru the "mind" of God. That is God knows of every thing and has a plan for it and He has a knowledge of our potential and purpose as well. Our soul is God's dream for us (Desmond Tutu talks about God's dream for us and the world).
What do you all think?
Comments (62)
Also how do you know thoughts and emotions don't have "material substance"?
Thanks for the reply and the refresher on realism versus nominalism. My philosophy classes are coming back to me now.
I really love the idea of there being a blueprint or Logos or Will that grounds our reality in God. I need to study the stoics more. It's very poetic and comforting, but does that means it true?
I definitely agree that science is becoming more capable of answering these questions.
I'm no physicist, but gravity is a force/energy. Possibly a particle (gravitons).
I sense a trap here (or maybe I'm just reading too much Socrates). If I say energy exists because it's obvious it makes cars move and food cook, then I'm forgetting that energy is really just increased motion on an atomic level. Legs exist but does walking or is it just the movement from one point to another?
There are lots of examples of things that aren't material in and of themselves but is foolish to say they aren't real. A record doesn't hold music but a needle reads it to generate pulses of air movement at particular frequencies. So does the music not exist? Memories and thoughts are in some way simmilar to the record player, memories have to be stored physically somehow and it's electrical and chemical pulses that allow them to be read.
Perhaps the point is that material "existence" is to strict of a criteria and not all that meaningful.
Maybe the question should be what is real? There is a possibility that this isn't an all or nothing answer.
I think you are onto something. Especially since we can't pretend to know what we do not. Anyone can make up stuff.
Humans and physical/mental objects are in entirely different ways.
I think exist can be an ambiguous term. It means different things to different philosophers.
It it a typically modern phenomenon? -- this preoccupation with how we can know what really exists? I think it might be? Starting with Descartes. I could be wrong. I'm not very familiar with Greek philosophy aside from Aristotle and Virtue ethics.
Perhaps the toughest philosophical question to answer.
Quoting MysticMonist
Mental states certainly exist. This kind of leads immediately to the mind / body problem. If mental states are actually physical states, then to say they exist is pretty straightforward. If they are somehow distinct from physical states, then they must exist in a way that is wholly different from material entities.
At the end of the day, I think neural firings and mental states are two sides of a coin. So I would say yes, they exist and in a relatively straightforward way.
But what does it mean to exist? That a great question. I guess the intuitive answer that I can think of is "to be a a part of the world." Whatever that means...
To participate in the world soul, maybe? I guess I am a Platonist after all. The world soul is the interactions of all beings in the universe that are intimately interconnected that in turn are in relationship with God as their Source.
That's a wonderful top down definition of existence. As a mystical monist, I should be more focused on top down perspectives than bottom up of mind/body/soul issues.
Thanks!!! You solved my puzzle.
I'm not sure if the concept of existence can even be defined. To me, it sounds more like a fundamental term, one that cannot be reduced to anything else. Thus any attempt at explaining it is meaningless.
How is relevance less subjective than realness, existence and truth?
It is ''easier'' to define existence for physical objects. If x can be perceived through the senses and their extensions (instruments), then x exists in the physical world.
It appears, therefore, that existence of a physical object x depends on the effects it has on other physical objects. To say the least, that's the way we assign ''existence'' to objects.
The problem is, with this definition, we can't conclusively say that something exists. Imagine a world of two objects, x and y. As per this definition, existence depending on effects of something on another, x exists because of its effects on y and y exists because of its effects on x. The circularity is obvious in a 2-object world and can't be eliminated in the universe as we know it.
So, existence in a physical universe depends on circular logic. What does this mean?
This same reasoning applies to all applications of the term ''existence''. We just can't be certain of the existence of anything.
So, the usual definition of existence, described above, is defective.
Several of you have made this point and I'm beginning to agree.
"Existence means something is or has being" is circular. There's no way around it.
"Existence is when something participates in existence" is also circular, but I like it. There's no way to arrive an a more fundamental understanding of being. I like participation though because it's ontologically top down rather than bottom up.
A top down approach is helpful in general about being. I was driving in the morning and was caught by the blinding light of the sun. You have to look away or you'll crash or go blind. Maybe theologians, Kabbalists, and occultists and so on are all sun starers. They attempt to look directly at the Absolute and think they see Forms or Emanations or a Trinity (or not) or even a whole pantheon. They practice Cataphatic theology, God is this, God is that. Really the shapes they think they are seeing within the Godhead are the burning holes in their retinas!
I think it's okay to be a Christian and believe in the trinity, for example. The Catholics are right, it's a mystery. But what's not okay is claiming that you authoritatively know or to condemn those with a different view. So I can be a Platonist and roll with the Forms, for now, it's an concept that is useful. In the end though I know I'm probably wrong!
Well go ask 100 random people what truth is and then ask 100 random people what relevance is, and I think you would have your answer.
However, relevance can be subjective and it can also be intersubjective; it is whatever it needs to be. And since it is not a hot topic word, most people tend to agree on the standard definition, which makes conversation easier.
You're technically right. We only ever experience our mind's conception, never the thing in and of itself.
That's exactly the problem with special revelation. A prophet revealed the Truth and gives a revealed message. But it's up to us to decide if it's true with eternal consequences. It hardly seems fair.
Can you explain this further? What do you mean?
The top down/bottom up expression is used in my work with clinical reasoning (starting with symptoms versus looking at the big picture). I looked it up and I think it comes from design theory and while the universe is designed, I don't think it's the best to use here.
Maybe I should compare it to the question of morality instead. Some people say morality comes from a common source of the Good. I would say this is true and so does being. Something exists because it is has its source of being in the One. It exists because God breathes existence into it and it participates with all the other beings in God's creation. Things that don't exist because they aren't created by God.
A bottom up approach would be saying like in morality that it starts with individual who defines morality, it's not anything external. In being, this would be saying that objects or people exist and looking at from the point of the object or at least from the perceiver.
But this leads us to other states of existence, e.g. dreams. In dreams, we have a different line of memory flashing by and defining out existence. How does this change in state happen? BTW, d don't bother looking to science for any answers. Totally clueless as the search for existence in some chemicals. Should one laugh or cry?
Then we switch into a state of no memories. Unconscious of ourselves because there are no memories. And then we wake up! A clear distinction between existence and non-existence. How does the mind move between these states? Is there a spirit that ignites our will to existence?
Yet another wrinkle I didn't immediately think about. If it was from an object' point of view that yes only the immediate present exists. Perhaps even more limited that only the perceived immediate present. Does China or the Moon exist to me Right Now? It sort of dissolves into sophistry.
From the point of view of the object existence just falls apart as a meaningful or verifiable concept. Perhaps all of life does. If we are masters of our existence and the definers of our reality there basically is no reality at all just a jumble.
From the point of view of God, the source of all being, however we are known to God and are remembered by Him. Things become organized and have a purpose. In fact that's the only purpose to receive and seek union with the Absolute. It's the only reason the world exists and is the only context in which things make sense.
Actually, 'existence' has quite a clear derivation - 'ex-' outside of, apart from, and '-ist', to stand. So 'to exist' means 'to be this as distinct from that', to have an identity, to be this or that thing or person.
But 'what exists' and 'what is real' can be distinguished. As I mentioned elsewhere, you can make the argument that number is real, but not existent - certainly not 'existent' in the way complex objects are existent, insofar as a number can only be grasped by a mind capable of counting, so it an 'intelligible object' rather than a 'phenomenal object'. That is one of the reasons that in (neo)Platonist philosophy, the nature of number was an indicator of the 'intelligible nature of reality' - as Mystic Monist says above, this is the origin of the 'top down' approach so characteristic of the (neo)Platonist tradition. It is different to any kind of 'creationism' because 'the One' which is the source or ground of being is always present - the 'ever-present origin' in Gebser's phrase. And the 'meaning of existence' can't be established without reference to that, as it is only by virtue of That, that anything exists whatever. Whereas nowadays, it is simply assumed that the objects of sense exist 'in their own right', or independently of any mind or cognitive act whatever. According to the perennialist philosophies, of which (neo)Platonism is one, this is the source of delusion or ignorance, as it is taking the unreal for the real; a confusion amply reflected in many facets of the modern world.
True, but I'm asking about the subjectivity of the concepts, because you seemed to assume that relevance was less subjective. Opinion isn't subjectivity; at least not as far as I can see. Subjectivity is just simple individual human perception; truth, realness, and relevance are all things that are perceived subjectively. So making a case for relevance vs. truth or realness or whatever, as you did, doesn't square with subjectivity.
Quoting Jeremiah
To even begin you need to delineate between forms of inquiry. You said earlier that science seems more equipped to define existence. To even begin an inquiry into "truth" you would need to back track from this assumption and re-evaluate your lines of inquiry, otherwise you'll always only be arguing from a position that automatically eliminates the concept of truth in the first place. The pursuit of truth is as ancient as anything in the human experience, and it shows no signs of stopping. Hey, maybe that would be a good place to start; an inquiry into the pursuit of truth over the course of history.
It is called context, look it up and learn how to read. Honestly, you don't even seem to know what the word subjective means.
What's called context?
Quoting Jeremiah
What, this?
That is a piss poor source. Try this: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/192702?redirectedFrom=subjective#eid
And if you don't know what context is or how to use a dictionary to place the right definition in proper context then I am sorry that your education failed so miserably.
If you want to debate in good faith sans insults I'm happy to, but otherwise this is pointless.
Sorry, I am just fed up with people who can't read.
First thing is, given a higher power, can we ever understand its intentions and reasons? If we can't then you and the theologians you mention are both in the same boat. So, no use pointing fingers.
Being rational has worked for us - this attitude has led to many discoveries that are now helpful to us. It's sort of a certificate of worthiness for tge rational approach. Can we, then, apply rational analysis to God - this higher power - and judge God?
Whoops I was on a different page... way behind... ha
Absolutely certain issues crop up! A mystical path has many potential pitfalls, so does philosophy but perhaps seeking God raises the stakes. It's easier to go crazy or become self righteous. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't embark at all, we just need to be careful and practice a healthy self renunciation.
The apophatic (negative theology) has a strong tradition here.
The most important though I think is to deny human authority about or in judging God. We can talk about God or make limited concepts about Him/Her. It's okay to use restrained rationally or other faculties like insight, just not with any authority.
Religions no matter how liberal assume some authority or special revelation about God. That's a problem, because no one can speak for God. Of course that's a trap too, since I don't know if I can even with certainty say that. Who am I to say God doesn't grant the gift of prophecy (the ability to actually speak for Him)? So all I can say is that I don't find authorathive revelation helpful in my path, but not that God cannot do so if He wishes. I know I am very likely incorrect and ask that God continue to correct and illumine me. That's what the whole thing is about seeking greater correction and illumination from God.
I'd like to ask a follow up question.
What to Plato is reason? What do you think us reason and is it different from being rational?
I was a philosophy undergraduate and the impression I got from the meaning of reason was that it was deductive and obtained from first principles. To use reason meant to sit and think really hard.
But I think Plato and Plotinus mean something much broader by reason. They say we have two parts of our nature or soul. We have a higher rational part and a lower animal desiring part.
I suspect use of reason in that context means many faculties used together to make a concious and principled choice over a more conditioned and automatic choice. Reason includes deductive thought, but also insight, learning from experience, knowledge, and wisdom along with the will or capacity to choose. It's more than just being Data from Star Trek with purely computational thinking.
What's your thoughts or anyone else's on reason and our rational versus animal soul?
Anyway, I'm sympathetic to your views. Reason and rationality isn't the be all and the end all. Note that mysticism hasn't yielded anything useful, at least not as much as reason and rationality has. Unless, of course, you think the odd hermit/fakir who claims liberation/salvation is a useful result.
That said, there's still much that is beyond our grasp and that's assuming that we really know what we think we know. Perhaps there are stages of knowledge and we get closer and closer to the actual truth. There could be many paths to knowledge and the mystical way may be one of them. If so, we have no reason to prefer one way over the other. Whether mysticism or science, ultimately, we get to the truth. You'll have to explain why you prefer mysticism.
I don't really know if I can define mysticism. It's such a loaded term. Prayer? Meditation? Contemplation? All of those are loaded too.
Your depiction of the frair seeking salvation is good picture of what's it actually like. I do seek salvation, not in the evangelical sense of rescue from hell. Rather I seek it in the now, continually, and from myself and my own suffering. It's a liberation from the self-harming ways of my baser nature and a seeking of participation in a higher life with invincible joy and refuge. It's also an individual quest I really don't know how to tell anyone else how to walk their path and I'm interested in converting anyone because I'm still don't have it figured out. But the process brings me comfort and fullfillment nothing else does.
Mysticism should never replace science. It's a completely different type of knowledge. I work as a therapist in a nursing home. I do pray for my patients and sometimes even pray with them or talk about how "God's not done with them yet" so they can get stronger and go home to play with their grandkids again. But if that's all I did, I would be a terrible therapist. I use science and evidence based methods to improve their strength or balance or regain use of an affected arm from a stroke. I'm a mystic but I want my doctor to use his or her medical knowledge not their spiritual insight. It's different types of knowledge for different situations.
Ultimate knowledge of all of creation would require every type of knowledge, wouldn't it?
I think you are confusing "God" with people.
How so?
I would suggest there is no authority above questioning/judging; however, that said, it is not actually a god being judged but instead a human idea being judged.
Yes, I see what you mean. "Human authority about God or in judging God" (grammar corrected for clarity). So I'm evaluating human ideas about God. I have my own ideas about God too. But we can only evaluate our ideas, not God himself. God is definitely never the same as our ideas of Him.
That's a helpful clarification.
Is that what you were pointing out?
Blind acceptance is dangerous for sure. Going on your own judgments and questioning is also dangerous. But you are right, we have no choice because refusing to choose is still a choice isn't it? So putting blind faith in someone else is a decision made by your judgement and questioning. The vast majority of people choose the religion and cultural views of their upbringing without being aware they really chosen them or at least being unaware of the alternatives.
I go could a lot of directions with that, so I'll just make two short points. First, I have a theory that maybe why many Christians (I say this because it's my cultural context) are so convinced that their religion is the only right one is because Jesus or their pastor is the only spiritual teacher they've been honestly exposed to. Jesus is a wise and insightful teacher and he lays out a wonderful spiritual path (or actually multiple spiritual paths depending on your emphasis). There are also many great Christian preachers and theologians as well as just ordinary, holy people in the pews to be inspired from. If this is all you know, of course you'd be Christian. They've never read the Quran or spent time in a synagogue or studied under a Zen teacher. These are all alien and their current context tells them they are wrong or even evil.
Second thought is a quote from Rabbi Nachman (18th century Hassidic Rabbi) that speaks for itself:
"Through a blemish in believing in the Sages, one never has whole counsel, he’s always in doubt, his counsel is divided, and he doesn’t know how to give counsel to his soul regarding any matter."
Thanks! I've really enjoyed our conversations thus far.
I'm not sure. If God is merely an experience he isn't in existence. God must be both a reality and an experience if he is anything at all.
I actually think that God may be at least somewhat physical (Sort of pantheistic). This falls in line with the idea that God is both existence and experience. God is both sensed and communed with daily in a variety of ways here.
I'm almost tempted to think that spirituality is experienced but God is himself in existence.
The Rob Bell in me wants to say everything is spiritual.
Let's not forget the Chinese - Lao Tzu for example. Roughly from the same time period as the Greeks.
This is easier but not as authoritative: http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_parmenides.html
And you can't beat the original text - like most pre-Socratics, we only have fragments, mainly quoted by opponents, but you get the idea, especially see Fragments 2-8:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Parmenides
"Exist" and "Real" don't have definite metaphysical definitions, do they?
So, whether something exists or is real depends on how you define those words.
From what I've been able to find out, the metaphysical meaning of Reality is "all that is." That's pretty broad, and it must include abstract-objects too, including the abstract logical facts that I claim are the basis of our universe (as one of infinitely-many possibility-worlds).
Other than that, I don't think that "exist" and "real" have definite metaphysical definitions.
It seems to me that I've heard the word "actual" used with a stronger meaning than "existent" or "real".
...meaning "in, of, or referring to this physical universe".
The other possibility-worlds, other than our own, are "real" in the sense that they're obviously part of Reality. But they aren't locally-real or "actual" for us.
Martin Buber said that God is above such distinctions as existing or not existing. That makes sense. I've been saying that God isn't an element of metaphysics. Do "exist", "real" and "Reality" apply only to metaphysics and its elements?
Someone spoke of not knowing what's "beyond reality". I told him that's nonsense, because, in philosophy, Reality is all that is. But, I guess if we took "Reality" to mean only all of metaphysics and its elements, then there is such a thing as "beyond Reality".
So how about it? Does "Reality" mean all that is? ...not limited to metaphysics and its elements? Or do "Reality" and "is" only have meaning in metaphysics. ...as Martin Buber seemed to imply.
Michael Ossipoff
So the strongest definition I've stumbled into thanks to this forum is that Reality is that which is made real by the Source of all reality (the Monad) and participates in the whole of all that is real. It's a completely circular definition. But if I'm going to be a Monist, I need to commit in my metaphysics and my ethics and pretty much every other way to one Absolute Source/First Cause of being and goodness and meaning. It's helpful because that's the whole point for me of philosophy, to seek the One. I just finished Book 6 of the Republic where Plato talks about the true philosopher as a lover of all Truth. It's not about opinions about metaphysics or this or that. It's about knowledge of the Absolute.
I agree that metaphysics can be more than opinions, and that it's possible to say definite things about metaphysics. I claim that the metaphysics that I propose, describing a life as a life-experience possibility-story, consisting of if-then facts, is inevitable.
I guess the only 2 requirements for a life-experience possibility-story are 1) A protagonist, experiencer, its central and essential component; and 2) Consistency.
You're in a life because there's a life-experience possibility-story about you.
When one investigates the physical world, via direct experience, or physicists' reports, one finds a possibility-world consisting of an independent system of inter-referring inevitable logical if-then facts about hypotheticals. Logical facts just inevitably and timelessly "are".
A possibility world is there as the setting for your life-experience possibility-story.. Of course there are infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories, and infinitely-many possibility-worlds--worlds of "if", rather than "is".
I call my metaphysics Skepticism, because it doesn't use or need any assumptions or brute-facts.
It's similar to Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, but one difference is that it's a Non-Realism, about the individual-experience point-of-view, instead of the universe-wide objective 3rd-person point-of-view.
Everything that anyone knows about the physical world, is through their experience.
That's the genuine Empiricism.
I feel that individual experience is primary.
It's similar enough to Vedanta, especially in its conclusions and consequences, to qualify as a Vedanta metaphysics version, though it doesn't really match the metaphysics of any of Vedanta's 3 usual versions (which of course differ greatly from eachother anyway). It isn't Advaita.metaphysics.
It's tempting to want a perfect Monism in which there's only one Existent. But I can't justify such a metaphysics by skeptical standards. Though the experiencer is primary, and though all experiencers are similar, at their innermost, I can't call them all one experiencer without making an un-skeptical assumption. Leibnitz said something about identical entities all being instances of one thing, but I don't find that supportable. (Leibnitz also believed in the fallacious, unnecessary, imaginary "Hard Problem Of Consciousness").
Of course, at the end of lives, when one's last life is ending, there likely is a stage, before complete body-shutdown, at which one no longer knows that there ever was such a thing as time, events, a body, individuality or identity (or hardship, menace, dissatisfaction or incompletion). At that no-identity stage, it could be said that we all experience the same Reality.
Of course, at that stage, the person's body is about to shut down, but s/he doesn't know that there ever was a body, and s/he has already reached Timelessness. ...
I agree that the remarkable goodness of what is, suggests--gives me the impression of--a good intent behind what is. That's a feeling. It's about a good intent beyond metaphysics. I don't feel that metaphysics is or describes all of Reality.
...unless "Reality" is defined with the limited meaning of metaphysical reality. I guess I don't use it with that limited meaning.
I realize that much of what Advaita says is about more than metaphysics, a verbal conceptual subject.
So maybe it isn't so much that I disagree with Advaita, but just that I'm mostly only talking about metaphysics.
Michael Ossipoff
How could you possibly know that without comparing God to an idea of God?
:-x
Ahhh... clever
The God that our reasonable, logical mind conceives of naturally falls short of infinity and absoluteness. Yet intuitively we sense (but do not grasp) it's infinititude. So we know our concept is lacking.
I've been thinking of a response, I haven't ignored or forgotten. It was a well thought out and interesting post.
Hmm... so our lives are narratives? I think this is intuitively true. In common language we talk about taking paths or ones story all the time.
Individual moments only make sense in context and it's the overall story that gives meaning.
The infinite possibility and infinite worlds is interesting. Are these determined by individual human choices? I'm not a propent of free will, but if one were to assert free will I think they'd have to go in this direction. There are all sorts of possible outcomes/worlds. I could right now leave my current life entirely and start a completely new life in another country. Why I would suddenly do so is irrelevant, only the fact that I could.
As for monism. Having one universal Source of reality doesn't mean we all have the same experiences. We can retain individual identities while having a shared source.
Thanks again for your post.
The point was obscure. I'll make it clearer...
There is no difference between an idea of God and God. There are only differences between ideas of God.
You may need to explain more because you are assuming particular meanings to ideas and to God and perhaps meaning something different between idea and ideas in your statement.
I could take a few guesses about what you mean, but it would probably best if you just explain if you'd like.
My own understanding of ideas, mind, the soul and of Forms and of God are all conflicted and still being sorted out. I'm trying to see how closely I can conform to a monism or perhaps even Platonism while still being internally consistent and making sense of what I experience to be true. So far Plato has suprised me in the strength of his explanations and how well they create an effective world view.
In order to know that two things are alike and/or similar, we must be able to perform a comparative analysis. Unless God appears in a way that we can compare God to an idea thereof, there is nothing to compare an idea of God to...
Okay, yes that is straightforward enough.
I'm unable to answer this until I figure out what I mean by ideas (in general), by God and if it is even possible to say we can have an idea of God.
I had a stream consciousness response which I removed where I debated the whole thing.
Upon further reflection, I think I need to say that God is not completely unknowable, it is possible to have an idea of God.
In my Zen training, I was taught that my ideas are only mental constructs and never grasp the thing itself. My ideas don't exist. Even concepts like good and evil are just concepts. Reality just is as it is. God even more so is beyond such concepts.
Yet, I think I must listen to why I left Buddhism. I experience that God is not merely a passive, philosophical abstract. Rather I think that this Absolute is actively loving, actively sustaining, actively illuminating. So our idea of God comes from God thru illuminated reason and other illuminated faculties.
Kabbalah has a strange position that as an ex-Kabbalist I need to consider. Ein Sof is the Source, the First Cause but is ultimately unknowable. We only know God thru Hus emanations, which aren't Him but reflections of Him. Many theists too are apophatic theologians and say we know about God mostly thru negation. Yet they still cling to revelation and their respective traditions.
It doesn't make any sense to say God is completely unknowable yet illumines or loves us or creates us. For we then know at least that much about Him in so far as He is active in our experience. God can definitely be mostly unknownable, we only perceive a small sliver perhaps.
Another issue to address, which is what you point to, is if God grants us the idea of God then why is our ideas so different from one another? Is it because as religions would suggest, the majority are impaired or mislead and only one certain group received it correctly? Unlikely.
Or is that we are given only the most basic sliver that mankind has added all sorts of vain imaginings too? Most likely
Or is it the blind men and the elephant where depending on each ones context and personality and baises, everyone sees the Truth but differing aspects as a prism captures only part of the spectrum? Maybe, but this has points for being a charitable view.
So I need to fully answer these questions before I arrive at what you are asking.
Yes. Life-experience possibility-stories, inevitably, timelessly "there", just like any "abstract object.". ...and consisting of a system of inevitable abstract facts about hypotheticals., if-then facts. ...a complex inter-referring system of them.
...having and needing reality and existence only in its own inter-referring context.
That answers the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Those abstract if-then facts are inevitably "there". When something is inevitable, we don't have to ask why it is.
This is a completely parsimonious metaphysics, and neither uses not needs any assumptions or brute-facts.
If we really closely examine our physical world, we find physics. A physical law is a hypothetical relation among some hypothetical physical quantity-values, and is part of the "if" premise of various if-then facts. The other "if" premises are the quantity-values themselves. ...except that one of those quantity-values can be taken as the "then" premise of an if-then fact whose "if" premises are the physical law and the other quantity-values that it relates.
A mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose "if" premise includes, but isn't limited to, some mathematical axioms (algebraic or geometric).
Such a possibility-story has two requirements: A protagonist, and consistency. Of course, if something impossible or inconsistent seemed to happen, we could explain it by saying that we must have been in error, of that someone else's report to us was false, or that it's the result of as-yet unknown physical laws--as has so often been the case, in the history of physics. So really it would probably be impossible to prove that a particular possibility story is really inconsistent. But seemingly inconsistent events are rare.
Someone could object: "When I was a newborn, the day I was born, I didn't know any physics, mathematics, or anything about how the world works. So how did that happen as part of a later-apparent self-consistent world??"
Well, do you remember the day you were born? If not, then there's no problem about consistency on that day.
What if you remembered something seemingly impossible or inconsistent? Well, you were an infant, and who knows what you might have dreamed..
We notice more consistencies as we grow up, and we instinctively are interested in noting them.
.
I'd say "Yes", but indirectly..
How you choose to live in this life, how you're in the habit of living in this life, is definitely going to influence your next life. (if there's reincarnation. Reincarnation is consistent with this metaphysics)
But, when it comes to the time of recincarnation, when you're unconscious (no waking consciousness), and don't remember the just-ended life, but retain your subconscious hereditary and acquired inclinations, feelings, needs, lacks, etc., and your natural instinctive future-orientation, there's no such thing as conscious choice It just happens according to the abovementioned subconscioius attributes, your "vasanas".
There's a life experience possibility-story that is about and for the person you are at that time. Obviously you're in that story.
But I emphasize that this all valid even if there isn't reincarnation. In any case, you're in this life because there's a life-experience possibility story about and for you.
...if your preferences and the circumstances point to doing that.
I say there isn't free-will, because, even from our own point of view, our choices are determined by our preferences (heriditary and acquired) and the circumstances.
Vedanta agrees with me on that.
I think that that shared source is a metaphysical position that would be hard to explain or justify.
I used to advocate that position, because I liked the perfect Monism. But then later I wanted to only say what I can skeptically say. No speculation, no assumptions. Though the shared sources gives a perfect Monism, with just one Existent, I can't justify positing that, because it isn't evident from our experience.
Our experience is of being separate individual animals.
Of course we're identical at center, but that doesn't make us identical. A chocolate candy with an almond center, and a strawberry candy with an almond center are still different candies.
As I was saying, though, at the end of lives, nothing remains of us other than what's identical about us, because all identity is gone, and we have no idea that there ever was such a thing.
That's Timelss. All our lives, combined, are still finite and temporary. So you could say that, overall, our timeless identicalness wins over our temporary individual identities.
Michael Ossipoff.