Imperative Questioning
1) DO YOU EXIST? This is the most fundamental question one can ask. If this question cannot be answered, then there are no answerable questions. All further thought or lines of questioning hinge upon the answer to this question. If you haven’t answered this question for yourself, then most likely you have been operating under the assumed “yes”. If you have posited this question to yourself and honestly came to the conclusion that “no” you do not exist, then you are now finished. You can go about your business (or not) and no further inquisition is required. I suppose it is possible to go on further to answer the subsequent question ’1a’, however any answer is ultimately a contradiction to the heading question. For if you truly do not exist, it follows then, that it makes no impact and is merely absurd, in light of your admitted nonexistence, if you do or do not care about your lack of existence. I find it difficult to believe that any rational creature could come to the conclusion that they , in fact, do not exist. I am not here stating that it is impossible. I just can’t personally find the line of reason to follow and haven’t had any support for the belief sufficiently explained to me. Mainly, I cannot grasp what kind of relation one could form with anything that they encounter (actual or possible, including the question itself), in as far as one who does not exist can encounter anything. Now if, on the other hand, you answered “yes”, then you must now proceed to sub question 1a.
1a)Do you care? This question is more of an opinion based inquiry. There are no roads to follow for the “correct” answer, where reason provides for so many other. There are and will continue to be much debate surrounding all aspects and implications of this one. Probably the main reason for the broad span of answers and arguments thereof stems from the implied acti0n involved. A ‘no’ given to this probing, will typically produce a similar outcome as that of answering ‘no’ to question 1. In this scenario, one does exist but does not care. I find no reason that an action justified through the negative of question 1 cannot be justified through a negative of 1a, even if the answer to 1 was positive. Consequently, if you do exist but do not care that you exist, then ultimately the result remains that there is no further need of questioning. If you do exist AND you care that you exist, regardless of where you go in between, you will ultimately arrive at question 2.
2)DOES GOD EXIST? Though true, this may well be the most debated over question in all of history; it also happens to be the most readily answerable question if reason has any merit. Any argument against the existence of God is either a misunderstanding of the concept of God or an improper use of reason. Regardless of the evidence to support a “first mover” or “first cause” (which, as far as anything else in life is “proved” -i.e. law of gravity, law of motion, law of averages, etc- is overwhelming), it is possible for one to conclude that there is no God. In this case, as previously, you may now stop questioning, at least as far as this exercise is concerned.
2a)Do you care? Whereas the logical progression of thought/questioning will indeed lead to Q2a, as with sub-question 1a, there exists no rational line of thought that can confirm or deny the merit of any given answer for this question. Both the “correctness” or “incorrectness” of answering 2a lies in faith*. Once again, as with 1a, the innumerable responses (and action implied from any given response) cannot be judged on merit by another individual. This is inherent in the question itself. Do YOU care that GOD exists? The only relation spoken of, or accountability implied, is by very essence of the question between YOU and GOD.
Thank you for participating in the fundamentals of IF/THEN, namely identifying the “IF”.
* (…lies in faith) It should be noted, as in context of ultimate truth, that all things believed or not believed are ultimately decisions of faith. Hard, undeniable proof is essentially nonexistent. For example, one can say that one knows one exists, as in Cartesian thought, for the simple fact that one can ask themselves if they exist; Or as I stated above, the overwhelming evidence to support the “first mover”. These beliefs and essentially all others are based on reason. Reason masquerades as an immediately recognizable and self evident truth. But why? All reason has come from man’s mind, from exactly that which we are attempting to deduce being or non being. We are now in the infinite repetition of the circle. One cannot employ functions of that which has not been proven to exist to prove it’s existence. That is absurd. For if the functions are sound enough to employ, it follows then that the being from which the functions stem is also sound. But functions cannot be justified if the being from which they stem cannot be verified. My whole point with this addendum is to point out an irrational fear of the word “faith”. People, especially Christians, have used the word “faith” to justify and motivate so many horrors throughout time that most people shrink from the very mention of it. I only hope to illustrate that both the believer (of God or anything for that matter) and the non-believer can only justify their belief by faith. Neither side of the history-long debate can claim ultimate knowledge on the subject. In the same, no one can claim ultimate knowledge that the computer screen you are reading right now even exists. All things are faith: believing your senses that the screen IS in fact in front of you, believing your history book that the War of 1812 actually happened, believing your friends that Amsterdam even exists (unless you’ve physically been there yourself, in which case, you then are believing your senses once again), believing your heart that what you are doing is “right”, and on and on.
–adjective
The logic is strong within you, Luke.