Not really. In fact, that’s a question I’ve dealt with several times in the past. The problem you describe is baffling only for an existentitalist. An essentialist understands that if God did not exist, then His essence — goodness — would compel Him to emerge. Existence is a trivial state. The universe is nothing more than a probability distribution. Existentialism is becoming passe. What identifies a thing is not its existence, but its essence.
Matt, I think my post to Bytegeist answered your points, or at least gave you my reasoning by which I would answer them. If not, let me know.
Stone Girl, How do you answer the following questions?
Where was God before He had a place to be? Who created that?
Is God then Being and Place?
If you believe God is everywhere then is He every thing?
Monavis
I’m in no position to criticise your argument. For a start, I don’t understand it. Looks like I’ve missed some debates.
I suspect your definition of “existence” differs from mine, (“trivial”?!!!) and I don’t recognise your use of “essence” at all. Could you link to a previous discussion?
“The universe is nothing more than a probability distribution.” You’ve stated this before. Are you not equating a map with the territory?
Not to me.
Actually, Icarus, neither of my parents believed in God.
Monavis
Your question assumes that God is a physical being. Maybe God is energy, or a force.
-
I think you’re right, this question is unanswerable.
-
Maybe we give the Universe purpose.
I don’t think there’s been a particular discussion or big debate on Existentialism versus Essentialism (although that would be very interesting). Rather, it’s just been a part of whatever discussion was taking place, typically over the nature of reality (metaphysics) and the nature of existence (ontology).
Simply put, existentialism holds that existence preceeds essence, while essentialism holds that essence preceeds existence. It is my opinion that the essence of purpose is aestheticism. Goodness is that aesthetic which edifies, and the aesthetic that is most valued by God. As a free moral agent, She exists to facilitate goodness. That is why, if She did not exist, then Her essence would compel Her to emerge.
Well, the territory is in our brains in the form of perception. We see — with and without the help of instruments (themselves physical) — trees and stars and microorganisms. But all that’s really there is an electromagnetic spasm discharging in a suspension of gravity. The universe, in essence, is just a map.
Now, that’s an interesting idea. Maybe we’re supposed to be the map-readers? And where would the map take us if we followed it?
Hmm. Our perceptions (i.e. our subjective reality?) are the territory, and the universe is the map?
Going to have to think about that one.
"Goodness is that aesthetic which edifies, and the aesthetic that is most valued by God. As a free moral agent, She exists to facilitate goodness. That is why, if She did not exist, then Her essence would compel Her to emerge."
[Sir Bedevere]And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.[/Sir Bedevere]
Maybe. And then again, maybe we’re in a purposeless universe, or we’re an entirely unintended tangential side effect in a universe with a purpose we can never comprehend.
Are you familar with cellular automata? They provide beautiful examples of unintended consequences arising in very simple systems.
For example, suppose you take a big piece of white squared paper. In the top row, you colour in the middle square black.
Now, consider the squares in the row as groups of three “neighbours” - for each square, the two either side of it and itself. Also, the squares on the ends of the row are neighbours of each other.
Apply the following very simple rules to each square in the top row - if three neighbours are white, the middle neighbour becomes white. If three neighbours are black, the middle neighbour becomes white. All other cases, the middle neighbour becomes black. Use the results of these rules to fill in the second row. Then apply them to the second row and use the results to fill in the third row, and keep going…
What arises can be seen here. Watch it for a couple of minutes.
http://math.hws.edu/xJava/CA/index.html
I kind of like the idea of a Creator that basically set up a bunch of simple rules (the laws of physics) and a simple initial state (the first femtosecond of the Big Bang) and then sat back, not really knowing what was going to happen. I don’t believe in such an entity, but I like the idea of it.
After all the last few hundred years of scientific progress has taught us – after reason is no longer dominated by fanciful philosophy – the thought of believing in a supernatural being boggles MY mind.
I can see no need for that hypothesis.
Hmmmm. Does the essence of Satan — unmitigated evil — compel him to exist?
How about the essence of Athena, goddess of learning? Her essence is pretty well nailed down, I think. Is she out there somewhere, as a real being? Making plans, giving blessings, taking lovers, smiting her enemies?
Does the essence of Fiddle Faddle™ — buttery toffee goodness — compel it to exist?
Does the essence of perpetual motion machines — machines that run with zero energy loss — compel them to exist? Not so far as we understand the physical world, no. Of course we might be in for a shock someday, but it’s a pretty solid bet now that neither you nor I nor anyone who ever lives will encounter a perpetual motion machine. Their essence, their defining property, is simply forbidden by the laws of physical nature (as we’ve come to understand them so far).
My point: It’s often easy to describe the “essence” of something, in as little or as much detail as you like, but that never obliges the world to cough up an actual instance of it. This applies to the proposed Creator of the universe as much as it does to Athena, or Fiddle Faddle™.
Yeah, I noticed that headline on Oprah magazine yesterday at the checkout counter. Guess I’m out of it — a real “square”, as you kids say these days. 
The essence of my retort is that essentialists have not begun to explain what they think they’ve explained.
Purpose? What’s all this about purpose? I must be just an empty shell because I have never felt that I am here for any reason or to fill any higher purpose.
I agree with Los Angeles Times columnist, the late Jack Smith, who opined that as far as he was concerned his purpose was to stay alive so he could see what happened next.
To energy incapable of doing work.
Consider whether the universe qua universe is perceivable without us.
The sentences were pithy, I admit; however, I think the implications are clear: an aesthetic which edifies must of necessity, given its essential nature, emerge existentially, assuming that existence is an improvement — however slight — over nonexistence. Therefore, an Entity Whose essence is goodness must emerge into existence.
Again, I define goodness as that aesthetic which edifies. As such, it is only logical that if there is a state of existence, then its Agent should emerge into that state.
What exactly do you imagine has not been explained?
Are you saying that if there is a state of existence then the agent of goodness should emerge into existence? Am I parsing your statement correctly? Why should this be God? Are we about to get another dose of MOP?
Yes. Perfectly. In fact, It is likely the primary (first) existent Entity.
You may call It any name you please, whatever name you might call the free moral Agent that facilitates goodness. Here’s how I put the pieces together: Goodness is that aesthetic which edifies; love is the faciliation of goodness; God is love.
No. That is not pertinent here. This is not a question of the nature of God’s existence, but of Its essence.