Jupivix and David, perhaps we need to make a distinction between existence and being.
'Exist' came from the Latin word existere, which means "to stand out". Thus anything that exists, exists in relation to other things, and by means of contrasts. For that reason an existent entity needs a form and boundaries. And if we remove everything that is not x, that which is called x will cease to exist. We can imagine an object in an empty space but when we remove the space surrounding it we can no longer imagine its form. The object would cease to exist because it no longer has a form, but it still 'is', or rather, something still 'is'.
A thing needs a form to exist, but doesn't need a form to be.
Allow me to quote Kevin's words from "The Importance of Being an Atheist" from The Atheist Magazine no.1:
"To understand why it is impossible for a God to exist we need to understand what we mean by existence. The only sensible definition for existence is that a thing is said to exist if it relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relation to each other. A thing must exist relative to an observer at the very least. Now, God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than God because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than God then God cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained. God is simply another word for Nature, and Nature certainly does not "exist" - it just is
This is why Heidegger said only man exists, while other beings just are. Because boundaries and forms only exist in the construction of the mind.
Kevin made a distinction between 'exist' and 'is', between "existence" and "being". He asserted that Nature had "being", but had no 'existence'. He thereby argued that God had no 'existence'. But the logical fallacy here is that he also assumed God also had no 'being', while Nature did. There is really no argument supporting this assumption.
Kevin has missed much of theology. Many theologians asserted that God, while possessing Will, possesses neither existence not non-existence.
Islamic theology of the Sufi, for example, asserted that:
-God and only God has wujud. Wujud is an Arabic word which means That which finds and is found. Wujud is often translated as existence, but not in the meaning of "standing out". God's "being" needs no other being to relate to. God can have Wujud without being in relation to any other being.
-Before the existence of the universe as we know it, God was. God's Wujud is infinite, has no beginning or end.
-The universe is finite, created and sustained by God. God created motion, matter and energy, but works without energy.
-God is outside of the universe. If god enters the universe it will instantly disappear. Because is infinitude enter finitude, finitude disappears. x/∞ = 0.
-Everything gains Wujud by being perceived by God. God is not a thing, so God is not among this every-'thing'.
-God has no shape or form. The sufis are forbidden from imagining God with a form.
-God is the cause of everything. There is no secondary cause. Secondary cause is just a habit of the mind, as David Hume's argument. We have no way of knowing if smoke is caused by fire and not by God.
-God destroyed and recreated the universe constantly. This happens so fast that the human mind cannot conceive it. Nothing stays the same between two consecutive moments. The experience of the moment between destruction and recreation, that is, between two consecutive moments, is called fanaa.
-God is outside of time, for the above reason. Therefore God is outside of causality (temporal causality at least) because (temporal) causality is only possible in time. (Does this mean God have free will, even if he acts with reason and not randomly?)
-Everything exists for God's pleasure. Creation is a grand game, and Allah (God) is is the ultimate prize. This life is just a test, the life after death is the true life.
I am an agnostic Atheist aspiring for Absolute Atheism, and I admit I can't absolutely refute this theory with logic.
If you can, please try.
Liberty Sea wrote:"Why is there Being at all, and not much rather Nothing? That is the question" - Martin Heidegger.
Being is the result of being nothing. Because nothing is something, which is nothing, which is everything, which is nothing. Nothing is something. What is it ? Consciousness. Awareness. Aware of being Aware. Conscious.
That is just dodging the question, or giving a creationistic answer, that being came from the consciousness of God.
"How comes the world to be here at all instead of the nonentity which might be imagined in its place? ... from nothing to being, there is no logical bridge." - William James.
Nihil ex nihilo, but why is there being, instead of nihilo?