The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Value of Existence

I have a question that’s bothered me ever since I came across a strange kind of “logic” in a debate between a universalist and an annihilationist.

The universalist said “one thing is for sure, I could be no better off by being annihilated, because there would be no ‘me’ to be any better off if ‘I’ didn’t exist.”

He said that comparing states of existence to none-existence was a category error (i.e. comparing apples to oranges.)

In other words, no matter how happy I am (here or hereafter), I’m really no “better off” than I would be if I didn’t exist; and no matter how I suffer (here or hereafter), I’m really no “worse off” than I would be if I didn’t exist.

Isn’t there something wrong with that logic?

I mean, if it were true, how could we ever rightly be grateful to God for our existence (without making “a category error”)?

And how could we rightly conclude (as most of us do) that a God of love wouldn’t create souls He knew would be tormented forever (if they’d really be no worse off in unending torment, than they would be if they never existed)?

Hi Michael

I think the logic is sound.

We can be grateful for our experiences without any idea of comparison with ‘non-experiences’. Simply grateful for lots of wonderful experiences (both good and ‘bad’).

There’s no need to make the comparison with non-existence as you are doing.
We conclude that the experience of suffering is, in itself, a bad thing which God would not want his children to endure (no comparison with non-).
So its the annihilationists who have a problem if they suggest that ‘non-existence’ is better than ‘unending suffering’.

If the logic is sound, doesn’t it follow that your existence itself is nothing to be grateful for?

That creation isn’t any better than no creation?

And that if God had a choice, He Himself would have no reason to choose existence over none existence?

Wouldn’t all that God does be ultimately meaningless, because neither He nor any derivative being would be any better off than they would be if there had been no existence (no beginning, no “let there be”)?

You say we can be grateful for one experience as compared to another (sexual pleasure with your wife as compared to a toothache) without making the comparison to non-experience, but wouldn’t that mean we could never be grateful for the ability to have a pleasurable experience?

And if a never-ending toothache would really be no worse than not existing it all (and not existing is really no worse than sexual pleasure with your wife), what would you have to complain of if you were created to have nothing but a never-ending toothache?

It seems to me that you’re concluding that happiness and suffering are neutral things in themselves (compered to non-existence, i.e. no better or worse.)

I think this logic creates a problem for any Theist, because it seems to me to make the act of creation (bringing into existence) meaningless.

Even from a purely materialistic (atheist) point of view, I see problems.

Because if death = non-existence, and agony is no worse than non-existence, there could never be any reason to put anyone (man or beast) out of his misery.

And no reason for God (if there is a God) to pity those in hell (who are really no worse than they would be if He never created them.)

If life means anything, I feel certain that there must be a flaw in this logic somewhere.

Can ANYONE help me???

Existence vs. Non-existence.

Via existence, we are capable of experiencing pleasure, or pain; and life encounters both. Eternal life encounters both. Damnationalists believe it diverges at the fork in the road, some to the experience of never ending pain, others to never ending pleasure. Universalists believe in no fork in the road, but life unto pleasure, or life unto pain so that pleasure may be reached - where pain itself becomes the medium by which that pleasure (such as the pleasure of God’s presence and pure-heartedness) can be gained through Christ’s sanctifying will; by pain being purified so that pleasure becomes available to be experienced.

What existence presents, ultimately, is life with the capacity for pleasure and the experience of it. The pleasure of existence which I as a Universalist believe will be had by all, because the experience of never ending pain is not necessary, it serves no good purpose for remedy or justice; it can only serve vindictively punitive ends. Pleasure however is a homeostatic state, varying from oblivious joy, to subtle tranquility. This homeostatic state is God-designed, and God-desired for his creations. Pain after all, is something that tells us when something is wrong, something that alerts us to an imbalance in our homeostatic state - a state which is normally pleasurable; a homeostatic state which is meant to be the norm.

It is in existence, and its capacity for pleasant experience, and its promise for eternally pleasant experience; meaningful, fulfilling, edifying, beautiful experience - especially and fundamentally with God - that we find thankfulness. God-given existence is what ultimately allows us the capacity to prosper and be blessed to be a blessing; blessings for which gratefulness is reasonable, and wonderfully applicable.

Non-existence however, entirely lacks that very capacity to experience being “better off” as there is no experience possible with which to judge being “better off”, something that only exists in an existent entity capable of experience.

Though non-existence would be a “better” state than never ending pain, the person itself would have no capacity to judge whether they are better off or not. God might, Christ might; but not the non-existent person having been annihilated. The problem is that it isn’t a very good expression of mercy to make a creature cease to exist for any length of time, and certainly not forever. It is a worse lack of mercy to torture them forever, but to make them cease to exist forever is a divorcement in which God has forsaken his creature entirely by putting between them a nigh impassible gulf; between Himself who IS, and the person who now Isn’t.

The ceased person is incapable of experience, and therefore incapable of gratefulness for the supposed mercy bestowed upon him, neither is he able to cry out for greater mercy; as might be possible at least in Hell, and is certainly possible in the Universalist’s purifying Hell. Annihilation in that respect is a deeper death than Hell because it is permanent with which there is no turning back, where as Hell at least shows hope of rescue if God is loving.

In regards to not existing being no worse than existing, or no better; non-existence is not capable of rendering judgement on whether or not a situation or another state of being (requiring existence) is worse, better, no worse, no better, or neutral - where as an existing entity is capable of rendering judgement on the issue, at least at a theoretical or hypothetical level. The existing entity has the capacity to imagine to some degree, not existing. The non-existent is not capable of imagination at all, and thereby incapable of judgement even in a hypothetical sense. That is where the category error lies.

The existent entity is capable of being grateful for his existence, even in the throes of pain from which he has hope of relief, relief for which he too can be thankful. The non-existent entity is incapable of being, let alone verbiage.

Existence, being, one might suppose, is the fundamental stuff of God; of whom IS, and thereby is the very fabric and essence of Existence itself - is also the foundation by which Meaning is ascribed to existence, and the existence of entities such as Creation and the creatures in it.

Non-existence is something entirely apart from God, apart from Existence, and thereby incapable of Meaning or ascribing Meaning or Meaninglessness to any entity.

Meaning demands Existence, and if God is Existence; Existence demands Meaning. Non-existence is incapable of any demand, and is likewise incapable of rendering either Meaning or Meaninglessness.

It is because of Existence that we are capable of, and have access to Meaning; and by these two faculties of Reality we have reason to be grateful - and ultimately grateful for the experience of Existence which brings the experience of Meaning.

Thank you Lefein.

You’re welcome, I hope it was helpful. :slight_smile:

It was if I understand you correctly.

Non-existence is incapable of rendering judgement on whether or not a state of existence is better or worse, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t states of existence that are better or worse.

Is that right Lefein?

Seems about right, I believe there are states of better and worse; being fed is better than starving, being in a pleasurable homeostatic state is better than being in pain - generally speaking.

And being in “a pleasurable homeostatic state” is better than not being at all?

Being in pain (if it’s non-ending, doesn’t serve a purpose, and pleasure is never reached) is worse than not being at all.

Even if we wouldn’t be able to recognize the difference if we didn’t exist.

That’s what I understand you to be saying.

Is that right?

Very close, but the jury is still out on whether or not not-existing would be worse than existing in pain. Though I would certainly lean to the idea that never ending torture as described by Damnationalism would certainly be worse than ceasing to exist, provided that higher, or further mercy was impossible to provide to the damned.

But yes, even if we couldn’t recognise the difference, Meaning and Value would still exist; it would be better to exist as God intended, in pleasurable homeostatic state - or through trial reaching it. And it would be worse to exist in needless pain, if such a thing ultimately exists. And as the Universalist believes; ultimately, any worse off condition will be recompensed with the better - as God is a restorer to the robbed.

If “that man” in the following sentence refers to Judas (as is commonly understood), then Matthew is saying that if Judas had been non-existent, he would be better off than he will be as a consequent of having handed Christ over to be crucified.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is handed over! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

I don’t see that that would necessarily mean that it would be better for him if he never existed.

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. (Luke 1:41-44.)

Elizabeth was in her sixth month at the time (verse 36.)

If life begins at conception, and God doesn’t trash the souls of aborted fetuses, not being born does not necessarily equate with never existing.

(But I think we already discussed that on another thread, and I think you agreed with me at the time?)

Thank you Lefein.

For me, the category error is in treating non-existence as if it something that exists.

To Lefein: I just wanted to say, man, you are one smart cookie. :slight_smile:
What you said in response to Michael about existence vs non-existence, and what you said about existence and meaning… deep stuff, man, and beautiful. :slight_smile:

Blessings to you

Matt

If comparing something to nothing is a category error, how can zero be a real number?

But it is a real number, on the number line right between 1 and -1. You can add, subtract, and multiply with
0 and get real answers. You can divide numbers into zero and get a
real answer, zero.

If “better off” means more desirable in relation to “suffering” and pleasure, then there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with comparing the two states. Pain is less desirable than the lack thereof, pleasure is more desirable. Non-existence would adequately be comparable to a state of neither pleasure nor pain.

If I’m wrong, please show me where I’m wrong here.

Anyone?

Okay, I didn’t think the following was necessary, but now I see that it is. The Greek word “εγεννηθη”, used in the verse I quoted, seldom, if ever, means “born”; it normally means “generated” or “begotten”, a little broader than the word “conceived” but inclusive of it.

If the verbal form did mean “give birth to”, then in Matthew 1:2, we have Abraham giving birth to Isaac, Isaac giving birth to Jacob, etc.

Hmmm…and what would it mean here?

A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. (John 16:21.)

Here Jesus speaks of a man being “born” (same word, same verb form) into the world when a woman is “delivered of her child,” so it must be speaking of birth (not the initial act of begettal or conception.)

I see no reason why Jesus could not have been speaking of Judas being “born into the world” in Matt. 26:24, and the meaning would then be that he would have been better off if he had died in the womb (not if he never existed.)

And if it only meant begotten, what would the expression “born of women” mean here?

Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matt.11:11.)