The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Prof. Nils Holtug on the Positive Value of Existence

At the very most, what I said would imply that one could not make any value statements at all comparing a being’s consciousness of existence and non-existence. Therefore it would make no sense to say “God’s existing is no better than his non, etc.” Because that would imply the opposite – i.e. it is better for state of affairs x than y, etc.

But you wouldn’t be able to attach any predicates containing value judgments at all. That is my point. You can’t even compare the two. The only thing you can say is that they’re not comparable. Once you start inferring that this therefore means “state x is better than y” you’ve left the realm of coherent comparison.

I thought you said that existence is no better than non-existence?

As a necessary being, God would have no choice but to exist (and I guess no choice but to create us, if He needs us to fulfill Himself, as you say He does), but if existence is no better or worse than non-existence, it follows that He’d lose nothing if He could choose not to exist.

Any value statements, as in “better or worse,” right?

Yes it would, because “better than” is a value statement!

To say that you can’t make any “value statements” about God’s existence means that you can’t say His existence is any better or worse than His non-existence.

I find that statement completely incoherent.

How would your saying that existence is no better or worse than non-existence imply “it is better for state of affairs x than y, etc.”?

So if I attempt to say that God’s existence (x) is better than His non-existence (y), I’ve left the realm of coherent comparison, right?

Using your logic.

If it’s possible to start over here:

I don’t know if Prof. Holtug is a Theist, but for a Theist (who believes that one loving, necessary being brought all other derivative beings into existence), his thesis would seem to make more sense than saying (as some do) that existence has no value when compared to non-existence.

And I would really like some thoughts on this paper (which was presented at the Oxford-Copenhagen Summit on Ethics in 1999, and at the International Society for Utilitarian Studies conference in North Carolina in 2000.)

[Prof. Nils Holtug on the Positive Value of Existence)

Interesting discussion Michael and you raise some good points. I really would encourage others to reply to your questions as well as raise questions/criticisms of their own. When they do not, then IMO it only emphasises the weakness of their position.
I also do not believe that any person kills a horse in order to make himself/herself feel better.
Whether the mlogic is sound or not, lets be thoughtful and admit that the killing is done because the killer believes the animal is better off not existing any longer.
God bless you

Thank you pilgrim.

And G-d bless you.

Michael, I don’t think you’re grasping my initial point. I’m saying that if you attempt to compare the subjective experience of existence between a person who exists and the same person when he doesn’t exist, the comparison is incoherent. It would make not sense, from this standpoint, to say a state of being was better than non being. But from another’s point of view, it would make perfect sense to say that it is better for person to exist than not exist. I really can’t say it any simpler than that. This doesn’t say anything about the ontological nature of God as a necessary being, whether he exists or if it is possible for him to, etc. it has no bearing on any of these questions.

I don’t think you’re grasping the real issues at all.

If there’s such a thing as objective reality, that point of view would have to be true or false.

And if there is a God, and He’s a perfect Being, He couldn’t have any false beliefs.

So if He believes it’s better for a person to exist than not exist, that would have to be true.

It’s not just a matter of His point of view.

And if “God is Love,” and He doesn’t believe it’s better for any of us to exist than it would be for us not to exist, than why are we here?

And if you say that it’s no better to exist in any state of consciousness than it is not to exist, you’re saying that “The Existing One” is no better than nothing, and His creation has no real value.

On the other hand, it is logically possible to say that there are states of existence that are better than non-existence on the basis of what Prof. Holtug calls “surplus of value.”

[Prof. Nils Holtug on the Positive Value of Existence)

From this it follows (if you’re a Theist) that if God’s existence has a surplus of value, it’s better for Him to exist than it would be (if it were possible) for Him not to exist.

And it follows that if He knows (in His Omniscience) that a creature’s existence will have a surplus of value, He knows that it would be better for that creature to exist than it would be for him not to exist.

He doesn’t “think” it, or “believe” it, and it isn’t true only from His “subjective point of view,” because He doesn’t have any false beliefs.

He knows that existence can be better than non-existence.

And that’s why He, as a God of love, brings derivative beings into existence.

And that’s why we, as creatures, owe Him a debt of gratitude.

All this follows from Prof. Holtug’s thesis here (if you’re a Theist), and your thesis (whether you realize it or not) would deny all of it.

If no state of existence can be any better or worse than non-existence, wouldn’t God (as a perfect Being, with no false beliefs) have to know that that’s true, even of His own existence?

But if Prof. Holtug’s theory of value surplus is true, wouldn’t God (as a perfect Being, with no false beliefs) know that as long as His existence has a surplus of value, it is better for Him to exist than not exist?

And if He knows that existence can be better than non-existence, wouldn’t He (as a God of love) want to share the value that existence has to offer by bringing derivative beings into existence?

How can you say that none of this has anything to do with the nature of God?

If multiverse theory is true, when I kill a horse, there immediately appears another universe in which I do not kill the horse. Similarly, when I die, there immediately appears another universe in which I do not die.

Multiverse theory guarantees individual immortality. It also guarantees that everything that can exist must exist, and makes all talk of non-existence meaningless.

Not true.

There are several different multiverse theories (some Theistic, and some non-theistic.)

Here’s a paper on the topic by someone who teaches Theology, Mathematics, and Physics.

If you’d like to read the rest, see members.ozemail.com.au/~frmkirby/God%20design%20and%20the%20multiverse.html

But shouldn’t we start another thread if you want to discuss Multiverse Theory?

Hi Allan.

I thought you might be interested in this.

faculty.smu.edu/jkazez/articles/Benatar.htm

I think the part I bolded and underlined answers your question about your non-existent children, but the reason I found this article interesting is because it seems to me that a Creator God would be very much in the position of “yes Charlie’s” hypothetical parents, and those of us He decided to bring into existence are very much in the position of “yes Charlie.”

If (given our ultimate salvation and eternal happiness) our existence is better than non-existence, we can thank Him for our creation (as Orthodox Jews and Anglicans do in their daily prayers), but if no state of existence is any better or worse than non-existence (as you’ve argued here) all such words of thanks become meaningless.

And if there are states of existence that are worse than non-existence, there are also states of existence that are better than non-existence, which gives all of us who believe in a loving God (and especially those of us who believe in UR) a reason to hang in here (believing that any pain or suffering will ultimately be worth it.)

Thank you.