tim wood
5k
So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?
It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.
Can we agree on that?
— Frank Apisa
Always a pleasure to find something agreeable. I'll sign on here to this. Lead on. — tim wood

Thanks, Tim.

I'll wait for Eric to respond. And he may want to choose the next particular to discuss.

consciousness is not necessary for existence — EricH

This assertion fails — Punshhh

Why? It certainly fails no less than

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

Rather

1. necessity = holds in all possible (self-consistent) worlds
2. say, R³ is a self-consistent whole, a possible world, non-contradictory
3. consciousness does not figure in (the boring) R³
4. consciousness is not necessary

@EricH's assertion is therefore justified moreso than @3017amen's.

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

Super-natural from a physics perspective relates to something beyond the natural laws of physics. Which could also include brute mystery at the end of the Universe. — 3017amen

So you suppose humans KNOW ALL the "natural laws of physics?"

Of course not. That's why something super-natural is logically possible. As an extreme example, multiverse theories include pretty much any and all hypothesis.

consciousness is not necessary — jorndoe

It is necessary for thought itself.

So something that we don't know what it is - is necessary for something else that we don't know what it is?

It is you who made a claim that consciousness is not necessary for existence. How do you know that this is the case in nature? I did not make a claim, I am considering possibilities. Possibilities which may be the case, because we don't know the nature of our origins, there are numerous possibilities. From our position of ignorance we cannot say that one or more of the possibilities is definitively not the case. The best you can do is put the case that human frailty did it, but that goes both ways.

I can explain why consciousness is good evidence for the existence of God, should a God exist. Also that we cannot use philosophy, science, or logic to answer the question of whether a God is involved in our existence, or is not.

This assertion fails

Punshhh

Why?

I already answered this, we don't have sufficient information about existence to determine that consciousness is not a necessity. This is self evident.

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist

— 3017amen
I can't speak for 3017amen, but there are philosophical arguments that consciousness is primary to the experience of existing, idealism for example.

As I have said before, my position is that we don't know and can't say what is entailed in our origins.

2. say, R3 is a self-consistent whole, a possible world, non-contradictory

From our position of ignorance of the nature of our existence, our world, we cannot consider such things as alternative worlds to the extent that such notional worlds can answer questions about our world. Basically it is more speculation about possibilities, subject to human frailty.

So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?

It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.

Can we agree on that? — Frank Apisa

I have been saying this over and over to you in as many different ways as I can figure out. So yes we agree.

And throughout all recorded history until the present time, being supernatural is the core/fundamental trait/characteristic underlying the meaning/usage of "god(s)" to most of humanity.

Well that's not the point. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. Tell me then how do we analyze metaphors, through the intellect? And if so, does that consist of logic? — 3017amen

How to Analyze the Use of Metaphors in Literature Scroll down to see a discussion of metaphors

Analysing a Metaphor

You first made the claim that consciousness is necessary for existence. I made counter claim.

It is you who made a claim that consciousness is not necessary for existence. — Punshhh

Your response was that we do not understand consciousness nor existence.

In other words, you are saying that something we do not understand is responsible for something else that we also do not understand.

With that in mind, I was wrong to say that consciousness is not necessary for existence. I withdraw that statement and correct myself.

The sentence "consciousness is necessary for existence" is poetry and as such cannot be assigned a truth value.

In other words, you are saying that something we do not understand is responsible for something else that we also do not understand.

Sounds like a quantum physicist, or a Astro physicist.

The sentence "consciousness is necessary for existence" is poetry and as such cannot be assigned a truth value.

You can't diminish the existential considerations of our origins, as an artistic flourish. It's there in the philosophy, philosophy is an open minded exercise, not one of limitation of thought. One might also say that the notion that the singularity in the Big Bang event popped into existence from nowhere, is a poetical flourish in spite of how illogical that is.

EricH
214
↪Frank Apisa
So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?

It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.

Can we agree on that?
— Frank Apisa

I have been saying this over and over to you in as many different ways as I can figure out. So yes we agree.

And throughout all recorded history until the present time, being supernatural is the core/fundamental trait/characteristic underlying the meaning/usage of "god(s)" to most of humanity. — EricH

Okay, so most of humanity has been wrong. We should be better than that. Up until 100 years ago "most of humanity" INCLUDING almost every scientist who ever lived...thought this galaxy we see as the Milky Way...was the entire of everything that existed.

Most of humanity was wrong.

Anyway...you and I agree that the term "supernatural" is bullshit. That moves our discussion forward a long way, just as a discussion between us on the nature of the cosmos will be furthered by acknowledging what science now knows about galaxies.

By the way, you previously said, "However, I then point out to you that your definition of "god(s)" is different from mine and virtually every other human being on this planet. To all religious people - and to atheists - the definition/usage of the word "God" include some supernatural aspect/component."

You had the entire statement bolded, but I removed it to point out the part that caused me to start with that first argument. You were saying that YOU agree with that definition...which I just wanted to establish as an absurdity.

Now we have established it as such. My next post will raise the next point I want to discuss.

The "definition" part of the use of the word "gods" seems to raise its ugly head often.

Here are three that I use...all variations of the same definition. I offered all three at times in discussions here or in other fora.

1) An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”

2)
Predicates:

It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.

Secondly, even in this thing we humans call “the universe” is "all that there is" there may well exist entities here in this universe that are not discernible to human senses in any way.

Thirdly, I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.

Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.

The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement is not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)

3) What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.

I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.

You were saying that YOU agree with that definition...which I just wanted to establish as an absurdity. — Frank Apisa

Aargh. Should have re-read my last post one more time before sending it out. I left out some key information.

When I am discussing this "God topic" with someone, especially if that person has identified themselves as a theist or atheist, my starting point is to assume that the other person is referring to the supernatural god(s) - since that is the definition used by most of humanity. Now I'm well acquainted with the old saying about making assumptions (makes an ass out of u and me) - but until you find out otherwise this is a reasonable assumption to make. When most people use the word "God", they are referring to the supernatural god.

My follow up question is usually to ask that person to define the word "God" - and take it from there.

Now. If someone asks me for my personal definition, I will answer something like this:

when I use the word "God" - I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter. — EricH

Here is the full post from 5 days ago: EricH definition of the word "God"

Getting back to your definition, I have no problem with it. I wish you luck in getting the rest of humanity to accept/use this definition. May the force be with you.

That said, in previous posts I have made several recommendations to you to help you in your lonely quest

One recommendation is that when you post your 3 part multiple choice question about guessing? You must put your definition of the word "God" up in front of the multiple choice question. Otherwise, anyone reading it is going to make the reasonable assumption that you are referring to the supernatural being. I have watched you engage in numerous back & forth discussions in which you and other folks on the forum were talking past each other because you had not clarified your definition.

If nothing else, it will save you many hours of typing if you include your definition in front of your multiple choice question. :grin:

My other recommendation to you has been for you to use a different word other than "God".

In summary, it seems like we're in agreement. We're both agnostic with respect to your definition of the word "God". We're both ignostic to the supernatural "God".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/437971

You can use logic to analyze the religious texts of the various religions and point out all the impossible assertions & contradictions in the texts. But you cannot use logic to prove or disprove poetic metaphors. — EricH

I'm a little confused with your reasoning. You are saying you need logic to deconstruct metaphors, analyze written texts, and so forth in order to arrive at your conclusions, yet you're denying it requires conscious existence in order to do so. Can you explain for us?

In other words, you are saying that something we do not understand is responsible for something else that we also do not understand. — EricH

Yep, makes a good point to ponder. He/she is basically saying you don't even understand your own conscious existence, so how can you, through logic, deny another's conscious existence (Jesus)?

Is consciousness itself logically possible?

EricH
215
↪Frank Apisa
You were saying that YOU agree with that definition...which I just wanted to establish as an absurdity.
— Frank Apisa

Aargh. Should have re-read my last post one more time before sending it out. I left out some key information.

When I am discussing this "God topic" with someone, especially if that person has identified themselves as a theist or atheist, my starting point is to assume that the other person is referring to the supernatural god(s) - since that is the definition used by most of humanity. Now I'm well acquainted with the old saying about making assumptions (makes an ass out of u and me) - but until you find out otherwise this is a reasonable assumption to make. When most people use the word "God", they are referring to the supernatural god.

My follow up question is usually to ask that person to define the word "God" - and take it from there.

Now. If someone asks me for my personal definition, I will answer something like this:

when I use the word "God" - I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter.
— EricH

Here is the full post from 5 days ago: EricH definition of the word "God"

Getting back to your definition, I have no problem with it. I wish you luck in getting the rest of humanity to accept/use this definition. May the force be with you.

That said, in previous posts I have made several recommendations to you to help you in your lonely quest

One recommendation is that when you post your 3 part multiple choice question about guessing? You must put your definition of the word "God" up in front of the multiple choice question. Otherwise, anyone reading it is going to make the reasonable assumption that you are referring to the supernatural being. I have watched you engage in numerous back & forth discussions in which you and other folks on the forum were talking past each other because you had not clarified your definition.

If nothing else, it will save you many hours of typing if you include your definition in front of your multiple choice question. :grin:

My other recommendation to you has been for you to use a different word other than "God".
— EricH

Thank you for the "help." I do prefer to do things the way I do them, though.

In summary, it seems like we're in agreement. We're both agnostic with respect to your definition of the word "God". We're both ignostic to the supernatural "God". — EricH

I am not ignostic to anything...and I really do not like descriptors. Most conversations on this issue take up more time with defining the descriptors than with the issues themselves.

Instead of using descriptors...tell me what you mean.

am not ignostic to anything...and I really do not like descriptors. Most conversations on this issue take up more time with defining the descriptors than with the issues themselves.

Instead of using descriptors...tell me what you mean. — Frank Apisa

At age 20, I actually served Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. By age 21 - 22 I was agnostic...and have been ever since. — Frank Apisa

We're looping around yet again in this conversation.

You have repeatedly referred to yourself as an agnostic. But you are an agnostic only with respect to your unique definition of the the word "God" - since you have also asserted that the concept of a supernatural god is illogical. This is ignosticism - or some variety thereof.

I cannot make myself any clearer. I'll give you the last word. Oh OK - at least in this particular line of discussion :grin:

@Frank Apisa The mods have already closed your latest thread "To the people who assert 'there are no gods'" before I could reply to the OP so I'm posting it here. Hopefully they won't close this one too before you have a chance to reply to this post ...

ME?

I have no idea if “no gods exist” or if at least one does. I prefer not to guess on the issue, because all such guesses would be nothing but blind guesses—nothing more than a coin toss.

If I did, however, make such a guess, I would have the ethical wherewithal to call the guess…A GUESS. — Frank Apisa

So what makes your guess true that positions for or against "gods" are "nothing but blind guesses"?

Show us, sir, that you "have the ethical wherewithal to" demonstrate that a "guess ..." is, in fact, as you claim "A GUESS", and that you're just not "calling bullshit" but also flinging "BULLSHIT" too.

To the people who assert “there are no gods” or “it is far more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…

…I call, “BULLSHIT.”

Good. I only assert that Theism Is Not True and, therefore by implication, Theistic Deities Are Fictions. If this is "bullshit", then a "Very Stable Genius" like you, Frank, will have nooooo problem following either of my links and quickly pointing out the faults in my reasoning. :sweat:

Frank, in accordance with the spirit of the OP (What are your positions on the arguments for God) the following will provide for sufficient discourse:

**List of pragmatic, existential, metaphysical and cognitive phenomena, including cosmology and logic:

**Some can easily overlap into other disciplines and/or domains, and this is by no means a comprehensive list

Logic/epistemology:

1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief

Phenomenology/Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience

Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience

Cosmology:

1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism

180 Proof
1.6k
@Frank Apisa The mods have already closed your latest thread "To the people who assert 'there are no gods'" before I could reply to the OP so I'm posting it here. Hopefully they won't close this one too before you have a chance to reply to this post ... — 180 Proof

First of all, thank you, 180. I appreciate you reaching out. Not sure why they closed the thread. It was a legitimate topic, and I have questioned the motivation for the closing in the "Banning" thread. I'm sure we are going to get the standard "low quality" reply, which pretty much translate into, "I didn't like it."

ME?

I have no idea if “no gods exist” or if at least one does. I prefer not to guess on the issue, because all such guesses would be nothing but blind guesses—nothing more than a coin toss.

If I did, however, make such a guess, I would have the ethical wherewithal to call the guess…A GUESS.
— Frank Apisa
So what makes your guess true that positions for or against "gods" are "nothing but blind guesses"? — 180

If you want to think of my comments on that subject to be opinions...fine with me. But...I have challenged people who hold both sides to present UNAMBIGUOUS evidence in either direction...and everything I've ever received as a response barely passes the guffaw test.

Show us, sir, that you "have the ethical wherewithal to" demonstrate that a "guess ..." is, in fact, as you claim "A GUESS", and that you're just not "calling bullshit" but also flinging "BULLSHIT" too. — 180

If you think that "there are no gods" is something more than a guess...present your unambiguous evidence.

If you think that "there is at least one god" is something more than a guess...present your unambiguous evidence.

To the people who assert “there are no gods” or “it is far more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…

…I call, “BULLSHIT.”
Good. I only assert that Theism Is Not True and, therefore by implication, Theistic Deities Are Fictions. If this is "bullshit", then a "Very Stable Genius" like you, Frank, will have nooooo problem following either of my links and quickly pointing out the faults in my reasoning. :sweat: — 180

If by "theism" you mean people who assert, "There is a GOD" or "It is more likely there is a GOD than that there are none"...we are shoulder to shoulder. I agree...it is BULLSHIT.

By the same token the people who assert, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...are engaging in BULLSHIT just as deep and smelly.

Okay?

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa ↪180 Proof

Frank, in accordance with the spirit of the OP (What are your positions on the arguments for God) the following will provide for sufficient discourse:

**List of pragmatic, existential, metaphysical and cognitive phenomena, including cosmology and logic:

**Some can easily overlap into other disciplines and/or domains, and this is by no means a comprehensive list

Logic/epistemology:

1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief

Phenomenology/Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience

Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience

Cosmology:

1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism — 3017amen

Thank you for continuing here, Amen.

I asked for your #1 piece of unambiguous evidence that a god exists.

Give that a shot.

If you want to think of my comments on that subject to be opinions...fine with me. — Frank Apisa

Mere doxa - sophistry aka "bullshit" (H. Frankfurt) - of course, I/we knew that; I just wanted you to admit you're just gassing. Again. Most likely that's also why the mods shut down your thread: gassing is "low-to-no quality" (trollish) and just clutters-up the servers with birdcage confetti. :mask: :victory:

I asked for your #1 piece of unambiguous evidence that a god exists. — Frank Apisa

Below from 5 months ago; let's see, Frank, if you can grok it any better now:

Cite one example of 'divine' intervention in the world (i.e. miracle) ascribed uniquely (i.e. which cannot also be ascribed to natural forces or agents) to any g/G in any religious or philosophical tradition for which there is any corroborable evidence. In so far as you can't - that there isn't any - THAT is "unambiguous evidence against the existence of gods" BECAUSE such evidence is entailed by 'divine predicates' attributed to it and evidence MUST be there IF any such g/G exists. There isn't any, so they don't. — 180 Proof

(more @ old post link)

Thank you for continuing here, Amen.

I asked for your #1 piece of unambiguous evidence that a god exists.

Give that a shot. — Frank Apisa

You're welcome Frank.

Well, sorry for the redundancy (and this may/may not be what you want to hear) but the answer in Christianity: the historical account of Jesus Christ.

Short of that, I offer that foregoing list of philosophical concepts that I welcome you to critique. As such, I propose you pick one (we were talking earlier about the possible differences between reason and 'belief') as merely a suggestive starting point.

My broader argument will be that based upon nature and the human condition, Atheism relies much more on ignorance, lack of sophistication and intuition, (to name a few deficiencies) to justify their belief system.

3017amen
2.3k
Thank you for continuing here, Amen.

I asked for your #1 piece of unambiguous evidence that a god exists.

Give that a shot.
— Frank Apisa

You're welcome Frank.

Well, sorry for the redundancy (and this may/may not be what you want to hear) but the answer in Christianity: the historical account of Jesus Christ.

Short of that, I offer that foregoing list of philosophical concepts that I welcome you to critique. As such, I propose you pick one (we were talking earlier about the possible differences between reason and 'belief') as merely a suggestive starting point.

My broader argument will be that based upon nature and the human condition, Atheism relies much more on ignorance, lack of sophistication and intuition, (to name a few deficiencies) to justify their belief system. ↪180 Proof — 3017amen

The "historical" account of Jesus...is NOT an historical account of Jesus. It is a grouping of tales told by people, some of whom supposedly knew Jesus and some who did not. Paul, the writer of the most important parts of the "historical" account of Jesus...never met the man. (Whether Jesus was one person or several that ended up as one in an amalgam is still being debated by historians and theologians.)

Be that as it may...how does this account possibly show that at least one god exists? What if everything written is wrong...or interpreted way beyond recognition.

John Kennedy was killed in an area with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of eye witnesses...and we have dozens upon dozens of stories about what happened. There are PICTURES and MOVIES of what happened...and we cannot get agreement. But you are willing to take the account of some individuals who lived thousands of years ago...who had a bias and motive to slant things...as (you will excuse the expression) gospel?

C'mon, Amen.

Present your single most compelling piece of unambiguous evidence that at least one god exists. Then we can move on to what that god is like...and whether or not various descriptions of it work out.

Are you a Christian?

The "historical" account of Jesus...is NOT an historical account of Jesus — Frank Apisa

I don't understand why you would deny that it's a historical account. What title or concept would you categorize or give to it?

Be that as it may...how does this account possibly show that at least one god exists? What if everything written is wrong...or interpreted way beyond recognition. — Frank Apisa

Sure, what if it's all wrong, and what what if it's all right. My study of history tells me that it's somewhere in the middle. Is that unreasonable?

John Kennedy was killed in an area with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of eye witnesses...and we have dozens upon dozens of stories about what happened. There are PICTURES and MOVIES of what happened...and we cannot get agreement. But you are willing to take the account of some individuals who lived thousands of years ago...who had a bias and motive to slant things...as (you will excuse the expression) gospel?

C'mon, Amen. — Frank Apisa

Frank think about what you just said. During that period in history there was no such thing as cameras. Nor were there movies.

C'mon Frank, don't grasp for straws.

Present your single most compelling piece of unambiguous evidence that at least one god exists. Then we can move on to what that god is like...and whether or not various descriptions of it work out. — Frank Apisa

Jesus existed and was known to be part God (his metaphorical son) and have a human consciousness. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

Are you a Christian? — JerseyFlight

Frank's an Agnostic

Bit of backpedalling there, , ?
The modal logic — possible, necessary — aren't about you, I, homo sapiens, the universe we know of, in particular.
Consciousness is not necessary in general because there's a (simple) possible world without — that's the (simple) logic. And that's intuitive as well. Why on Earth would anyone think that consciousness figures in all possible worlds, must be? There's an element of self-elevation, of conceit in that.
What may or may not be necessary specifically for us, Earth, the observable galaxies, this (no hypotheticals, skip modal logic), is another matter. And, either way, the rubble in the driveway is evidently not conscious. In the case of a human life (like us), we can track things from start to end, what was involved, needed, etc.
These claims ...

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist — 3017amen

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist. — 3017amen

... are hence overstated as shown.
I suppose we might ask the old existential problem, why something, why anything at all? Why Yahweh and not Shiva? Why Shiva and not panpsychism? Why ... and not The Force? ...? And, technically, the modal logic dispenses with most postulates of something necessary. Not consistency though.

Consciousness is not necessary in general because there's a (simple) possible world without — that's the (simple) logic. — jorndoe

Consciousness is logically necessary to perceive existence and by extension is metaphysically necessary. And that's because the physical laws (mathematical timeless truths) describing existence transcend physics itself. And that in turn transcends the rational concept of possible worlds, as we know them.

In other words, because we neither have a theory of everything nor an adequate theory of conscious existence, we can infer something else about human rationality and it's purpose and existence. This is one reason why Multiverse theories even exist in human consciousness. Because it's logically possible. It's paradoxical...but so is time and consciousness itself, among other things.

So the question to you is, if our concept of rational explanation derives from observations of the physical world, and from evolutionary inheritance, does it provide for adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions about existence? Meaning, is our understanding of the nature of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?

suppose we might ask the old existential problem, why something, why anything at all? — jorndoe

Nice! How does Atheism support nihilism? And, do you realize your question in and of itself relates to Metaphysics? The reason is important because meaning of life or quality of life type questions (you wondering why there is something and not nothing) and issues from your self-awareness do not have any Darwinian survival advantages. Why should the Atheist care to even wonder about such an idea or ask such a Metaphysical question? This too, seems paradoxical. Please share, if you can.