Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

I don't want to discover whatever you have found because I'd never want to act as smug and self righteous as you do and I don't want to ever think it's ok to call people dirty animals like you do.

 

[Gambit]

i know what naturalists think. This is hardly a rebuttal, and not even close to answer my question. My challenge to you is to show us that your claim "there is no natural explanation for why there is something instead of nothing" has any merit, it is not circular, nor question begging and does not use special pleading.

If you believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for the mystery of existence, then the onus is upon you to furnishes us with one. That's how it works.

By the way, I posed this very question on another thread (see link below). Hitherto, no one has voted "yes."

"Is the universe (multiverse) self-explanatory?"

 

[leibowde84]

Agreed, finally someone who is not afraid...the next questions is....when you see something in you environment, is not this what you see perceived as something that is not you.....is not everything in existence external to you perceived as not you?

I would agree with that. When I experience an entity during my waking life, I would say that is "not me".

 

[leibowde84]

The naturalist believes only the physical exists. That being the case, the naturalist has no physical explanation for why the physical universe (multiverse) exists. (No one here is disputing that something exists. That is a given.)

It should be noted that the absence of such an explanation currently in no way means that it doesn't exist and won't one day be found. Our scientific understanding of the cosmos is still so young and incomplete, we have barely gotten started. So, the claim that "no naturalistic explanation for the cosmos exists RIGHT NOW" might be true, but it in no way supports the argument for a supernatural cause. That is a logically flawed "argument from ignorance", in that you are using the absence of a presently known scientific explanation as support for the argument that one doesn't exist. The only thing that actually points to is that we haven't found one yet.

 

[prometheus11]

Does a naturalist need to have a reason for why the universe exists?

 

[Parsimony]

If you believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for the mystery of existence, then the onus is upon you to furnishes us with one. That's how it works.

The burden is on the person making the claim. If someone says there is no natural explanation, they have the burden just as much as a person who says there is one. Until then, the answer is unknown.

 

[leibowde84]

Does a naturalist need to have a reason for why the universe exists?

No. Just the belief that there is no reason to think that the universe can't one day be explained naturally. The myth that we must have an explanation now is absurd.

 

[leibowde84]

If you believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for the mystery of existence, then the onus is upon you to furnishes us with one. That's how it works.

By the way, I posed this very question on another thread (see link below). Hitherto, no one has voted "yes."

"Is the universe (multiverse) self-explanatory?"

Claiming that a naturalistic explanation cannot exist and won't be found in the future has the burden of proof. The claim that, some day, we will find this natural explanation is far less deserving of this burden, as the claim does not contend that one is known now.

 

[Gambit]

It should be noted that the absence of such an explanation currently in no way means that it doesn't exist and won't one day be found. Our scientific understanding of the cosmos is still so young and incomplete, we have barely gotten started. So, the claim that "no naturalistic explanation for the cosmos exists RIGHT NOW" might be true, but it in no way supports the argument for a supernatural cause. That is a logically flawed "argument from ignorance", in that you are using the absence of a presently known scientific explanation as support for the argument that one doesn't exist. The only thing that actually points to is that we haven't found one yet.

That bottom line is that you cannot invoke something contingent in order to explain a world of contingent things. Logic dictates this much.

 

[McBell]

If you believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for the mystery of existence, then the onus is upon you to furnishes us with one. That's how it works.

If this is the best you got in support of your claim:

"there is no natural explanation for why there is something instead of nothing"​

then you got nothing.

 

[leibowde84]

That bottom line is that you cannot invoke something contingent in order to explain a world of contingent things. Logic dictates this much.

That's why the claim is not that a natural explanation exists, but, rather, there is no reason to believe that we won't some day be able to find one. Claiming that one cannot exist is assuming quite a bit more.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would agree with that. When I experience an entity during my waking life, I would say that is "not me".

Agreed....so this is a fundamental dualistic illusion concerning our perception of the universe ....it is perceived as being divided into two primary aspects....there is me the perciever.....and all else in the universe is not me...the perceived...yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't want to discover whatever you have found because I'd never want to act as smug and self righteous as you do and I don't want to ever think it's ok to call people dirty animals like you do.

Good one...

 

[prometheus11]

Learn from it.

 

[leibowde84]

Agreed....so this is a fundamental dualistic illusion concerning our perception of the universe ....it is perceived as being divided into two primary aspects....there is me the perciever.....and all else in the universe is not me...the perceived...yes?

Why is it an illusion? It seems that you just assume that, but you haven't supported that claim yet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why is it an illusion? It seems that you just assume that, but you haven't supported that claim yet.

Bear with me then...for the moment do you agree that you perceive [reality] as being divided into two primary aspects....there is you the perceiver.....and all else in the universe is not you...the perceived...yes?

 

[leibowde84]

Bear with me then...for the moment do you agree that you perceive as being divided into two primary aspects....there is you the perceiver.....and all else in the universe is not you...the perceived...yes?

10-4. I'm with you so far.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

10-4. I'm with you so far.

So each soul is seeing and experiencing universal reality, for all intents and purposes, from a universal center different from all others....what could go wrong? Anyways let's move on....from the universal perspective, there is no duality...there is only the one universe....the perceived reality of mortals as being separate from the universal environment outside of their body is in truth not the case...each soul is as much an integral of the universe as any other.....and all else too... Would you find it extraordinary that some of humanity understand this clearly....and would want to investigate the mind's possible potential to transcend the essential duality involved in normal human perception of reality?

 

[Willamena]

I don't want to discover whatever you have found because I'd never want to act as smug and self righteous as you do and I don't want to ever think it's ok to call people dirty animals like you do.

No offense, but you're self-righteous in your smug indignation.

 

[prometheus11]

Nope. And I don't get offended over misconceptions of others, so no worries.