Scott C.
Just one guy
The necessity of the Christian God's existence is contingent on whether or not he does indeed exist. I believe he exists, therefore he is necessary.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is God's existence necessary?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
The necessity of the Christian God's existence is contingent on whether or not he does indeed exist. I believe he exists, therefore he is necessary.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This is circular reasoning. If God exists he is necessary. And, if God is necessary he exists. You are assuming your conclusion in your premise.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Scott, that argument only works for you, the believer who insists on that logic and considers it sufficient. It offers nothing to the nonbeliever. How good is it then, if it only works on the one who already believes and does not require it?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Directed at thief, Leib, who insists his reasoning is linear.
Last edited:
Nope. That is not how it works. What I believe is not relevant. If I had evidence of what I believe, I would not claim belief but knowledge.
But you made a pretty strong claim: that this explanation does not exist (assuming you mean there is a supernatural one).. And you guys are the first to ask the strong atheist for evidence when he claims that there is no god, instead of believing that there isn' t any. So, you should expect to receive the same courtesy when you claim that something does not exist with such certainty.
So, I admitted my lack of evidence and now it is your turn to show me your evidence that your claim is true. You might convince me, who knows? At the time of this message, all we have are your words or your futile attempts to divert the attention from a deeper analysis of your claim.
Unless, of course, you change your clam from "there is no natural explanation" into "I believe there is no natural explanation" and we can close the debate.
So, in case you insist with the former, for the third time, what do you mean when you claim that?
1) there is no explanation. Neither natural nor supernatural. Brute fact or necessity. Period.
2) there is an explanation, but it cannot be natural.
So, what is it? Or are you afraid to answer it, because you know already where it will go?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Scott C.
Just one guy
I understand but the question does not make sense to me. If God does not exist, then obviously the universe came into being without God and God is not necessary. If this is the case, then it's worthless to believe in a God that does not exist and who is not necessary. On the other hand, if God exists and if he created the universe, then he is obviously essential to our existence.
Perhaps the question should be reworded as:"Is it necessary for there to be a Creator (God), in order for our environment (including everything that exists anywhere) to exist as is?" That's the basic question that has been argued forever. Creationists use "existence" and "order in the universe" as evidence of an intelligent Creator. Atheists say it all exists without a God. Am I missing something here?
Let me add that I don't conclude that there is a God on the basis that I believe it's impossible that there be no God. I don't reason my way to belief, based on the physical evidence of creation. While I find the order of things to be compelling evidence, my belief in God is based on personal experience. It's after that God reveals himself in a profoundly personal and spiritual way, that I conclude that he exists and that he is necessary.
After I wrote the above, it occurred to me that the OP question can be better worded as "Does God exist"?
Last edited:
Gambit
Well-Known Member
My claim stands as stated: There is no naturalistic explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. And unless you can furnish us with a naturalistic explanation to counter my claim, there is nothing more to debate.
Scott C.
Just one guy
See my post 368, which I believe responds to your comments.
I think there is.
The fact that I cannot present you with a naturalistic explanation, does not entail that there isn't any, as you claim. I cannot explain to you how gravity and QM can be unified or how life started on earth, no one can. That does not entail that they do not have a natural explanation. According to your logic, there was no natural explanation for lighnings because no one had one thousands years ago (ergo Thor was true, lol).
i am afraid that the only thing you are achieving here is to expose your poor phylosophical and logical skills, with your logically inconsistent one liners. And your obvious inability to justify your claims and answer simple questions about it.
So, prove me wrong, by logically proving to me that your claim is logically or phylosophically justified.
Where do you propose to start?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
It does.
It pleases me that you recognize that your belief is founded in personal experience and only works for you and that there is no conclusive evidence for your god for the rational thinker without personal revelation.
The God I believe in offers nothing to me in the way of evidence whether personal or universal, so I ONLY have my faith to go on.
If your god only provides reasons to believe in him by personal revelation to some, yet judges all humans according to their belief or disbelief, well, then, he's not a figure I can admire at all.
It pleases me that you recognize that your belief is founded in personal experience and only works for you and that there is no conclusive evidence for your god for the rational thinker without personal revelation.
The God I believe in offers nothing to me in the way of evidence whether personal or universal, so I ONLY have my faith to go on.
If your god only provides reasons to believe in him by personal revelation to some, yet judges all humans according to their belief or disbelief, well, then, he's not a figure I can admire at all.
Scott C.
Just one guy
In other words, the OP question can be restated as "Does God exist?"
God does not judge one person based on what he revealed to another. He judges each of us based on what he has revealed to us individually. It's not the same for everyone. Only God knows what each of us know individually and what's in each of our hearts. He doesn't expect the same beliefs and behaviors from every person. He expects us to be true to the righteous knowledge that each possesses. Where much is given, much is expected. Where less is given, less is expected. Each is equally acceptable to God.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Well there you go....all this time and you were not aware that there are religious practices whose goal it is to bring about the mind's transcending of the normal me/not me perspective on the universe. Until you have tried it...seriously....you will never know the truth of what I speak about...
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Your naturalistic (materialistic) worldview is a belief that is ultimately based on faith.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
viole isn't talking about a naturalistic world view. viole is trying to explain that You cannot definitively state that there isn't a natural explanation simply because we aren't aware of it at this date. Similarly, just because the ancients did not know the natural cause for lightning does not mean that Thor was making it. The natural cause for lightening existed before people knew about it. Lightening was never caused by something other than nature.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Science explains a natural phenomenon by appealing to some other natural phenomenon. Since it is not logically possible to explain the existence of the natural world as whole by appealing to some particular within the natural world, I can definitively state that there isn't a naturalistic explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing. The mystery of existence is one that is beyond the purview of science. You either grasp that or you don't. Regardless, there is nothing more to debate on this subject matter.
Last edited:
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
There's no point in any debate if your mind is concluded regardless of how deluded the viewpoint.
You have ZERO facts about how this universe came to be. Perhaps its natural process includes a "knowledge horizon" (such as a singularity) past which we cannot see/test/understand.
Your unfounded faith is impressive in its disappointment.
You have ZERO facts about how this universe came to be. Perhaps its natural process includes a "knowledge horizon" (such as a singularity) past which we cannot see/test/understand.
Your unfounded faith is impressive in its disappointment.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
It is a prudent belief, as there is no verifiable evidence that anything exists beyond the natural world. And, we don't even know yet what the natural world encompasses, so there is still much room to learn. It's not like materialism is confined to belief in only what we have discovered thus far.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Metaphysical naturalism (materialism) is not a prudent belief for reasons I have already explained in this thread.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Your reasoning is flawed, though. Materialists withhold belief in the supernatural due to lack of verifiable evidence. If we did somehow find verifiable evidence of the supernatural, I would assume they would reconsider their position. Thus, they are withholding belief until verifiable evidence of the supernatural is found. This is the very definition of prudence.