Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

No, it is prudent for the reasons Leib has pointed out. At least in this specific instance. Obviously prudent.

 

[Gambit]

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.

You're conflating methodological naturalism (science) with metaphysical naturalism. The former does not validate the latter. IOW, materialism is not a scientifically verifiable worldview. To reiterate: Metaphysical naturalism (materialism) is a worldview that is ultimately based on faith. And it is not a prudent worldview because logic dictates that the natural world is not self-explanatory.

 

[leibowde84]

You're conflating methodological naturalism (science) with metaphysical naturalism. The former does not validate the latter. IOW, materialism is not a scientifically verifiable worldview. To reiterate: Metaphysical naturalism (materialism) is worldview that is ultimately based on faith. And it is not a prudent worldview because logic dictates that the natural world is not self-explanatory.

Logic dictates that we don't understand yet whether the natural world is self-explanatory. We used to think that lighting couldn't be explained naturally. We still have so much to discover when it comes to the cosmos.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Logic dictates that we don't understand yet whether the natural world is self-explanatory. We used to think that lighting couldn't be explained naturally. We still have so much to discover when it comes to the cosmos.

In the mean time the cosmos is what it is independent any apparent discovered understanding or lack thereof by mere mortal minds.. The wise seek union with the cosmos once and forever, rather than spendinf their life creating conceptual models to represent the cosmos ....shadows on the cave wall...nevertheless each to their own...

 

[leibowde84]

In the mean time the cosmos is what it is independent any apparent discovered understanding or lack thereof by mere mortal minds.. The wise seek union with the cosmos once and forever, rather than spendinf their life creating conceptual models to represent the cosmos ....shadows on the cave wall...nevertheless each to their own...

It is prudent to not assume you are right about such things, though. Especially when no empirical and/or verifiable evidence exists. One thing we do know about human consciousness is that it is far from perfect.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is prudent to not assume you are right about such things, though. Especially when no empirical and/or verifiable evidence exists. One thing we do know about human consciousness is that it is far from perfect.

But I am right....unlike you who was not aware there were religious practices that lead to union with the cosmos....refer my post #374 to you...my life has been devoted to such practice... Now that you are aware, you have no excuse to say it is unverifiable until you have practiced seriously the goal...

 

[leibowde84]

But I am right....unlike you who was not aware there were religious practices that lead to union with the cosmos....refer my post #374 to you...my life has been devoted to such practice... Now that you are aware, you have no excuse to say it is unverifiable until you have practiced seriously the goal...

Subjective experiences are not verifiable, that's my only point. I'm sorry if I offended you. I certainly didn't mean to.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Subjective experiences are not verifiable, that's my only point. I'm sorry if I offended you. I certainly didn't mean to.

Ahhh....but verification that union with cosmos is realizable can be known to you if you want to....that's my point... That you prefer for now to not want actual real verification, but want a empirical verification in the form of shadows on the cave wall which will never come because shadows (concepts)are just not the same thing as the real they are meant to represent....

 

[leibowde84]

Ahhh....but verification that union with cosmos is realizable can be known to you if you want to....that's my point... That you prefer for now to not want actual real verification, but want a empirical verification in the form of shadows on the cave wall which will never come because shadows (concepts)are just not the same thing as the real they are meant to represent....

"Known to you" means that it IS based on subjective experience, which has been shown time and time again to be unreliable as evidence for anything in and of itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Known to you" means that it IS based on subjective experience, which has been shown time and time again to be unreliable as evidence for anything in and of itself.

What do you mean that subjective experience is unreliable as evidence.... It is more reliable than conceptual in certain cases and especially wrt cosmic consciousness...eg...you were told not to touch certain things as a child such as mother's iron, the stove, the kettle, etc... sooner or later you came into physical contact with relevant hot object and you went from a shadowy conceptual awareness of hot....to a subjective realization... My question is..do you consider the actual physical subjective pain of hotness as unreliable evidence of hotness? The subjective realization of union with cosmos will have a verifiable impact, while my, or any other conceptual explanation will not... There is no verification of union with cosmos that is not a subjective one....all else is shadows on the cave wall....

 

[leibowde84]

What do you mean that subjective experience is unreliable as evidence.... It is more reliable than conceptual in certain cases and especially wrt cosmic consciousness...eg...you were told not to touch certain things as a child such as mother's iron, the stove, the kettle, etc... sooner or later you came into physical contact with relevant hot object and you went from a shadowy conceptual awareness of hot....to a subjective realization... My question is..do you consider the actual physical subjective pain of hotness as unreliable evidence of hotness? The subjective realization of union with cosmos will have a verifiable impact, while my, or any other conceptual explanation will not... There is no verification of union with cosmos that is not a subjective one....all else is shadows on the cave wall....

Again, yet another straw man. Unreliable in no way means that it is always wrong. It merely means that it CAN BE wrong. Verifiable evidence combats that imperfection.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, yet another straw man. Unreliable in no way means that it is always wrong. It merely means that it CAN BE wrong. Verifiable evidence combats that imperfection.

It was no strawman....I am saying straight out that the only evidence that counts is your own actual realization....there will never be in all eternity objective evidence, for what type of evidence is there except the cosmos itself as it is... However let us for the moment imagine there is some form of non-subjective evidence available that would persuade you there is truth in the claim of union with cosmos...please explain what form of evidence it would likely be...or give an example?

 

[Thief]

Less to offer in terms of comfort or happiness? That is irrelevant.

I was thinking of centered spirit and a sense of purpose.
I find scripture to be more of a slap in the face and a kick in the ***.

 

[Thief]

So, what was your god's beginning, then, in your linear reasoning?

That moment of self awareness......I AM!
and He said to Moses when question for a name.....
Tell the people ....I AM!....and they with understanding will know Whose law this is!

 

[Thief]

Voted other since the question is loaded. To view God as necessary is to assume God exists. It is begging the/a hidden question/premise

no need for begging..........choose.......
Spirt first?
or substance?

 

[Thief]

Logic dictates that we don't understand yet whether the natural world is self-explanatory. We used to think that lighting couldn't be explained naturally. We still have so much to discover when it comes to the cosmos.

when science gets you back to the point where nature takes form......choose....
(and the question in your head should be......Spirit first?)

 

[Thief]

For years I've been posting the one choice that 'needs' to be made.

all of this discussion can be decided easily.......
If substance first.....then science has lied.
an object (the singularity) at rest CAN 'self' motivate!......beware the gravel of your drive way.

you might get stoned!

 

[Shad]

no need for begging..........choose.......
Spirt first?
or substance?

Loaded question since spirit is an assumption while substance is not. At this time it seems like energy is fundamental

 

[Thief]

Loaded question since spirit is an assumption while substance is not. At this time it seems like energy is fundamental

so you think science lied.
all that is the universe was 'self' starting....
and an object at rest can simply.......move.....
at high velocity and in all directions.....of it's own volition.

 

[prometheus11]

No need to choose. Spirit and substance are two sides of the same coin. They define and describe each other perfectly, necessarily, and completely. Simple.