Is God's existence necessary?

[Thief]

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.

too simple.
I am not confuse between something dead...as to something alive.

 

[Shad]

so you think science lied.

Nope since it was science, atomic research and physics, which made this discovery. The view within science at the time was shown to be wrong and remodeled. Science is able to change due to it's reliance on inductive methodology which can adapt to new data while not making absolute statements as with the reliance on deductive thinking from religion.

all that is the universe was 'self' starting....

To borrow a phrase from the religious. "It is within the universe's nature to do so thus capable of "starting"

and an object at rest can simply.......move.....

Who said it was at rest?

at high velocity and in all directions.....of it's own volition.

See above.

 

[Thief]

Nope since it was science, atomic research and physics, which made this discovery. The view within science at the time was shown to be wrong and remodeled. Science is able to change due to it's reliance on inductive methodology which can adapt to new data while not making absolute statements as with the reliance on deductive thinking from religion.



To borrow a phrase from the religious. "It is within the universe's nature to do so thus capable of "starting"



Who said it was at rest?



See above.

obviously.....you are evading the 'point'
go back to the beginning.....and choose
your discussion should follow that choice

 

[prometheus11]

I'm not asking that you confuse the two. But what is life without death? What is death without life? What happens to all living things? They die. What happens to death? It lives.

Are you entirely substance? Are you entirely spirit?

No. You are a combination of the two. Yet you are one. One being. Incorporating both. Aren't they one just as you are?

 

[prometheus11]

Thief, you made a false statement. You said that your thinking was linear, and that everything came from something else. Then you said God didn't come from anywhere. That's not linear. It's a ray. Lines don't have a beginning or end.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

so you think science lied.
all that is the universe was 'self' starting....

Science still doesn't know how our universe came into being, but there any many possibilities, some of which we probably haven't even thought of yet.

 

[Thief]

Science still doesn't know how our universe came into being, but there any many possibilities, some of which we probably haven't even thought of yet.

it had a beginning.
are you wanting to place substance first?

 

[Thief]

Thief, you made a false statement. You said that your thinking was linear, and that everything came from something else. Then you said God didn't come from anywhere. That's not linear. It's a ray. Lines don't have a beginning or end.

you need two points to define a line.
the singularity is the beginning.

 

[Thief]

I'm not asking that you confuse the two. But what is life without death? What is death without life? What happens to all living things? They die. What happens to death? It lives.

Are you entirely substance? Are you entirely spirit?

No. You are a combination of the two. Yet you are one. One being. Incorporating both. Aren't they one just as you are?

the dust I am walking about in will return to dust
the spirit I have become will continue

 

[prometheus11]

Zero evidence.

You may as well say that chocolate is fairy poop.

 

[Thief]

Zero evidence.

You may as well say that chocolate is fairy poop.

you already know....no proof will be shown....

when it comes to God....all you CAN do is think
(or maybe you eat too much chocolate?)

 

[prometheus11]

You could say the same thing about unicorns or Bigfoot.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Gambit,

Translation: "There is no naturalistic explanation for why there is something rather than nothing."

There is no supernatural explanation for existence. Indeed, we have no explanation for what the supernatural even is in the first place. At least we have evidence that nature exists.

And therein lies the fundamental problem for supernatural claims.

 

[prometheus11]

Thief, a line doesn't have a beginning or an end. A Ray has a beginning.

You claim that your reasoning is linear but you claim it has a starting point. The two ideas are incompatible.

 

[Kartari]

"Branes" are something, not nothing. And an oscillating universe implies an infinite regress (which is a logical fallacy).

Because something that is ever changing implies an infinite regress (a logical fallacy).

As (at least) two other posters have already mentioned, no, these do not qualify as an infinite regression.

Change is an observable constant in nature. Everything is in flux. This fact stands on its own validity, requiring no infinite regression of prior, dependent claims to be validated.

And an oscillating universe would only require an explanation of why the universe would cyclically contract and expand.

 

[prometheus11]

Laika,

The Big Bang does not describe our universe beginning. The BB describes our universe inflating and expanding from a very dense, hot, and energetic "point"

 

[leibowde84]

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?

I still am not sure I understand what you mean by "oneness", but, if you mean that we are part of of the universe we experience. There is a plethora of available evidence for this. Basically, the question is whether the universe exists apart from our mind experiencing it.

One piece of evidence is the experience of others explicitly described as matching what you experience. There is Hegel's idea that we make the realization that we are real when we witness others experiencing us. In other words, when another consciousness experiences us, we realize that we are a part of the universe they experience and vice versa.

Purely 1st person, subjective experience, not verified by the experience of others, is unreliable. While we might feel that we experienced a revelation, sign, or moment of higher consciousness, it is unverified and could just be merely an illusion. Now, that is not to say that subjective experience on a given occasion isn't accurate. I am just pointing out that it there is no way of knowing or supporting its accuracy when it is merely one person witnessing something.

 

[Kartari]

Is God's existence (metaphysically) necessary?

Really, the necessity for God to exist as an Intelligent Designer depends on whether or not satisfactory alternative explanations suffice to explain existence. And while we cannot definitively describe which of our natural ideas is the definitive explanation, at least we know nature exists and can use our knowledge and mathematics to demonstrate aspects of those ideas.

Furthermore, we have no satisfactory definition for what God even is, or even what the supernatural is, other than some very vague notions that don't really describe anything meaningful.

Ultimately, to establish the necessity for God as creator, we would first need to define what God is, and to then demonstrate this God's existence with actual evidence. Barring that, it is not even worthwhile to waste one's time considering God's necessity as creator imho.

 

[Thief]

You could say the same thing about unicorns or Bigfoot.

the term Creator....has a unique distinction

 

[Kartari]

Hi Kelly,

Blasphemy. It's always been 42.

The dolphins had the right idea, lol.

Good to see a familiar face. Hopefully more of our more intelligent former Bnet colleagues find this site.