Is God's existence necessary?

[Thief]

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.

and did you read the length of this thread?
Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[prometheus11]

All words are unique. That's the reason they exist at all.

Are you trying to claim that the definitions of other words change when the word "creator" is introduced into the prose?

 

[prometheus11]

Thief, you're making the cardinal mistake of assuming that certain questions that you value for your philosophy are somehow important within the philosophy of others you meet.

 

[Thief]

All words are unique. That's the reason they exist at all.

Are you trying to claim that the definitions of other words change when the word "creator" is introduced into the prose?

if you don't use the same notion as a believer would do....
you're not really in this discussion

 

[Thief]

Thief, you're making the cardinal mistake of assuming that certain questions that you value for your philosophy are somehow important within the philosophy of others you meet.

not an error on my part.....choose....

 

[leibowde84]

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 ***.

Still irrelevant in this context. Doesn't make them any more accurate.

 

[leibowde84]

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

My question is why do we have to choose when we have insufficient evidence either way.

 

[prometheus11]

Thief, I know what you mean by the word "creator."

Are you claiming that the definition of "linear" changes when the word "creator" is used in the same clause?

Yes or no.

 

[prometheus11]

Thief, your error is in assuming what is important for your thinking is important to others.

"Spirit" is not proved to exist, just like fairies, so many people might not place importance on it as being a fundamental concept.

As to my position, spirit and substance are just two perspectives of the same thing. Spirit and substance exist and enter and exit together. Two sides of the same coin. Simple.

You're asking me to choose which is first, brownies or ice cream, and I'm saying that I eat brownies and ice cream together in the same bowl.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Science didn't "lie". We don't know anything about what existed before the Big Bang. We don't know whether there was a natural cause, and, since time itself was created at that point, it is absurd to even consider anything "before" the Big Bang. Certainly, it would be crazy to assume that the laws of physics must be applicable.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My question is why do we have to choose when we have insufficient evidence either way.

Exactly. What is being proposed is a simplistic and artificial dichotomy.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We don't know whether there was a natural cause, and, since time itself was created at that point, it is absurd to even consider anything "before" the Big Bang. Certainly, it would be crazy to assume that the laws of physics must be applicable.

Indeed, or at least the laws of physics in our current universe. Talking about cause and effect prior to big bang is also purely speculative, so the first cause argument for God is pretty meaningless.

 

[Thief]

call the situation anything you like.....
back to the singularity.....evidence or no....
and choose....

all else that you believe (or don't) extends from the beginning

choose well

 

[Thief]

failure to choose defaults all postings to empty naysaying.

 

[prometheus11]

No, but the fact that you make the claim highlights your inability to grasp the logic placed before you regardless of whether you maintain the necessity of such a choice within your own ideology.

 

[Thief]

No, but the fact that you make the claim highlights your inability to grasp the logic placed before you regardless of whether you maintain the necessity of such a choice within your own ideology.

no to you....
all you have is wishful naysaying....

unless you have evidence there is no god.....

I prefer the more positive approach

 

[Parsimony]

and an object at rest can simply.......move.....
at high velocity and in all directions.....of it's own volition.

Radioactive nuclei do just that, actually.

 

[Thief]

Radioactive nuclei do just that, actually.

not buying that.....
all of the universe is already in motion.
it started at that point of singularity.

let's keep the picture large.....because the universe is LARGE
and Someone set it to motion

 

[Rick O'Shez]

and choose....

We simply don't have enough information to make an informed choice. Too much is still unknown.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

let's keep the picture large.....because the universe is LARGE
and Someone set it to motion

We have no idea how our universe came into being, just a load of speculations, God being one.