Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

Why should anyone infer such a thing?

Because there is ZERO evidence, and all our inferences rely upon knowledge in this universe, why should anyone infer infinite regression or first cause? Without evidence, they (and all other possibilities) are equally plausible and equally absurd.

 

[Parsimony]

not buying that.....

What? That nuclei do not spontaneously decay due to the laws of quantum mechanics? You might want to read up on that. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't allow anything to be completely at rest anyway.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

So you are saying that you believe there is no evidence possible, either subjective or objective, that could ever be considered reliable in proving there is cosmic consciousness?

 

[leibowde84]

So you are saying that you believe there is no evidence possible, either subjective or objective, that could ever be considered reliable in proving there is cosmic consciousness?

Purely subjective evidence is often unreliable. So, although it might be available, it doesn't support your claim in actuality. In regards to objective evidence, anything is possible. But, currently, I am not aware of any.

 

[Parsimony]

Agreed. That is why we must posit a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings.

Philosophical terminology isn't exactly my strong point, so what is meant by the term "contingent beings"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Purely subjective evidence is often unreliable. So, although it might be available, it doesn't support your claim in actuality. In regards to objective evidence, anything is possible. But, currently, I am not aware of any.

Haha.....what a cop out...on the one hand you believe the only real evidence, which I say is reliable, that of you own realization of cosmic consciousness, would not be reliable to you, and on the other that there is no objective evidence available that you are aware of, and btw, there never will be because of the non-dual nature of cosmic consciousness... So this is how an atheist's minds works....the light shines in the darkness but the darkness comprehendeth it not...

 

[leibowde84]

Haha.....what a cop out...on the one hand you believe the only real evidence, which I say is reliable, that of you own realization of cosmic consciousness, would not be reliable to you, and on the other that there is no objective evidence available that you are aware of, and btw, there never will be because of the non-dual nature of cosmic consciousness... So this is how an atheist's minds works....the light shines in the darkness but the darkness comprehendeth it not...

I'm not an atheist. Sorry to disappoint. And, it's not a cop-out to point out the lack of evidence supporting your claim. If unverifiable subjective experience is all you got to go on, you are putting too much faith in it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not an atheist. Sorry to disappoint. And, it's not a cop-out to point out the lack of evidence supporting your claim. If unverifiable subjective experience is all you got to go on, you are putting too much faith in it.

You would be better of as an atheist leibowde84...for as an agnostic Christian you are the worst of all kinds....this is what Jesus had to say of the luke warmers.... Revelation 3:14-18

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see."

In the context of this passage...the hot are those who live the religious life, the cold are the atheists who live a material life unashamedly...and the lukewarm are those who are neither religious or atheistic...but in between... Agnostics think you are rich in knowledge and need no instruction, but they are blind to the light and poor in wisdom....they refuse to humble themselves before the pure divine wisdom of God in order to see....but are invited to do so...

Being agnostic is to tread water without going in any direction in a wasted life...you will never understand until you commit to find out subjectively if there is any truth in religion...if after having done so, one of two things will result...you will from subjective experience learn the truth and it will set you free, or....you will find the going too much and bail out and become an atheist....better to be one or the other than waste your life never having tested the waters...yes?

 

[Gambit]

Philosophical terminology isn't exactly my strong point, so what is meant by the term "contingent beings"?

Contingent = dependent.

Contingent beings are dependent on other beings for their existence. A necessary being is not dependent on any other being for its existence.

 

[leibowde84]

You would be better of as an atheist leibowde84...for as an agnostic Christian you are the worst of all kinds....this is what Jesus had to say of the luke warmers.... Revelation 3:14-18

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see."

In the context of this passage...the hot are those who live the religious life, the cold are the atheists who live a material life unashamedly...and the lukewarm are those who are neither religious or atheistic...but in between... Agnostics think you are rich in knowledge and need no instruction, but they are blind to the light and poor in wisdom....they refuse to humble themselves before the pure divine wisdom of God in order to see....but are invited to do so...

Being agnostic is to tread water without going in any direction in a wasted life...you will never understand until you commit to find out subjectively if there is any truth in religion...if after having done so, one of two things will result...you will from subjective experience learn the truth and it will set you free, or....you will find the going too much and bail out and become an atheist....better to be one or the other than waste your life never having tested the waters...yes?

Well, there are lots of passages in the Bible that were man made, imho. I don't give any validity to this passage, as it paints God as an irrational, spiteful beast.

 

[Gambit]

I'm not an atheist.

You do not appear to have any belief in God.

 

[psychoslice]

I thinkGod's existence is only necessary for those who need to cling to a belief that someone is watching them, they don't know how to be a good person without being told how to be good. Myself I don't need a God for that, I am simply a good person, I don't want to be killed so I don't want to kill others, I don't steal from others because I don't want to have some steal from me, its that simple. But for those who can be dangerous to our society and need a big daddy standing over them and watching everything they do, so be it, at least it keeps them, well some of them, doing good to society, and not a threat.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, there are lots of passages in the Bible that were man made, imho. I don't give any validity to this passage, as it paints God as an irrational, spiteful beast.

But the goal of religion is not about giving validity or not giving validity to scripture...it's about walking the walk...the path that leads to immortality.... You are indeed though free to reject the guidance given by teachers through the ages on any basis you want....but then it seems irrational to spend your life attacking religious teachings without having tested them...

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not an atheist. Sorry to disappoint. And, it's not a cop-out to point out the lack of evidence supporting your claim. If unverifiable subjective experience is all you got to go on, you are putting too much faith in it.

Huh? We determine our beliefs by subjective experience, do you expect me to put faith into your subjective ideas? Why would I, if they contradict my own?

 

[prometheus11]

ben d, how many religions have you tried? Did you give them all at least a few years of effort?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d, how many religions have you tried? Did you give them all at least a few years of effort?

Practically all of them....yes..over many decades...the goal of all of them is the same...just different approaches...

 

[prometheus11]

Wrong. Too many. Provide a number, please.

 

[prometheus11]

q konn, are you saying that you have concluded your mind and refuse to change it for any reason...even if it's logical?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wrong. Too many. Provide a number, please.

Am right! Be specific...ask me about any and I will tell you if I have had experience...and fwiw, I studied Theosophy for about 6 years...

 

[Thief]

What? That nuclei do not spontaneously decay due to the laws of quantum mechanics? You might want to read up on that. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't allow anything to be completely at rest anyway.

all things come and go.....each to it's own

I say ...it's a function of the design when creation took hold.