• 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?

Is God's existence necessary?

  • Total voters
    73
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
prometheus11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
your plea for evidence is becoming pathetic.
how many times do you need to be told?

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment.

We are discussing the Creator.
 
Kartari

Kartari

Active Member
Hi Gambit,

Gambit said:
We can infer that a supernatural explanation is necessary - a uncaused cause. Thtat there is something rather than nothing qualifies as more than enough evidence to make such an inference.
Click to expand...

I entirely disagree. Your conclusion does not follow at all. There are several problems with your analysis.

For starters, we do not know the supernatural to be real. We do know nature to be real, however. Therefore, if we are interested in explaining existence in a way that is reasonable and logically valid, we must regard only natural explanations; for as far as we can discern, any given supernatural explanation is nothing more than an exercise of the human imagination.

Indeed, we do not even have a meaningful definition of the term "supernatural." What, precisely, is one saying when one describes a given being or event as supernatural rather than natural? This is very unclear.

There are also logically valid and reasonably plausible explanations for existence that do not require one to go beyond the natural. Therefore, an "uncaused cause" is not at all necessary to sufficiently explain why we exist.

Indeed, is it not a logical fallacy, on the one hand, to claim that existence requires a cause, and yet on the other hand, to claim that something uncaused must have caused everything to be? Clearly, this is a contradiction.

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

This does not follow either. We have a number of logically valid explanations for existence to exist that require no such being, as I've already pointed out (such as an ever-expanding/contracting series of universes, or one of the multiverse models).
 
prometheus11

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
ben d, you're failing to grasp the point that I disbelieve you. Your rhetoric is NOTHING like what would come from a person who has done such extensive real world experience. You may fool some, here, but you're not fooling me or your god, are you?

And when I discuss zero evidence, it is merely to insist that all possibilities are equally likely and equally absurd. It's not personal...to anybody with a trim ego, that is.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
prometheus11 said:
ben d, you're failing to grasp the point that I disbelieve you. Your rhetoric is NOTHING like what would come from a person who has done such extensive real world experience. You may fool some, here, but you're not fooling me or your god, are you?

And when I discuss zero evidence, it is merely to insist that all possibilities are equally likely and equally absurd. It's not personal...to anybody with a trim ego, that is.
Click to expand...
Haha...why are you bothering to explain to me of your disbelief....God knows...do a check why don't you?

And who cares about your babbling on about zero evidence...light shines in the darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not... they look, but do not see, they listen, but do not hear...God have mercy...
 
Rick O'Shez

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
ben d said:
And who cares about your babbling on about zero evidence...light shines in the darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not... they look, but do not see, they listen, but do not hear...God have mercy...
Click to expand...

You're going on like a preacher again, but your flock isn't listening! Will you be selling snake-oil too? :p
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
For me personally, religion is for the ignorant, when we truly realize our true place in this world, religion then is cast away, like a shell, and what is left is who we are, if you want to make a big song and dance about who you are then let you ego loose.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
psychoslice said:
For me personally, religion is for the ignorant, when we truly realize our true place in this world, religion then is cast away, like a shell, and what is left is who we are, if you want to make a big song and dance about who you are then let you ego loose.
Click to expand...
There is only ego at play on RF.....now it is true that some use the opportunity to point the way...but hardly anyone looks at where the finger is pointing....it is the finger and the ego it belongs that gets the attention...great game to play when one is not in deep contemplation or samadhi tho....:)
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
ben d said:
There is only ego at play on RF.....now it is true that some use the opportunity to point the way...but hardly anyone looks at where the finger is pointing....it is the finger and the ego it belongs that gets the attention...great game to play when one is not in deep contemplation or samadhi tho....:)
Click to expand...
Wonderfully said, but isn't it frustrating ??.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
psychoslice said:
Is the existence of Santa clause necessary, yes for the children who learn as they grow older that there is no Santa, it that simple.
Click to expand...
Good one psychoslice....reminds me of the raft in buddha's parable..."In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma [dharma] compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top