Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

Thief, so you're a proponent of infinite regression, then. How is infinite regression more likely than a first cause?

 

[Parsimony]

never the answer you want.....

No answer at all, really. I asked if you disagreed that radioactive nuclei spontaneously decay and you didn't give a "yes" or "no" to that. I'm not saying that's necessarily the same kind of conditions that caused the Big Bang, just that it shows that matter can "move itself" without outside provocation.

 

[leibowde84]

it has become your crutch.....
Cause and effect are there....in the beginning.

How could anyone use the word "concept" as a crutch? That seems like nonsense, but whatever floats your boat.

As for cause and effect being there "before the Big Bang", you have stated that several times now and have refused to provide any reasoning or substantiation for this claim. Saying it "always applies" is merely another claim. You have to explain why it applies specifically before the big bang.

 

[viole]

Your naturalistic (materialistic) worldview is a belief that is ultimately based on faith.

And that is your ultimate defense of your claim? This is the main motivation why you fail to address my question?
With all due respect, that is pretty pathetic.

But let me bite the bullet. Naturalism is based on faith. So, show to me that your claim is not.

How do you intend to do that? Still waiting for some substance that goes beyond your personal opinions.

What have you got?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

But let me bite the bullet. Naturalism is based on faith. So, show to me that your claim is not.

My theistic worldview is ultimately based on faith. I don't know many theists who would deny that. The problem is that atheistic materialists like yourself deny that your worldview is also based on faith.

 

[prometheus11]

Gambit, are you saying that it takes just as much faith to believe in matter as it takes to believe in something invisible and undetectable?

If you're sitting on my couch, does it take just as much faith to believe in the couch as it takes to believe in an invisible and undetectable dragon who I tell you is sharing the living room with us?

 

[viole]

My theistic worldview is ultimately based on faith. I don't know many theists who would deny that. The problem is that atheistic materialists like yourself deny that your worldview is also based on faith.

Well, my label is "metaphysical naturalist", which is a phylosophical position that could be entirely wrong.

But, again, my beliefs are not relevant. You will never hear from me "there is certainly no God". But you seem to claim "there is certainly no natural explanation for ... ".

So, are you telling us that your original claim "there is no naturalistic explanation to why something exists instead of nothing", is based on faith? If not, on what is it based?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unification]

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.

You know what some say, "with God all things are possible."

I suppose that would be saying that with having a mind and being, all things can be thought of as equally possible.

 

[leibowde84]

My theistic worldview is ultimately based on faith. I don't know many theists who would deny that. The problem is that atheistic materialists like yourself deny that your worldview is also based on faith.

I think the problem is that your definitions are flawed. Materialism doesn't contend that only "matter" exists, as that would be absurd. It contends that the "material world" is all that there is. To the best of our knowledge, that is the case. There are certain aspects of the cosmos that we don't understand yet scientifically, which lead some to assume that there must be more, but that is a large leap, considering that our current scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped.

 

[prometheus11]

You know what some say, "with God all things are possible."

I suppose that would be saying that with having a mind and being, all things can be thought of as equally possible.

And....EQUALLY ABSURD.

 

[Gambit]

But, again, my beliefs are not relevant.

Yes, your beliefs are relevant. Did you really think that you would have the luxury of attacking the beliefs of others without having to defend your own?

So, are you telling us that your original claim "there is no naturalistic explanation to why something exists instead of nothing", is based on faith?

There is no naturalistic (scientific) explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. That's a fact.

 

[Shad]

dark matter and dark energy MUST exist.....
but there seems no proof.....

Dark matter is based upon the observation of issues with that normal matter can not account for the mass of objects we observe.

Someone had to be First.

It could be something rather than a personal identification

I place that Person before substance.
substance does not beget the living.
the living just abide in substance.....for now....
that will end.

Which is your religious belief nothing more

[quote[you might end ....altogether....
or maybe you will change your mind?[/QUOTE]

I could change my mind. However repeating religious rhetoric as if it was a fact when it is not does nothing to convince me of your view. You make assumptions and treat these as facts since your assumptions are veiled by religious belief.

 

[Shad]

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.

It could be natural uncaused cause. You jump to your favorite answer since it aligns with your religious belief, nothing more.

 

[Unification]

And....EQUALLY ABSURD.

Lol.

With mind and being, all things can be thought of as equally possible.

"Absurd" is a possibility and goes with all things.

By being and having a mind, mankind can conjure up all sorts of thoughts and create. It's necessary to have a mind and exist in order to be able to think of and reason about all equal possibilities of the spectrum.

Some utilizing their inner good/God nature and some with their animal nature.

 

[Gambit]

Shows what you know ... I guess. I would suggest making assumptions in this context. It's a pretty silly thing to do.

From what I have seen, you are always defending atheism. If you don't believe God's existence is necessary (which apparently you don't), then your God must be completely superfluous because he is not needed to explain anything.

 

[prometheus11]

Lol.

With mind and being, all things can be thought of as equally possible.

"Absurd" is a possibility and goes with all things.

By being and having a mind, mankind can conjure up all sorts of thoughts and create. It's necessary to have a mind and exist in order to be able to think of and reason about all equal possibilities of the spectrum.

Some utilizing their inner good/God nature and some with their animal nature.

About the most impressive dodge I've ever seen! Nicely done.

 

[prometheus11]

From what I have seen, you are always defending atheism. If you don't believe God's existence is necessary (which apparently you don't), then your God must be completely superfluous because he is not needed to explain anything.

How could God ever "explain anything?"

He's undetectable by any reliable means of measurement.

 

[Unification]

About the most impressive dodge I've ever seen! Nicely done.

What was dodged?

Nicely done giving an opinion without providing what was dodged.

As said, "absurd" goes with "all things" and with "possibilities."

 

[Unification]

How could God ever "explain anything?"

He's undetectable by any reliable means of measurement.

You should clarify what is trying to be detected and what you think "God" is.

 

[prometheus11]

You should clarify what is trying to be detected and what you think "God" is.

Nothing is trying to be detected.

I was assuming the God of Gambit since I was replying to him.