Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

What was dodged?

Nicely done giving an opinion without providing what was dodged.

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

All possibilities are equally absurd when no evidence exists.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

My purpose is not to defend atheism, but, rather, to point out logical fallacies present in so many theistic arguments. A major example I see often here are arguments from ignorance, claiming that because we can't explain something scientifically now, it can be assumed that it is not possible, and, thus, God is a logical explanation. That bothers me, as it is a cop-out, and is disrespectful to valuable debate. Arguments for the supernatural cannot be based on the present lack of scientific explanations, as it is an obvious example of the God of the Gaps argument.
Personally, I haven't figured out whether God's existence is necessary. I don't think anyone can reasonably claim this either way, as our scientific understanding is currently so limited. But, that is changing every day. These "gaps" are getting smaller and smaller by the day. So, I urge those who use these kinds of arguments to not jump to the conclusion of God prematurely. There is still more work to be done. But, this has nothing to do with my belief in God. And, I certainly don't think that "knowledge" is possible in this context ... at least not now. My belief in God helps me in my every-day life, and I was brought up into it. I search all the time for a rational argument for the existence of God, but I am always confronted with logically flawed evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

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

I think that should be left to theists, as atheists don't think of God as existing. Part of the reasoning is that it is an unfalsifiable, vague term that means different things to different people. Unless properly defined, it seems absurd to claim that God exists. So, can you provide a definition?

 

[Unification]

Nothing is trying to be detected.

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

So you know "something" is undetectable without knowing what that "something" is?

You must at least have abstract thoughts of what that something is to you, since you said "He."

What is the "God" of Gambit... elaborate.

 

[prometheus11]

I don't claim to know anything about what is as yet undetected by virtue of the fact that it hasn't been detected yet. God hadn't been detected.

I'm not playing word games. If you don't have some idea of what I was talking about in answering Gambit, then don't jump into the conversation. Besides, conversations with you are soooooo boring.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is no naturalistic (scientific) explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

It's quite possible there has always been something, in which case this argument is irrelevant.

 

[Unification]

I don't claim to know anything about what is as yet undetected by virtue of the fact that it hasn't been detected yet. God hadn't been detected.

I'm not playing word games. If you don't have some idea of what I was talking about in answering Gambit, then don't jump into the conversation. Besides, conversations with you are soooooo boring.

Ultimate dodgeball game.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He's undetectable by any reliable means of measurement.

I suppose God could be lurking in the dark matter. But since there is no evidence of God actually having any influence in our world, it would seem that lurking is all that God is doing these days.

 

[prometheus11]

Ultimate dodgeball game.

I haven't dodged anything. But feel free to believe that if it soothes your psyche.

Do you continue to play a game after he has become boring?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

..

Why do you assume I haven't tested them?

Because you have been telling me that you believe there is no reliable evidence in religious subjective experience, why would you bother to spend time practicing religion if you were already convinced it was not going to be rewarding? But if you have...pray tell us your story and why you dropped out?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think that should be left to theists, as atheists don't think of God as existing. Part of the reasoning is that it is an unfalsifiable, vague term that means different things to different people. Unless properly defined, it seems absurd to claim that God exists. So, can you provide a definition?

Indeed. It's like asking somebody who has never seen any evidence of space-aliens to guess what space-aliens look like. Silly really.

 

[prometheus11]

Indeed. It's like asking somebody who has never seen any evidence of space-aliens to guess what space-aliens look like. Silly really.

Oh, stop dodging, and tell us exactly what color of hats these nonexistent space aliens are wearing. I mean what are you afraid of? Don't you know what a hat is? Didn't you learn all your colors in kindergarten?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Because you have been telling me that you believe there is no reliable evidence in religious subjective experience, why would you bother to spend time practicing religion..

People practice religion for all sorts of reasons. But what has this to with God existing?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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?

I agree. Believing there is an invisible dragon surely takes a lot more faith than assuming there isn't. Claiming that naturalism and supernaturalism require an equal degree of faith is silly.

 

[leibowde84]

People practice religion for all sorts of reasons. But what has this to with God existing?

This happens all the time to me. When I am critical of evidence/arguments offered by theists, they attack my personal faith. It's pretty pathetic, as my comments here are not designed to paint a picture of what my faith is. Unless, of course, someone asks me about my faith, then I am happy to explain. But, it is absurd to think you know someone's faith simply by their comments in a discussion forum. Half the time I'm playing devil's advocate.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When I am critical of evidence/arguments offered by theists, they attack my personal faith.

Yes, I've noticed that theists can get defensive very quickly when challenged, which suggests that their faith is actually rather fragile.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

To atheists and agnostics asking for evidence of God and/or why God is not detectable...the problem is you deny the fact that the Cosmos is God...all that exists that is detectable to science (2.5%) is merely a part of the manifestation of God... Denying it don't make it so....

 

[prometheus11]

So you're saying God is the universe? How about I just call it the universe? However whenever you talk about God, make sure to tell everybody that you don't really mean a spiritual entity, but you simply mean the physical universe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...the problem is you deny the fact that the Cosmos is God...all that exists that is detectable to science (2.5%) is merely a part of the manifestation of God... Denying it don't make it so....

Who knows, maybe we'll find God lurking in the dark matter one day. But there is certainly no evidence yet, so your belief is just based on wishful thinking.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So you're saying God is the universe? How about I just call it the universe? However whenever you talk about God, make sure to tell everybody that you don't really mean a spiritual entity, but you simply mean the physical universe.

I think this is just a case of theists being evasive, they keep shifting their definition. Like you demonstrate that one idea of God is unfounded, then they try another one, then another one.