Is God's existence necessary?

[Unification]

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?

It really doesn't matter what theists or atheists think. They both have the ability to think and are both human BEINGS.

What "you" think is subjective, and since you believe you cannot rely on anything subjective... you contradict yourself by asking contradicting questions.

Already said, you're not seeing it. Definitely not something that is found exoteric to you.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What "you" think is subjective, and since you believe you cannot rely on anything subjective... you contradict yourself by asking contradicting questions.

No. You can imagine all kinds of stuff in your mind, the question is whether it bears any relationship to the empirical data coming in through your senses.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

Read the posts for heaven sake to find the proper context...other wise you are wasting everyone's time....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

There is God immanent and God transcendent...just aspects of the one that all....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

..other wise you are wasting everyone's time....

It doesn't seem to stop you posting.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

God is all there is...there is nothing that is not an aspect of God....you are a time waster....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is God immanent and God transcendent...just aspects of the one that all....

So you mean God in everything and God above everything? Is he a split personality or something?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God is all there is...there is nothing that is not an aspect of God....you are a time waster....

Right, so anybody who challenges your preachy theist cliches is a time waster. Sure. The thing is you're not a preacher and we ain't your congregation. Maybe you should stop being so patronising.
I suppose we should be grateful you haven't compared us to pigs today.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The problem is that atheistic materialists like yourself deny that your worldview is also based on faith.

I would say that the naturalist view it's based on an assumption, but a very reasonable one. By contrast the theist view is based on a major leap of faith, simply because there is no evidence for that view.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Anyway, less than 25% voted "yes" in the poll, so that's a conclusive defeat for the theists.

 

[Unification]

I would say that the naturalist view it's based on an assumption, but a very reasonable one. By contrast the theist view is based on a major leap of faith, simply because there is no evidence for that view.

The same assumptions are equally reasonable the other way around.

I think that it's an even larger leap of faith to think that a natural, organic absolute doesn't exist within the human being and/or universe.

You're likely fixated on mental conditioning images that some old gray haired supernatural being sitting on a throne created everything. . in which case would be a large leap of faith.

 

[Unification]

No. You can imagine all kinds of stuff in your mind, the question is whether it bears any relationship to the empirical data coming in through your senses.

You seem to suggest a true/natural sense of perception and a false/supernatural sense of perception in relationship within the human being.

Is this a dual nature going on within the human being?

 

[psychoslice]

It's a good thing Santa exists, I guess.

Yes and that's my point, because of so many ignorant people, we need religion to keep them in check, that is until most of us mature spiritually.

 

[Unification]

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.

It's fixated in your mind that "God" must be supernatural with no thoughts that "God" could be natural.

It's also fixated in your mind that "God" must be something to be found exoteric to you with no thoughts that "God" could be within you.

 

[Unification]

Yes and that's my point, because of so many ignorant people, we need religion to keep them in check, that is until most of us mature spiritually.

Children get over Santa Claus rather easily. To neurologically plastize an adult and their wild thoughts of an egotistcal anthropomorphic pyscho being in the universe is very challenging.

With that being said, it's empirical and necessary to use our good/perfect nature within us to overcome our imperfect animal nature within us if we want love, peace, and equality for ourselves and others collectively.

It's the giant, swollen, egotistical nature of the human sitting on top their own mental throne.

 

[viole]

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?

I am not sure what you are talking about. I am not aware of any serious attack about my beliefs, or lack thereof. I wish they were any. I have to admit that one of the disadvantages of naturalism is the virtual absence of arguments that can seriously challenge it. Being a naturalist is sort of boring, because of that. I wish I was a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a believer in the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, or a believer in Apollo or in a cosmic consciousness or anything similar spiritual (whatever that means), honestly, just to have a challenge sometimes.

But If you have any challenges to naturalism, may I ask where they are? I would be excited to discuss them with you.

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

It depends. When you say there are none, is that because we cannot you tell you what they are, or is that because there are really none?

Look, I will try to get us out of this deadlock by making a positive statements. Which, I hope, you will challenge: The reason there is something instead of nothing is a brute fact that does not require any explanations.

Prove me wrong. If you can.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

I am not sure what you are talking about. I am not aware of any serious attack about my beliefs, or lack thereof.

I have just provided you with one. There is no naturalistic explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. The question concerning the mystery of existence is the most basic question of metaphysics. If your metaphysical system cannot account for it (which it cannot), then your metaphysical system leaves something very much to be desired.

It depends. When you say there are none, is that because we cannot you tell you what they are, or is that because there are really none?

There cannot be a scientific explanation for the question concerning the mystery of existence because it is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. (You're conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. The former can never justify a belief in the latter - not even in theory. Unfortunately, metaphysical naturalists cannot seem to grasp that fact.)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. You can imagine all kinds of stuff in your mind, the question is whether it bears any relationship to the empirical data coming in through your senses.

Haha...you think God can be delineated by the range of human sensory apparatus? Consider this.....God is all that is...seen and unseen...the material universe detectable by science is only 2.5% of the theoretical whole...of the 2.5% part's almost infinite vibrational range....empirical data coming through the human senses as a percentage of this 2.5% is relatively almost zero.....just tactile, taste, olfactory, sound, and vision..

 

[prometheus11]

I have just provided you with one. There is no naturalistic explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. The question concerning the mystery of existence is the most basic question of metaphysics. If your metaphysical system cannot account for it (which it cannot), then your metaphysical system leaves something very much to be desired.



There cannot be a scientific explanation for the question concerning the mystery of existence because it is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. (You're conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. The former can never justify a belief in the latter - not even in theory. Unfortunately, metaphysical naturalists cannot seem to grasp that fact.)

Lol!!!

Are you seriously suggesting that a horribly incorrect answer to a complex math problem is more correct that admitting that you don't know the answer?

Seriously.

I don't know why there's something rather than nothing. I'm honest. I'd rather be honest than lie and pretend to know that some invisible, undetectable sky wizard did it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't know why there's something rather than nothing..

Simple....because nothing does not exist...nothing can not be proved to have ever existed...or ever will exist...