Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

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

Agreed

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Agreed

 

[Gambit]

Personally, I haven't figured out whether God's existence is necessary.

It doesn't appear that you figured out whether you believe in God's existence or not.

I don't think anyone can reasonably claim this either way, as our scientific understanding is currently so limited.

The question of why there is something rather than nothing is a metaphysical question, NOT a scientific one. The mystery of existence is beyond the purview of science. To reiterate: If you do not need to invoke your God to explain anything (which is apparently your position), then your God is superfluous (not needed).

 

[psychoslice]

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.

Yes and that throne is also the throne we put our egotistical god on.

 

[viole]

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.

I suppose you can account for it by postulating the existence of a (metaphysical) deity.

Fine. So, why is there a metaphysical deity (and a physical reality) instead of nothing?

This is one of the most basic questions of meta-metaphysics, that your simple meta-physical position cannot account for.

Or can you account for it?

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.)

And metaphysical theists cannot justify the existence of their deity, either, I am afraid.

So, again, why is there a deity, instead of none?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

Indeed. If God can be eternal then why can't everything else be eternal?

on this case you may have to expand on that.

or you could start a thread...God is dead.....

 

[Thief]

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.

the bang preceded your discussion.
shall we continue to focus on the beginning?

 

[Thief]

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.

and your efforts are no more tan contrary claim....with a crutch.

Substance was created......God did it.

 

[Thief]

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



It could be something rather than a personal identification



Which is your religious belief nothing more

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

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.[/QUOTE]
Your rebuttals fall short....
I have no religion.

and assumption is a tool that allows forward thinking.

 

[Gambit]

And metaphysical theists cannot justify the existence of their deity, either, I am afraid.

Wrong. We must posit a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings.

(A contingent being is dependent on some other being for its existence.)

 

[prometheus11]

Wrong. We must posit a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings.

(A contingent being is dependent on some other being for its existence.)

Wrong. No we don't. You can't prove contingency. So your premise fails before you get to your conclusion.

 

[Parsimony]

the bang preceded your discussion.
shall we continue to focus on the beginning?

So still no answer.

 

[goofball]

If we were members of a society where no one one was indoctrinated into a God believing society it would mean absolutely nothing ! Which is what it means to me now.

 

[Gambit]

If we were members of a society where no one one was indoctrinated into a God believing society it would mean absolutely nothing ! Which is what it means to me now.

But you "know (not believe) that there is a Divine Intelligence behind everything." Right?

 

[Gambit]

Wrong. No we don't. You can't prove contingency. So your premise fails before you get to your conclusion.

You're wrong. Every subatomic particle in your body is contingent.

Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested. (source: "Are Particles Really Popping In and Out of Existence?" by Gordon Kane, published in "Scientific American," October 9, 2006)

 

[prometheus11]

What?!?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If we were members of a society where no one one was indoctrinated into a God believing society it would mean absolutely nothing ! Which is what it means to me now.

It seems you've been indoctrinated into thinking that you know what and who you are....and you don't...

 

[viole]

Wrong. We must posit a necessary being in order to account for a world of contingent beings.

(A contingent being is dependent on some other being for its existence.)

You are begging the question here.
How do you know that the the Uni or Multiverse, or the laws of Nature are contingent?

Suppose I tell you: the laws of nature accunt for everything that exists. They are necessary and sufficient to explain everything. Since they are sufficient, there is no supernatural world. Since they are necessary, they do not need to be accounted for and they explain why there is something instead of nothing.

You see. A bit of chair phylosophy and I can justify whole existance and naturalism at the same tme without using more assumptions than you.

Can you pinpoint a fault in my reasoning that is not present in yours?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It seems you've been indoctrinated into thinking that you know what and who you are....and you don't...

So now you are telling people they don't know who or what they are. Does your arrogance know no bounds?

 

[Gambit]

You are begging the question here.
How do you know that the the Uni or Multiverse, or the laws of Nature are contingent?

Actually, on the naturalistic view, there is no "uni" verse, because that implies a unity (interconnection or oneness) which you have clearly denied. (Remember our discussion on "nonlocality?")

Suppose I tell you: the laws of nature accunt for everything that exists and we see in the natural world. They are necessary and sufficient to explain everything. Since they are sufficient, there is no supernatural world. Since they are necessary, they do not need to be accounted for and they explain why there is something instead of nothing.

You see. A bit of chair phylosophy and I can justify whole existance and naturalism at the same tme without using more assumptions than you.

I'm only using one assumption - God. You seem to be presupposing an infinite regress of "verses" (and each "verse" is contingent, dependent on another for its existence). Also, on the materialist view, everything in a "verse" reduces to subatomic particles (every particle is composed of virtual particles, which are "popping in and out of existence."). IOW, everything in the materialist world is contingent. There are no exceptions. Finally, the "laws of nature" (which are NOT physical!) are descriptive, not causally efficacious.