Gambit
Well-Known Member
We are contingent beings. Our coming into existence is dependent on other beings.
-
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?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
We are contingent beings. Our coming into existence is dependent on other beings.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You mean our parents? Or, are you trying to use the flawed reasoning behind the Cosmological Argument?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
By the way, I asked you why we are contingent beings, not what the term means. A "contingent being" is "Something that does not exist in and of itself but depends for its existence upon some other being." Now, you have yet to support your claim that we, as human beings, are beings "that do not exist in and of ourselves but depend for our existence upon some other being". Can you do that?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Do you seriously believe that you are not dependent on other beings for your existence? You are dependent on cells (beings), which are dependent on molecules (beings), which are dependent on atoms (beings), which are dependent on subatomic particles (beings), which are dependent on virtual particles (beings), which are popping in and out of existence physically uncaused.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
How are you defining "being" here? Which of the following applies?
"Being" (n)
: a living thing
: the state of existing
: the most important or basic part of a person's mind or self
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I was wondering that too. From the context I assume the second one.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
How can a cell or a molecule be a "state", as he claimed?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Why do existing things demand God?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Because every being (existent) that comes into existence is contingent (dependent) on some other being(s) (existent(s)) for its existence. Therefore, we must posit a necessary being to account for a world of contingent beings. Either that, or commit ourselves to an infinite regress (a logical fallacy).
leibowde84
Veteran Member
But, isn't this just another way of explaining cause and effect, which, to the best of our knowledge, might not be applicable to anything preceding the Big Bang?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
If you dispense with causality, then you have no causal explanation.
The argument from contingency, concerns the present. IOW, the creation is something that is happening right now. At any rate, you profess to be a believer. So, let me ask you a question: What is your rationale for believing in the existence of God?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
My rationale is based entirely on my own subjective experiences and how I see my faith help me in my everyday life. I don't see God as necessary, scientifically, to explain the cosmos, as it is far too premature to make such a claim due to scientific exploration being such a new thing for human life. I certainly doubt God's existence from time to time, and I freely admit that I cannot support my belief rationally, as it is subjective. But, that doesn't bother me too much. I do enjoy learning about the reasoning others have for their faith, as sometimes it strikes a chord with my thinking as well.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Subjective experience is no basis for justifying a belief. (You yourself have made such an argument. So, it would appear that you are not heeding your own advice.)
Evidently, you don't understand the difference between metaphysics and physics. The question I posed in OP is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. (I explicitly stated in the OP it was a metaphysical question.)
I see. You really don't have any rationale. In fact, you have completely divorced faith from reason. What you are promoting is known as fideism (which is rejected by mainstream Christianity.) IOW, you're advocating irrationality.
Last edited:
Huh, I had been wondering about that for a while actually. Guess I know now. Based on your postings in the past, you seem to emphasize an importance on rationality. Now I have to wonder why you've challenged arguments for God's existence that others have made on here as being irrational if you also have a self-admitted irrational reason to believe. Unless what you are saying is that one should accept belief in God as irrational and not try to rationalize it?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
The existence of God is necessary for theists but not for anyone else. Go figure.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Go figure what Norm....an atheist posts that they have no need of God....wow that is just soooo novel, who'd a thunk it?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
The existence of space-aliens is necessary for those who believe they have been abducted by space-aliens. Same principle.
I haven't always been an atheist though, I was brought up to believe in God and for a while I did.
Then I started thinking for myself and just outgrew theism. I don't remember it as being a big deal, just part of growing up, rather like when you realise that Santa Claus isn't real.
