Is God's existence necessary?

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

We haven't stopped growing Norm....there is still lots to learns for all of us...

 

[leibowde84]

Unless what you are saying is that one should accept belief in God as irrational and not try to rationalize it?

You nailed it. I think rationalizing God's existence is what has caused so much separation lately. Ideas like "scripture is fact", "evidence is not necessary", etc.

 

[Thief]

I believe in God....as a rational explanation for all of this reality.
Spirit first.
no evidence required.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe in God....as a rational explanation for all of this reality.
Spirit first.
no evidence required.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A claimed rational explanation ... and, then this ... "no evidence required".

 

[Thief]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A claimed rational explanation ... and, then this ... "no evidence required".

it's irrational to ask for evidence ....when you KNOW......there won't be any.
when it comes to discussion about God.....
all you CAN do is be rational.

Spirit first.....as substance first... denies science.

 

[leibowde84]

it's irrational to ask for evidence ....when you KNOW......there won't be any.
when it comes to discussion about God.....
all you CAN do is be rational.

Spirit first.....as substance first... denies science.

How is this "rational", specifically?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

You are ignoring the obvious difference in my approach to faith. I do not claim that my belief in God is based on reason and/or logic. I accept that my faith is a tool which helps me, but I cannot justify it rationally in terms of whether it is specifically accurate. You, otoh, have claimed that your belief in God's existence is based on a rational reasoning. Because of this, the burden is on you to support your claim. Like me and everyone else, you are free to admit that your beliefs aren't based on reasoning and verifiable evidence, but you have claimed the opposite.

 

[Thief]

How is this "rational", specifically?

you believe in science don't you?
the universe is not 'self' starting unless.....
you throw away the rules of motion

an object at rest ( a substance) will remain at rest until 'something' moves it.

 

[leibowde84]

you believe in science don't you?
the universe is not 'self' starting unless.....
you throw away the rules of motion

an object at rest ( a substance) will remain at rest until 'something' moves it.

That's fine ... I can see a rationale for believing that "something" might be necessary, but I still don't understand why you jump to "someone", as in a conscious entity.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's fine ... I can see a rationale for believing that "something" might be necessary, but I still don't understand why you jump to "someone", as in a conscious entity.

Yes, it looks rather anthropomorphic really.

 

[Thief]

That's fine ... I can see a rationale for believing that "something" might be necessary, but I still don't understand why you jump to "someone", as in a conscious entity.

it's either a something OR a someone.
if it is 'something'.....then substance is the motivator.

I don't think substance moves of its own.

so....it's NOT something.....
it's Someone.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't think substance moves of its own.
so....it's NOT something.....

Ever watched waves and clouds?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think substance moves of its own.

But, you see substance move on its own all the time through natural processes. Volcanoes, earthquakes, clouds, stars, etc. Every substance in the cosmos is in constant motion. The notion of things being at "rest" is an illusion, as everything is in constant motion.

 

[Thief]

But, you see substance move on its own all the time through natural processes. Volcanoes, earthquakes, clouds, stars, etc. Every substance in the cosmos is in constant motion. The notion of things being at "rest" is an illusion, as everything is in constant motion.

all of motion began with a bang.
the spin of the earth is residual and persistent.
as long as the temp and rotation hold.....so will the churning.

 

[leibowde84]

all of motion began with a bang.
the spin of the earth is residual and persistent.
as long as the temp and rotation hold.....so will the churning.

Churning? What do you mean by that?

 

[Thief]

Churning? What do you mean by that?

now...now....now....
you see the corner you're into.....

Spirit first.

 

[viole]

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.

So, are virtual particles not contingent, ergo they are necessary?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

A being is an existent. All beings (existents) are contingent, save one.

Why not two?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

now...now....now....
you see the corner you're into.....

Spirit first.

No, that was an honest question. I really don't understand what you meant by "churning". Can you explain?

 

[Gambit]

Why not two?

Because one is more parsimonious than two.

"It is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many." - St. Thomas Aquinas.

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." - William of Ockham