Is God's existence necessary?

[Gambit]

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

Virtual particles come in and out of existence, therefore they are contingent.

 

[Parsimony]

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.

Wait, I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that people shouldn't promote a belief in God if they say that "evidence is not necessary", yet isn't that what you are doing? Do you believe in God without evidence? Or is it that you have evidence which is just not rational evidence?

 

[Gambit]

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.

Apparently, you didn't bother to read my last post. So, I will restate it below. I suggest you actually read it this time.

1) You clearly do not understand the difference between science (physics) and philosophy (metaphysics). A scientific theory requires empirical validation. A metaphysical theory does NOT! My belief in God IS a metaphysical belief based on rational argumentation. As such, I am not required to furnish you or anyone else with empirical evidence. I have not presented my belief in God as a scientific theory. In fact, I have explicitly stated that the question I asked in the OP is a metaphysical one. (Of course, my metaphysical belief is based on some element of faith. All metaphysical beliefs - including materialism - are also based on some element of faith.)

2) Theology has traditionally been defined as "faith seeking understanding." What this means is that theology attempts to rationally justify its belief.

3) I believe that faith and reason work in tandem. You apparently do not. In fact, you believe your belief in God is completely irrational - by your own admission! As such, you are divorcing faith from reason. This view which you are (wittingly or unwittingly) espousing is known as fideism. It is a view that has been condemned by mainstream Christianity. (By the way, I do not profess to be a Christian. But you do.)

 

[Thief]

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

I was referring to the list of items you made.

 

[Thief]

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.

just reiterating....

 

[sayak83]

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).

let us analyze this a bit more deeply. What we always observe are some form or the other of interacting matter-energy-space-time nexus. Entities only change from one form of this nexus to another form and so on and so forth. So if I assert that this nexus that we best describe as a matter-energy-space-time is non-contigently existing but is ever shifting in its form through internal interactions, am I making any logical error? I do not think so. Most probably the best way to describe the universe is a timeless self-entangled quantum wavefunction with all phenomena we actually see being topological features within such a wave (including us). The reason we often get into logical paradoxes is that for our own convenience we chop this up into separate things, which while providing a good appx. model if we do this carefully enough, is ultimately non-physical.

 

[Thief]

let us analyze this a bit more deeply. What we always observe are some form or the other of interacting matter-energy-space-time nexus. Entities only change from one form of this nexus to another form and so on and so forth. So if I assert that this nexus that we best describe as a matter-energy-space-time is non-contigently existing but is ever shifting in its form through internal interactions, am I making any logical error? I do not think so. Most probably the best way to describe the universe is a timeless self-entangled quantum wavefunction with all phenomena we actually see being topological features within such a wave (including us). The reason we often get into logical paradoxes is that for our own convenience we chop this up into separate things, which while providing a good appx. model if we do this carefully enough, is ultimately non-physical.

timeless ( I like the word) and non-physical.
God?

 

[CATSISS]

The existence of God is necessary for theists but not for anyone else. Go figure.

They probably need god to pet their heads during their sleeping session.

 

[ArtieE]

2) Theology has traditionally been defined as "faith seeking understanding." What this means is that theology attempts to rationally justify its belief.

3) I believe that faith and reason work in tandem. You apparently do not. In fact, you believe your belief in God is completely irrational - by your own admission! As such, you are divorcing faith from reason. This view which you are (wittingly or unwittingly) espousing is known as fideism. It is a view that has been condemned by mainstream Christianity. (By the way, I do not profess to be a Christian. But you do.)

1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.
2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

Can one keep ones faith if reason and factual analysis contradicts it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

They probably need god to pet their heads during their sleeping session.

I completely understand why someone with a cat's heart would think that.....purrrrrrrr

 

[leibowde84]

Wait, I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that people shouldn't promote a belief in God if they say that "evidence is not necessary", yet isn't that what you are doing? Do you believe in God without evidence? Or is it that you have evidence which is just not rational evidence?

My point is that it is reasonable to believe in God even if there is a lack of verifiable evidence to support that belief. My reasoning is based on the positive effect it has on my life. What is not reasonable is to claim that one "knows" or is "certain" of God's existence based on the available evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

1) You clearly do not understand the difference between science (physics) and philosophy (metaphysics). A scientific theory requires empirical validation. A metaphysical theory does NOT! My belief in God IS a metaphysical belief based on rational argumentation. As such, I am not required to furnish you or anyone else with empirical evidence. I have not presented my belief in God as a scientific theory. In fact, I have explicitly stated that the question I asked in the OP is a metaphysical one. (Of course, my metaphysical belief is based on some element of faith. All metaphysical beliefs - including materialism - are also based on some element of faith.)

My point was that I don't see your logic/reasoning as sound in regards to your argument for God's existence. I am not asking for verifiable evidence where it is inappropriate. But, you reasoning seems to be based on a lack of evidence for any alternative. Thus, it is utilizing the logical fallacy of "arguing from ignorance". So, I was pointing out that your metaphysical theory is not sound. You can't base arguments for claims on the absence of alternative theories. Teories, even metaphysical ones, must be supported on their own merits.

2) Theology has traditionally been defined as "faith seeking understanding." What this means is that theology attempts to rationally justify its belief.

Agreed, that is attempted. Apologists often try to utilize reason, logic, and science (sometimes) to justify beliefs. I have yet to hear a logically sound argument from apologists, though. Take William Lane Craig, for example. His reasoning is so flawed and misguided that it's almost hard to listen to him. It obviously frustrates scientists when he uses scientific discoveries when he doesn't understand them himself. So, while it is a practice, I don't think it has been done well.

3) I believe that faith and reason work in tandem. You apparently do not. In fact, you believe your belief in God is completely irrational - by your own admission! As such, you are divorcing faith from reason. This view which you are (wittingly or unwittingly) espousing is known as fideism. It is a view that has been condemned by mainstream Christianity. (By the way, I do not profess to be a Christian. But you do.)

Close, buy you're way off. "Fideism" is the doctrine that knowledge depends on faith or revelation. My argument presents the opposite view. Knowledge is not dependent on faith or revelation, and using these as prerequisites demonstrates what I see as the major problem with faith based rationales. You start with the concept of God and work backwards to find evidence that supports your conclusion. But, God is an ill-defined concept that means different things to different people. Thus, it is logical to start with the evidence and patiently wait to see where it takes us.

 

[leibowde84]

I was referring to the list of items you made.

What about them? They are examples of things that occur naturally without intervention. So, what are you trying to say?

 

[McBell]

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

Spirit first.

Looks more as though you see a corner you have put yourself into.
Thus the reason for not answering the direct question: "What do you mean by churning?"
Fortunately for you, it seems no one else has caught on the reason why you feel cornered.....

 

[Thief]

what's the matter guys.....you don't believe the earth 'churns'....
I realize you give no credit to God.....but....
the earth does churn.

God set all things in motion.

 

[Thief]

They probably need god to pet their heads during their sleeping session.

no dreams about something (Someone) greater than yourself?

 

[Shad]

Virtual particles come in and out of existence, therefore they are contingent.

To show something is contingent you must find the cause as well as show that virtual particles are not necessary. Neither you nor anyone else has evidence to support this claim.

 

[Shad]

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

I guess you skipped the part in which two are equal hypotheses, your God hypothesis is not equal nor has evidence. It is not fewest assumptions but the one with simplest explanation which does not require further explanation. Since the GH provides no explanation for any mechanics beside "God did it" it explains nothing while leaving unanswered questions. Also hypothesis' are open to empirical testing in which God is not open to so the GH is invalid. A simpler explanation can still be wrong while a complex one can be right. Hence falsification can remove the assumption that simple means right, yet you provide no criteria for falsification or even attempt to. Next time look up the words you are using to avoid the amateur mistakes you have made. Nor the assumption you made that the principle of parsimony is not a substitute for logic nor science.

You also quote-mined and did so poorly that you quotes a refutation to your view. Hilarious. I guess that is what happens when you just copy/paste apologetics without reading the source.You quoted the wrong section....

Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

 

[Willamena]

Apparently, you didn't bother to read my last post. So, I will restate it below. I suggest you actually read it this time.

1) You clearly do not understand the difference between science (physics) and philosophy (metaphysics). A scientific theory requires empirical validation. A metaphysical theory does NOT! My belief in God IS a metaphysical belief based on rational argumentation. As such, I am not required to furnish you or anyone else with empirical evidence. I have not presented my belief in God as a scientific theory. In fact, I have explicitly stated that the question I asked in the OP is a metaphysical one. (Of course, my metaphysical belief is based on some element of faith. All metaphysical beliefs - including materialism - are also based on some element of faith.)

Philosophy doesn't lack for evidence. Often it is empirical (a posteriori) evidence.

 

[Thief]

headed for 800+postings and the cry for evidence is still present.....

there will be no evidence.
determining the necessity of God must be chosen
and done so by reasoning.

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment.

all you can do is think about God and then choose

Spirit first?.....or substance?

and substance does not 'self' start or beget the living.