Is God's existence necessary?

[viole]

Because He is the basis of everything.

Is that it? And you think we should believe it just because you say so?

By the way, with Him the basis of everything, do you also include the Ebola virus and parasitic fungi?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Janardena]

Is that it? And you think we should believe it just because you say so?

Are you suggesting that I expect people to believe everything I say?
You asked me a question and I responded to it.

By the way, with Him the basis of everything, do you also include the Ebola virus and parasitic fungi?

Ciao

- viole

Everything.

 

[Gambit]

Since I provided to you a model of the Universe that does not ask for a cause, I would say that zero is also more parsimonous than one.

We clearly have changing experiences for which you were unable to account for.

 

[Gambit]

But not in the block universe model, do they? In this model, nothing come in and out of existence.

The block universe does not take consciousness into account.

 

[viole]

We clearly have changing experiences for which you were unable to account for.

And? Is that a rebuttal? My psychological states?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The block universe does not take consciousness into account.

Of course it can. Or at least as well as the outdated theory of time you seem to subscribe to.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Everything.

Including God Himself (if He is part of everything)?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

Is God's existence (metaphysically) necessary?

Only by an admittedly very influential circunstance. Our social and neurological realities were such that the concept of "God" arose and became widespread, as a slang of sorts for people's hopes and values.

It a dated concept, though, and we will eventually let go of it. It is already more of a source of harm than it would have to be to justify continued use.

 

[Gambit]

And? Is that a rebuttal? My psychological states?

It doesn't appear that you have clearly thought out the implications of your argument. Without subjectivity there would be no observations. And without observations, there would be no science.

 

[Gambit]

Of course it can. Or at least as well as the outdated theory of time you seem to subscribe to.

The block universe does not take consciousness into account. Physics itself does not take consciousness into account (unless, of course, you are willing to give consciousness a role to play in the collapse of the wave function).

 

[Janardena]

Including God Himself (if He is part of everything)?

Ciao

- viole

.

According to the definition of basis, no.

Basis:

the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.

anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.

But as we are essentially the same as God, albeit finite. Those aspects of Him, due to them being conditioned, and as such, unaware of their constitution, could be included.

 

[ArtieE]

.

According to the definition of basis, no.

Basis:

the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.

anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.

But as we are essentially the same as God, albeit finite. Those aspects of Him, due to them being conditioned, and as such, unaware of their constitution, could be included.

Obviously you have either nothing at all or something and everything must include all the something including any basis.

 

[Janardena]

Obviously you have either nothing at all or something and everything must include all the something including any basis.

As I stated, I believe God is the basis of everything, and is able to expand His energies. Even in the Bible we can understand that Adam is made up of two natures, namely spirit and matter. God interjects His life force in a lifeless form, and becomes living. All life forms must have their basis in God, as the ability to have life is what God gives. We can also understand that material nature, although eternal in that it can neither be created nor destroyed, has no useful function until it is used by God. Hence the material body is inactive unless God, and God's finite particle is present.
So yes, God is both included, and not included.

 

[ArtieE]

As I stated, I believe God is the basis of everything, and is able to expand His energies.

So energy is the basis for everything.

Even in the Bible we can understand that Adam is made up of two natures, namely spirit and matter.

You mean energy and matter which are just two sides of the same coin.

All life forms must have their basis in God, as the ability to have life is what God gives. We can also understand that material nature, although eternal in that it can neither be created nor destroyed,

It's energy that can neither be created nor destroyed. What you seem to have done is to simply anthropomorphize energy for some reason.

 

[Janardena]

So energy is the basis for everything.You mean energy and matter which are just two sides of the same coin. It's energy that can neither be created nor destroyed. What you seem to have done is to simply anthropomorphize energy for some reason.

You can see it like that if you like.

 

[ArtieE]

You can see it like that if you like.

If you are interested in the mechanisms and reasons why we anthropomorphize you can find a lot online. For example http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/01/why-do-we-anthropomorphize/11766.html

 

[prometheus11]

Fine....the source of light and the light are two apparent aspects of the one....IAM.. the light then is further divided, and that again...and that again....until we arrive at contemporary scientific theory where there are the 'ten thousand' aspects and counting...with the majority of scientists now atheist and blind to underlying unity of all that is perceived...and conceived... The light shines in the darkness but the darkness comprehended it not...

Your post implies that there is a thing which can be observed and measured. "Light" If "light"could be observed and measured we could come to some understanding of it.

Can you demonstrate the detect ability and measurability of this "light" or your statement just a bald claim with nothing measurable to consider?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your post implies that there is a thing which can be observed and measured. "Light" If "light"could be observed and measured we could come to some understanding of it.

Can you demonstrate the detect ability and measurability of this "light" or your statement just a bald claim with nothing measurable to consider?

No...the light in this context is not detectable....it is not photon light...photon light is of the 'ten thousand'* differentiated aspects that are observed...

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Everyone is confused because you are using the word "churn" incorrectly. It doesn't mean "turn" or "rotate", it means to "stir" or "move around vigorously".

Full Definition of churn

1. transitive verb
2. 1: to agitate (milk or cream) in a churn in order to make butter
   
   
3. 2a : to stir or agitate violently <an old stern-wheeler churning the muddy river>b : to make (as foam) by so doing
   
   
4. 3: to make (the account of a client) excessively active by frequent purchases and sales primarily in order to generate commissions

 

[prometheus11]

No...the light in this context is not detectable....it is not photon light...photon light is of the 'ten thousand'* differentiated aspects that are observed...

Then don't compare it with something measurable like light.

That was the point.

If it can't be measured then compare it with something else that can't be measured....like fairy suspenders.