Is God's existence necessary?

[Reflex]

No.

Then I imagine you wouldn't mind positing and discussing your understanding concepts that pertain to what must be in order for what is to be as it is. "I dunno" won't do because it says nothing about the conceptual frame that allows you to formulate the first rational thought. "I dunno" doesn't tell even you anything at all about why you have the values you do or why you should think and believe the way you do. Unlike what atheists, I'm not looking for proof or evidence; just a working theory.

 

[outhouse]

your understanding concepts that pertain to what must be in order for what is to be as it is.

A water based planet answers your question in full.

No need at all to apply mythology to nature.


Go back further you say? sure, easy, a supermassive black hole expanded. Big Bang


No need at all to apply mythology to nature.

 

[Reflex]

You can't be serious, outhouse.

 

[outhouse]

You can't be serious, outhouse.

What mythical explanation would you like to provide?

 

[prometheus11]

Then I imagine you wouldn't mind positing and discussing your understanding concepts that pertain to what must be in order for what is to be as it is. "I dunno" won't do because it says nothing about the conceptual frame that allows you to formulate the first rational thought. "I dunno" doesn't tell even you anything at all about why you have the values you do or why you should think and believe the way you do. Unlike what atheists, I'm not looking for proof or evidence; just a working theory.

In my profession, I am familiar with many myths. I am familiar with what science demonstrates as fact and what questions it does not answer.

My values come from empathy and societal ideals.

I am not so insecure as to need a mythological answer where an answer is not available.

I prefer to be honest in what is not known rather than lie about it.

But I understand the need for some people to believe in a falsehood/myth rather than be "ok" with understanding that we don't know everything.

 

[Reflex]

Case proved in spite of denials: Criticism, straw men and red herrings are the only things atheists here have to offer. NEVER do they posit a working hypothesis; all they have to offer is chance, "just because" and "I dunno. "Without a conceptual frame in which to think, atheists (and anyone else, for that matter) cannot formulate the first rational thought. They can only parrot "memes."

There are two things to remember:

1) Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts.

2) If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a
means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. Big Bang and multiverse theories, to name just two, are modern-day myths that provide that service.​

It is disingenuous for atheists to come to religious forum and criticize religious concepts without positing any origin theories of their own or being willing to discuss their relative values.

 

[outhouse]

It is disingenuous for atheists to come to religious forum and criticize religious concepts without positing any of their own or being willing to discuss their relative values..

Let me fix that for you

It is disingenuous for some theists to come to religious forum and criticize other religious concepts without positing any of their own or being willing to discuss their relative values.

 

[prometheus11]

Case proved in spite of denials: Criticism, straw men and red herrings are the only things atheists here have to offer. NEVER do they posit a working hypothesis; all they have to offer is chance, "just because" and "I dunno. "Without a conceptual frame in which to think, atheists (and anyone else, for that matter) cannot formulate the first rational thought. They can only parrot "memes."

There are two things to remember:

1) Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts.

2) If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a
means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. Big Bang and multiverse theories, to name just two, are modern-day myths that provide that service.​

It is disingenuous for atheists to come to religious forum and criticize religious concepts without positing any origin theories of their own or being willing to discuss their relative values.

What's wrong with understanding what is scientific fact and what science doesn't speculate on and reporting that accurately and honestly?

The honest reply when you don't know an answer is "I don't know."

If there is a huge mathematical problem that fills up a blackboard, the answer "2" is dishonest and cheap; it's honest to admit you don't know.

It's not "parroting memes" at all. That's what religion does. The religious parrot mythology without critically examining those ideas in comparison with other myths or scientific facts.

 

[outhouse]

Big Bang and multiverse theories, to name just two, are modern-day myths that provide that service.

There is no myth here in the BB. The universe factually expanded.



The multiverse is not a theory either, so you even know what a scientific theory actually is?

The multiverse is a hypothesis, not a theory.

The physics community continues to debate the multiverse hypothesis.

 

[outhouse]

Mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute

Nor can it grasp other peoples imagination.

 

[outhouse]

It is disingenuous for atheists to come to religious forum and criticize religious concepts

Sorry that is not true. I just have a larger passion for the truth in religion then you may.

I actually study it and teach it, and try advancing my knowledge on the topic, all searching the truth using academia. NOT refusing it.

 

[Reflex]

What's wrong with understanding what is scientific fact and what science doesn't speculate on and reporting that accurately and honestly?

You are evasive and being disingenuous (not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness). It sounds like you are advocating scientism, but don't want to admit it.

The honest reply when you don't know an answer is "I don't know."

If there is a huge mathematical problem that fills up a blackboard, the answer "2" is dishonest and cheap; it's honest to admit you don't know.

What does “In the end we know God as unknown” sound like to you?

It's not "parroting memes" at all. That's what religion does. The religious parrot mythology without critically examining those ideas in comparison with other myths or scientific facts.

You are disingenuous, hypocritical and positing a double-standard. Memes are not confined to religion. Also, you employing (as usual for atheists) a straw man underwritten by special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something, atheism in this case, as an exception to a generally accepted rule; i.e., atheism is not required to examine religious ideas because they cannot be confirmed by science.

Case proved in spite of denials: Criticism, straw men and red herrings are the only things atheists here have to offer. Your intellectual dishonesty isn't worthy of my attention. You are going back on my ignore list.

 

[outhouse]

religious ideas because they cannot be confirmed by science.

That's factually not true.

These are historical, religions and science does confirm events that did happen that shaped the biblical text.

 

[prometheus11]

You are evasive and being disingenuous (not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness). It sounds like you are advocating scientism, but don't want to admit it.

I don't know what "scientism" is.

I am being frank and honest.

What does “In the end we know God as unknown” sound like to you?

It sounds like a poorly worded sentence fragment.

You are disingenuous, hypocritical and positing a double-standard.

No. What double standard?

Memes are not confined to religion.

Of course not. Who would assert such stupidity?

Also, you employing (as usual for atheists) a straw man underwritten by special pleading.

No. That is untrue

Special pleading is a fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something, atheism in this case, as an exception to a generally accepted rule; i.e., atheism is not required to examine religious ideas because they cannot be confirmed by science.

I know what special pleading is.
I am not engaging in special pleading.

I never said anything regarding atheism having to do (or not do) anything. I never would posit either case.

Case proved in spite of denials: Criticism, straw men and red herrings are the only things atheists here have to offer.

Nope. Your claim has heretofore been demonstrated as incorrect.

Your intellectual dishonesty isn't worthy of my attention.

I haven't used any "intellectual dishonesty."

But obviously I am worthy of your attention as proven by your lengthy reply.

You are going back on my ignore list.

I'll take that as a win.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't know what "scientism" is.

In a nutshell, scientism is the notion that only the sciences provide us with factual truths. So, for instance, neither the arts, nor the religions, nor personal experience, etc can provide us with such truths. There are better definitions of it than that though. I'm just trying to get you started.

 

[prometheus11]

Oh. That seems odd.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh. That seems odd.

Yeah, it is. In my experience, there are relatively few people who genuinely subscribe to scientism. Especially nowadays. However, people are often enough charged with subscribing to it.

 

[prometheus11]

Yeah, it is. In my experience, there are relatively few people who genuinely subscribe to scientism. Especially nowadays. However, people are often enough charged with subscribing to it.

Hmm. That makes sense.

Science is about making accurate predictions based on a plethora of previous measurements. It's pretty good at helping design medicines and technological equipment such as MRI machines. But it's not very good at helping people feel significant or loved or connected to others.

Mythology and other narratives and poetry inform a person's "truth" as much or more than science. IMO.

 

[outhouse]

Science is about making accurate predictions based on a plethora of previous measurements.

Scientism tends to be a desperate tactic in religious debates, mostly used by theist who have cornered themselves in their own fallacies.

Its like using a cross and garlic against a vampire, its often used when communication halts.

 

[Parsimony]

It is disingenuous for atheists to come to religious forum and criticize religious concepts without positing any origin theories of their own or being willing to discuss their relative values.

A person doesn't have to know the answer to a question in order to have problems with someone else's answer to that same question. If someone asked me if there is life on Mars, I could say "I don't know" and that would be perfectly honest. If, however, someone told me that they think there are little green men on Mars, I could go about pointing out why I think it is unlikely that such beings exist given the environmental conditions there. It doesn't mean that I call all forms of life on Mars impossible (microbes underground could be reasonable, for example), just that I find that one particular form unlikely. That seems to be basically what atheists do: they don't know how the Universe came to be, they freely admit to not knowing, but that doesn't mean it is rational for them to accept all possible explanations as reasonable or equally likely. "I have an explanation and you don't, therefore you have no right to criticize my explanation" is fallacious reasoning, regardless of the subject matter at hand, be it religious, scientific, philosophical or anything else.