Is God's existence necessary?

[McBell]

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.

I for one much prefer the honest answer of "I don't know" over the dishonest answer of "GodDidIt"

Now I understand that there are people who have to shove their god anywhere and everywhere they can, but "GodDidIt" is not an honest answer.
Which begs the question, does your god condone such dishonesty?

 

[Reflex]

I for one much prefer the honest answer of "I don't know" over the dishonest answer of "GodDidIt"

Now I understand that there are people who have to shove their god anywhere and everywhere they can, but "GodDidIt" is not an honest answer.
Which begs the question, does your god condone such dishonesty?

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.

 

[McBell]

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.

What "working hypothesis" do you have?

 

[ArtieE]

What "working hypothesis" do you have?

I would also like to know what "working hypothesis" you have.

 

[McBell]

I would also like to know what "working hypothesis" you have.

I have already clearly and rather pointedly flat out admitted "I do not know".
However, I am not the one constantly whining about a "working hypothesis" in place of my "working hypothesis" and never revealing my "working hypothesis".

I am also most curious as to what Reflex considers a "working hypothesis"

 

[ArtieE]

I have already clearly and rather pointedly flat out admitted "I do not know".

The question was meant for Reflex.

 

[McBell]

.

The question was meant for Reflex.

My apologies.
I misunderstood.

 

[KBC1963]

"Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence...
https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
"The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. What is Atheism..."
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm
Atheism (weak atheism) is an absence of belief in gods. Strong atheism is the belief that gods don't exist. Learn the difference.

If you wish to define yourself as one who has no evidence for a god or gods then you would be an agnostic;
Agnostic
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

This is the defined category for those who have no belief either for or against god or gods. If you wish to claim atheism then you are claiming something other than the claims of agnosticism which is neither for or against theism.
You can quote all the atheist sites you want but they exist because of the implications being brought against the positive assertion that they historically made that there is no gods and they are trying to redefine their image to one that appears for all intensive purposes to be agnostic. Save yourself the time of fighting for a redefinition when it is just as simple to say I'm agnostic... it a clear and concisely defined word that from its inception has placed the people who define themselves by it as those who hold no beliefs either way concerning theism.

ATHEISM
Early modern Christian writers often failed to distinguish between non-belief in "the true God" and non-belief in a supreme being per se, and atheism usually meant the assertion of the non-existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Strictly speaking, however, atheism is the denial of the existence of a divinity. As such, it is different from agnosticism (a suspension of belief on the question of God's existence) or simple theological heterodoxy....
....Italy enjoyed perhaps the greatest reputation in the seventeenth century as a congenial home for atheism. This perception was fostered by the presence of thinkers like Vanini, an open and avowed atheist who denied the possibility of an immaterial God creating a material world and communicating with embodied beings. Religion, Vanini insisted, was a fiction, and the only true worship was that of nature. He was burned at the stake for his "blasphemous" beliefs....
....In early-eighteenth-century France there was a good deal of "atheism" in the many clandestine manuscripts that circulated in society and especially in the unregulated discussions that took place in the salons and cafés of Paris. Here could be found diverse libertines, radicals, and freethinkers expressing doubts about Christian dogma (including the divinity of Christ) and mocking religious beliefs in general. Many of them (including the declared atheist Nicolas Fréret) were influenced by the writings of Henri de Boulainvilliers (1658–1722), a nobleman who, by the end of his life, was a devout Spinozist. In his Essai de métaphysique (c. 1700; Essay on metaphysics), which circulated in manuscript form, Boulainvilliers insisted that the divine creation of the world was impossible, and that nature was governed not by providence but by necessary laws. Above all, he rejected the notion of a transcendent, personal God endowed with the usual moral and psychological characteristics....
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/atheism.aspx

 

[KBC1963]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: I'm often asked – and occasionally in an accusatory way – “Are you atheist?”
....
I'm constantly claimed by atheists. I find this intriguing. In fact, on my Wiki page – I didn’t create the Wiki page, others did, and I'm flattered that people cared enough about my life to assemble it – and it said, “Neil deGrasse is an atheist.” I said, “Well that’s not really true.” I said, “Neil deGrasse is an agnostic.” I went back a week later. It said, “Neil deGrasse is an atheist.” – again within a week – and I said, “What’s up with that?” and I said, “I have to word it a little differently.” So I said, okay, “Neil deGrasse, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic.”

And some will say, well, that’s – "You’re not being fair to the fact that they’re actually the same thing." No, they’re not the same thing, and I'll tell you why. Atheists I know who proudly wear the badge are active atheists. They’re like in your face atheist and they want to change policies and they’re having debates. I don’t have the time, the interest, the energy to do any of that. I'm a scientist. I'm an educator. My goal is to get people thinking straight in the first place, just get you to be curious about the natural world. That’s what I'm about. I'm not about any of the rest of this.

And it’s odd that the word atheist even exists. I don’t play golf. Is there a word for non-golf players? Do non-golf players gather and strategize? Do non-skiers have a word and come together and talk about the fact that they don’t ski? I don’t—I can’t do that. I can’t gather around and talk about how much everybody in the room doesn’t believe in God. I just don’t—I don’t have the energy for that, and so I . . . Agnostic separates me from the conduct of atheists....
http://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic-2

 

[ArtieE]

If you wish to define yourself as one who has no evidence for a god or gods

No I wish to define myself as simply not a theist. Period.

then you would be an agnostic;
Agnostic
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

This is the defined category for those who have no belief either for or against god or gods.

No it isn't. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. An agnostic is simply a person who doesn't know whether or not gods exist. Nothing stops an agnostic from believing gods exist or don't exist.

If you wish to claim atheism then you are claiming something other than the claims of agnosticism which is neither for or against theism.

An agnostic simply says "I don't know". I say "I don't believe".

You can quote all the atheist sites you want but they exist because of the implications being brought against the positive assertion that they historically made that there is no gods and they are trying to redefine their image to one that appears for all intensive purposes to be agnostic. Save yourself the time of fighting for a redefinition when it is just as simple to say I'm agnostic... it a clear and concisely defined word that from its inception has placed the people who define themselves by it as those who hold no beliefs either way concerning theism.

There are AGNOSTIC THEISTS and AGNOSTIC ATHEISTS.

 

[prometheus11]

According to the way words are assembled from the root word, a prefix, and a suffix, it's easy to determine what the words mean.

Gnosticism refers to spiritual knowledge.

Theism refers to God belief.

They are independent of each other.


A = prefix "without/not"

Theos = root word "God"

Ism = suffix "belief"

A the ism = without God belief

A gnostic ism = without spiritual knowledge belief

You can be any of the following four:

Agnostic atheist.
Agnostic theist.
Gnostic atheist.
Gnostic theist.

To provide an analogy, exchange the word gnostic/agnostic with father/not a father and theist/atheist with husband/bachelor.

 

[ArtieE]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: I'm often asked – and occasionally in an accusatory way – “Are you atheist?” ...

And it’s odd that the word atheist even exists. I don’t play golf. Is there a word for non-golf players? Do non-golf players gather and strategize? Do non-skiers have a word and come together and talk about the fact that they don’t ski?

The only reason we have the word atheist is that it is useful in certain contexts to differentiate between people who are theists and people who aren't. Just imagine that you remove all theists from the planet. Those left would be atheists. Some of them would act like Tyson describes. Those may be "strong atheists", anti-theists or irreligious.

 

[prometheus11]

DeGrasse's analogy with non golfers isn't appropriate. 90% of society doesn't play golf with a religious fervor and act like nongolfers shouldn't exist and are going to an eternal lake of fire for not golfing.

If golfing were seen that way, there'd be a term for nongolfers because society would need to know who to not vote for or who to hate.

 

[outhouse]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: I'm often asked – and occasionally in an accusatory way – “Are you atheist?”

He just hates the label

He does not believe in your god

 

[Reflex]

I have already clearly and rather pointedly flat out admitted "I do not know".
However, I am not the one constantly whining about a "working hypothesis" in place of my "working hypothesis" and never revealing my "working hypothesis".

I am also most curious as to what Reflex considers a "working hypothesis"

Ah, yes. The famous "I dunno" argument -- mere chatter designed to circumvent the discomfort in considering the actual question, or to escape having to dispense with the understandably irritating task of justifying one’s beliefs. That does not change the fact that agnosticism is a meaningless epistemic state. The only mindset that can possibly justify agnosticism, as the word suggests, is one of absolute ignorance. Dogs are agnostic. Humans merely pretend to be.

And if you were paying attention (which obviously you were not) you'd know what I consider to be a working hypothesis.

 

[ArtieE]

And if you were paying attention (which obviously you were not) you'd know what I consider to be a working hypothesis.

I wasn't paying attention, could you repeat what you consider to be a working hypothesis in a summary?

 

[prometheus11]

Ah, yes. The famous "I dunno" argument -- mere chatter designed to circumvent the discomfort in considering the actual question, or to escape having to dispense with the understandably irritating task of justifying one’s beliefs. That does not change the fact that agnosticism is a meaningless epistemic state. The only mindset that can possibly justify agnosticism, as the word suggests, is one of absolute ignorance. Dogs are agnostic. Humans merely pretend to be.

And if you were paying attention (which obviously you were not) you'd know what I consider to be a working hypothesis.

"I don't know" isn't an argument. It's an honest admission. Like when you see a huge math problem far too difficult for your computing skills.

It's honest, and preferable to a made up answer that you can't verify as the actual answer.

 

[Reflex]

I wasn't paying attention, could you repeat what you consider to be a working hypothesis in a summary?

God is.

 

[ArtieE]

God is.

And since the definition of hypothesis is

"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation"

can you present the evidence you have for your hypothesis and how we are to proceed with the further investigation?

 

[McBell]

Ah, yes. The famous "I dunno" argument -- mere chatter designed to circumvent the discomfort in considering the actual question, or to escape having to dispense with the understandably irritating task of justifying one’s beliefs. That does not change the fact that agnosticism is a meaningless epistemic state. The only mindset that can possibly justify agnosticism, as the word suggests, is one of absolute ignorance. Dogs are agnostic. Humans merely pretend to be.

And if you were paying attention (which obviously you were not) you'd know what I consider to be a working hypothesis.

You do an awful lot of dancing around direct questions...

What is YOUR "working hypothesis"?

This is the SECOND time I have flat out asked you.
Perhaps you will stop tap dancing long enough to answer it?