Is God's existence necessary?

[McBell]

Other than the people I've interacted with, in 1000 years, will I have mattered?

Is your knowing about it required for you to matter?

 

[Gambit]

Because something happened.

Evidently.

 

[Gambit]

No, if you mean necessary for existence to be. Alternative and more logically consistent hypotheses can easily be postulated to explain the universe's existence absent of any given, meaningful definition of God (e.g. M-theory and other multiverse conceptions, the concept that the universe ever expands and contracts in natural cycles, etc.)

"Branes" are something, not nothing. And an oscillating universe implies an infinite regress (which is a logical fallacy).

 

[Gambit]

"Must?" Not so imo. It's not hard for me to think of alternative explanations for how an ever-changing universe can exist without any given God concept. Indeed, I see no reason why the ever-changing nature of our universe would require this to exist.

Because something that is ever changing implies an infinite regress (a logical fallacy).

 

[Gambit]

We don't have to do that at all. The universe is too weird to be explained by limited human notions of "God".

Translation: "There is no naturalistic explanation for why there is something rather than nothing."

 

[prometheus11]

Ever changing does not imply infinite regression. Also, since there is precisely zero evidence for "first cause" and "infinite regression" making them equally absurd and equally likely.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Because something that is ever changing implies an infinite regress (a logical fallacy).

No it doesn't, it just means that time stretches back infinitely.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Translation: "There is no naturalistic explanation for why there is something rather than nothing."

No, what I said.

 

[arthra]

God is ephemeral?

We (you and I) are ephemeral.

 

[Gambit]

We (you and I) are ephemeral.

I see.

 

[Jumi]

Translation: "There is no naturalistic explanation for why there is something rather than nothing."

If something always was, does it need an explanation? Especially when I see no evidence that there was nothing at some point. It is the same if you believe God created something then there is no explanation where he/she came from other than God always was.

 

[Desert Snake]

Is it better to make up a nice explanation that is wrong?

People aren't ''atheists''. /Ie they do worsdhip things //''gods'' //that;s what 'god' means, like 'false god', in the Bible.



When I meet an atheist, /a real one, I will question the necessary existence of a God.

 

[Jumi]

People aren't ''atheists''. /Ie they do worsdhip things //''gods'' //that;s what 'god' means, like 'false god', in the Bible.

People think some things are worthy that is agreed, such as family and relaxing in a cool summer breeze, but is it worship?

When I meet an atheist, /a real one, I will question the necessary existence of a God.

Well I was a real atheist until last week. Is that enough to make you question?

 

[Desert Snake]

People think some things are worthy that is agreed, such as family and relaxing in a cool summer breeze, but is it worship?

That is actually irrelevant as to what I was saying. And no, those aren't 'false gods'.

Well I was a real atheist until last week. Is that enough to make you question?

Merely stating that one is an ''atheist'' is not enough. It is an action //a non-adherence or belief in a ''god'', whether false or real. If you were a real atheist, congratulations, however since you are not one now, I believe we can write that incidence off as non-applicable.

 

[Jumi]

That is actually irrelevant as to what I was saying. And no, those aren't 'false gods'.

Then give examples.

Merely stating that one is an ''atheist'' is not enough. It is an action //a non-adherence or belief in a ''god'', whether false or real. If you were a real atheist, congratulations, however since you are not one now, I believe we can write that incidence off as non-applicable.

I still don't have adherence to any gods in action or deed. I just think there might be some weirdness existing that doesn't interact with the physical universe.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then give examples.

Giving ''examples'', is no more of an argument than my previous statements. If the belief is that my statement is wrong, then it is simply your position, no point in trying to 'prove' my position. Ie the position is over-arching beyond the examples.

I still don't have adherence to any gods in action or deed. I just think there might be some weirdness existing that doesn't interact with the physical universe.

 

[Jumi]

Giving ''examples'', is no more of an argument than my previous statements. If the intent or belief is that my statement is wrong, then it is simply your position, no point in trying to 'prove' my position. Ie the position is over-arching beyond the examples.

I didn't ask you to prove gods, false or otherwise I was only asking for clarification why you think everyone has a few of them. It just doesn't make sense in my opinion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God is an absentee landlord.

 

[Straw Dog]

The closest definition of 'God' that operates within my particular psyche is an understanding of the unfolding of cosmic events. Yes, it is necessary for conditions to play out in this particular way because it accords with the independent nature of all things to act as they will. It is what it is, I am what I am, and I will do what I do.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

God's existence clearly isn't necessary by any logical or rational arguments. However, the need for God's existence is apparent for many people's emotional well-being.