Is God's existence necessary?

[outhouse]

God is.

Which god category do you place your god??????????????????

Ah, yes. The famous "I dunno" argument -- is coming soon. Or complete ignoring of the question because he knows it places him in a corner he cannot escape.

 

[Janardena]

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.

How do you know?

Which begs the question, does your god condone such dishonesty?

You're asking, does the God who did it, condone someone saying He did it?
I would have thought so. Wouldn't you?

 

[McBell]

How do you know?

How do I know what?
That people claiming god did it when they do not know the answer is dishonest?

You're asking, does the God who did it, condone someone saying He did it?
I would have thought so. Wouldn't you?

Nope.
I am asking:

does the God who YOU believe did it, condone someone saying He did it?​

Your inability to understand how that is dishonest is actually quite disturbing.

 

[Janardena]

How do I know what?
That people claiming god did it when they do not know the answer is dishonest?

Their dishonesty would become apparent if it became known that God didn't do it? Don't you agree?
So I'm asking you how you know that they're being dishonest?

Nope.
I am asking:

does the God who YOU believe did it, condone someone saying He did it?​

And that makes a difference to the answer... how?​

Your inability to understand how that is dishonest is actually quite disturbing.

Really?

 

[Reflex]

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?

Modern atheism reckons itself to be synonymous with skepticism mainly due to the grossly mistaken assumption that it makes no positive claim for itself, but rather simply rejects a single positive claim; i.e. the claim “God is.” So this type of “prove it” argument is valid only if the notion of God were not a hypothesis at all. God is and has always been an explanatory hypothesis for the existence of the visible universe and everything in it. In other words, it is not enough to simply say “It was not God” in response to the question “Where did everything come from?” Nor is it enough to say "prove it" or to simply hide behind the words “I do not know.” The atheist must substitute another hypothesis in God’s place in order to justify his rejection of God, and furthermore he must provide evidence for that hypothesis. Until that event comes to pass, the theist remains justified in his belief, albeit an uncertain belief. Until someone can provide a satisfactory hypothesis for the universe, God, properly described, remains the most viable alternative.

 

[Reflex]

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?

Illiterate? Write for free help!

 

[ArtieE]

Modern atheism reckons itself to be synonymous with skepticism mainly due to the grossly mistaken assumption that it makes no positive claim for itself, but rather simply rejects a single positive claim; i.e. the claim “God is.” So this type of “prove it” argument is valid only if the notion of God were not a hypothesis at all. God is and has always been an explanatory hypothesis for the existence of the visible universe and everything in it. In other words, it is not enough to simply say “It was not God” in response to the question “Where did everything come from?” Nor is it enough to say "prove it" or to simply hide behind the words “I do not know.” The atheist must substitute another hypothesis in God’s place in order to justify his rejection of God, and furthermore he must provide evidence for that hypothesis. Until that event comes to pass, the theist remains justified in his belief, albeit an uncertain belief. Until someone can provide a satisfactory hypothesis for the universe, God, properly described, remains the most viable alternative.

LOL I am an atheist simply because theists haven't been able to provide any convincing rational evidence for the existence of any gods let alone that some god was responsible for the universe. I'm not saying gods don't exist I'm just saying that nobody has given me any good reason to believe they do.

 

[Reflex]

LOL I am an atheist simply because theists haven't been able to provide any convincing rational evidence for the existence of any gods let alone that some god was responsible for the universe. I'm not saying gods don't exist I'm just saying that nobody has given me any good reason to believe they do.

Silly atheist.

In his book The Constant Fire, author and astrophysicist Adam Frank talks about William James and The Varieties of Religious Experience. He writes:

Religion … shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. ― William James

This perspective on religion stands in stark contrast to the idea of religion that traditional, popularized debates over science and religion focus on. Here the emphasis on solitude is crucial. It reflects James's wish to understand an elemental encounter with perceived spiritual realities. He is not interested in theological theories. As he writes, “The problem I have set myself is a hard one: … to defend . . . 'experience' against 'philosophy' as being the real backbone of religious life.” That turn from theology to experience irrevocably alters the character of the inquiry and the nature of questions James asks us to address. To begin with, the elemental encounter with life's sacred character must be distinguished from the derivative life of rote religious practice. James makes this distinction quite clearly as he separates the authentic religious experience from the “ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country.” It is experience, not institutional practice, that is primary for William James. Experience, he claims, stands alone as the root of every established religion. “Personal religion will prove itself more fundamental than . . . theology,” James writes. “Churches, when once established, live at second hand upon tradition but the founders of every church owed their power originally to the fact of their direct personal communion with the divine.”​

Frank goes on to say that in A Short History of Myth, Karen Armstrong draws diverse sources together to recount forty millennia of human mythmaking. Drawing heavily on Eliade, Armstrong reminds us that myths are narratives that speak of what lies beyond or below the visible world. And mythologist Joseph Campbell writes, “Indeed the first and most essential service of a mythology is this one, of opening the mind and the heart to the utter wonder of all being.”

“All being” is not limited to the physical world. The sacred always manifests itself as a reality of a wholly different order from 'natural' realities. There are as many shades and intensities of religious experience, conscious and unconscious, as there are people living on the planet and that experience is always conditioned by what we bring to it: you cannot have an experience that you call religious if you do not have some idea of what religion or spirituality means ― you must have tools adequate to the task. A skeptic would be quite happy with a spoiled-turkey-sandwich explanation.

I know of no theist that denies that God "is in the head." Green, sweet, sound, the smell of a rose and hot are in the head, too. Am I therefore justified in denying my experience of them?

 

[ArtieE]

I know of no theist that denies that God "is in the head." Green, sweet, sound, the smell of a rose and hot are in the head, too. Am I therefore justified in denying my experience of them?

What's the point? Are you saying that your God only exists in your head?

 

[Janardena]

LOL I am an atheist simply because theists haven't been able to provide any convincing rational evidence for the existence of any gods let alone that some god was responsible for the universe. I'm not saying gods don't exist I'm just saying that nobody has given me any good reason to believe they do.

You already know God exists, you're simply denying, or suppressing what you know to be true.
That is why it is easy for you to give the impression that you're not convinced by anyone.
How can I be so sure? Nobody believes in God because somebody gave them good reason to. You may come to your senses from others, start the reconditioning programme, realise how much time you've wasted with this pretence, then wake up to the reality of what you are, God is, and your relationship to God.

Imagine claiming that love doesn't exist, and stubbornly sit around waiting for people to prove to you that it exists. Eventually we would realise you're just wasting time, playing silly games. .The thing is, you know love exists even though you cannot prove it. Or show what it is.

Stop playing games.

 

[prometheus11]

You already know God exists, you're simply denying, or suppressing what you know to be true.
That is why it is easy for you to give the impression that you're not convinced by anyone.
How can I be so sure? Nobody believes in God because somebody gave them good reason to. You may come to your senses from others, then start the reconditioning programme, and then realise how much time you've wasted with this pretence.

Imagine claiming that love doesn't exist, and stubbornly sit around waiting for people to prove to you that it exists. Eventually we would realise you're just wasting time, playing silly games. The thing is, you know love exists even though you cannot prove it, nor is there any thing that resembles objective evidence for love.

Stop playing games.

Do you have any idea how insulting your post is? What if people of the opposite political view told you to "stop playing games" because you already know inside, but you're suppressing it and pretending to be the opposite political party?

Seriously, pretend somebody wrote that to you about something you feel the opposite about.

 

[ArtieE]

Imagine claiming that love doesn't exist, and stubbornly sit around waiting for people to prove to you that it exists. Eventually we would realise you're just wasting time, playing silly games. The thing is, you know love exists even though you cannot prove it, nor is there any thing that resembles objective evidence for love.

Stop playing games.

Well of course love exists and there's tons of evidence that love exists. We know which brain chemicals are involved and can use brain scanning techniques to find out which areas of the brain are involved. We have literature explaining the biological basis of love and on and on. Love is a powerful neurological condition like hunger or thirst. An evolved survival tool that increases bonding and improves chances of procreation and survival for parents and offspring.

 

[ArtieE]

You already know God exists, you're simply denying, or suppressing what you know to be true.
That is why it is easy for you to give the impression that you're not convinced by anyone.
How can I be so sure? Nobody believes in God because somebody gave them good reason to. You may come to your senses from others, start the reconditioning programme, realise how much time you've wasted with this pretence, then wake up to the reality of what you are, God is, and your relationship to God.

And if a Hindu said that to you just switching God with Brahma and the other gods and including reincarnation would you come to your senses and become a Hindu?

 

[Janardena]

Do you have any idea how insulting your post is?

I know that it appears insulting, but my intention is not to insult.

What if people of the opposite political view told you to "stop playing games" because you already know inside, but you're suppressing it and pretending to be the opposite political party?

Seriously, pretend somebody wrote that to you about something you feel the opposite about.

I would first question them, and if I didn't accept what they said. I would want to know why they said what they said. If there was truth to their claims, but I denied that truth, I would come out as defensive as you have done.

 

[Janardena]

Well of course love exists and there's tons of evidence that love exists. We know which brain chemicals are involved and can use brain scanning techniques to find out which areas of the brain are involved.

Are these brain chemicals love?
If not. What is love?

Love is a powerful neurological condition like hunger or thirst. An evolved survival tool that increases bonding and improves chances of procreation and survival for parents and offspring.

Are you sure that is what Love is?
Have you experienced that process, or are you accepting it on faith?

 

[Janardena]

And if a Hindu said that to you just switching God with Brahma and the other gods and including reincarnation would you come to your senses and become a Hindu?

I would be very surprised if a Hindu made that kind of statement.

 

[prometheus11]

I know that it appears insulting, but my intention is not to insult.



I would first question them, and if I didn't accept what they said. I would want to know why they said what they said. If there was truth to their claims, but I denied that truth, I would come out as defensive as you have done.

I'm not being defensive; I'm being descriptive.

Your entire message is that you know someone has opposite beliefs than what they state. Your calling them a liar and claiming to know what's inside another psychology.

Poor show. You should be ashamed of that behavior.

 

[McBell]

Their dishonesty would become apparent if it became known that God didn't do it? Don't you agree?
So I'm asking you how you know that they're being dishonest?

Because they do not know, they merely believe.

And that makes a difference to the answer... how?

because belief is not knowing.

Really?

Yes

 

[McBell]

Illiterate? Write for free help!

Your dishonesty is not the least bit surprising

 

[McBell]

You already know God exists, you're simply denying, or suppressing what you know to be true.
That is why it is easy for you to give the impression that you're not convinced by anyone.
How can I be so sure? Nobody believes in God because somebody gave them good reason to. You may come to your senses from others, start the reconditioning programme, realise how much time you've wasted with this pretence, then wake up to the reality of what you are, God is, and your relationship to God.

Imagine claiming that love doesn't exist, and stubbornly sit around waiting for people to prove to you that it exists. Eventually we would realise you're just wasting time, playing silly games. .The thing is, you know love exists even though you cannot prove it. Or show what it is.

Stop playing games.

You should really brush up on your pigeon chess skills.