Question for former theists...

[Kfox]

Nope. You have got it upside down.

So please explain what you meant when you said "A necessary being; nothing else is necessary"

Can you give an example of a necessary being? (not contingent).

So because I don't know, therefore it does not exist? Is that the argument you are trying to make? If that is the argument you are trying to make, that is a very poor argument to make. If not, please explain how you know everything else in existence is contingent, and your God is not?

 

[firedragon]

So because I don't know, therefore it does not exist? Is that the argument you are trying to make? If that is the argument you are trying to make, that is a very poor argument to make. If not, please explain how you know everything else in existence is contingent, and your God is not?

Philosophy doesnt work that way my friend.

Ciao.

 

[Kfox]

Philosophy doesnt work that way my friend.

Ciao.

I'm not talking about Philosophy, I'm talking about the truth.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not talking about Philosophy, I'm talking about the truth.

How do you define truth and whats your methodology of finding truth? Science, Maths, Philosophy, Reason, Logic? Think about it Klox before you respond. Consider things first. Hokkay??

 

[Kfox]

How do you define truth

Truth is that which is aligned with reality.

and whats your methodology of finding truth? Science, Maths, Philosophy, Reason, Logic?

Science is a system of study in an effort to find the truth.
math is truth
Philosophy, Reason, and logic are all some of the tools people use in an effort to find the truth. There are lots of methods used in an effort to find the truth.

Think about it Klox before you respond. Consider things first. Hokkay??

Not much to think about; really.

 

[firedragon]

Science is a system of study in an effort to find the truth.

No. You are just wrong.

Not much to think about; really.

Okay. Its alright not to think I suppose if that is what you want.

Have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? You mean including earth?

The Earth was formed by the universe and of course it is part of it. The universe is the only thing that I know of that is necessary. The Earth is necessary for us, but that does not make it independently necessary.

 

[Kfox]

No. You are just wrong.

So how do you define science, and what's the point to all of this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those are my words.

Then you did not support your claim at all and there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

 

[F1fan]

A necessary being. Nothing else is necessary, everything else is contingent.

For anything to exist energy is necessary. How can a God create energy from nothing if the God is the primary necessity?

 

[firedragon]

The Earth was formed by the universe and of course it is part of it. The universe is the only thing that I know of that is necessary. The Earth is necessary for us, but that does not make it independently necessary.

So the universe is necessary. You mean the universe in the beginning or as it exists now? If the universe is necessary, then everything in it is necessary, which means the earth is necessary, the stars are necessary, everything is necessary.

Can you concur or reject based on reason?

 

[Subduction Zone]

For anything to exist energy is necessary. How can a God create energy from nothing if the God is the primary necessity?

There are still unknowns out there. And energy is one of them. To the best measurements possible the total energy of the universe is zero. There is both positive energy and negative energy and they appear to balance out. That means that a Universe From Nothing does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. How and why the universe began is still largely a mystery. But a God does not appear to be necessary. Gods may be contingent on humans rather than humans being contingent on gods.

 

[firedragon]

So how do you define science, and what's the point to all of this?

Science does not work with truths. So rather than making claims like that, why not try to understand it better? I am no scientist so dont get me wrong, but this is philosophy of science.

Since you asked whats the point of all of this, it is because you brought it up Kfox.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the universe is necessary. You mean the universe in the beginning or as it exists now? If the universe is necessary, then everything in it is necessary, which means the earth is necessary, the stars are necessary, everything is necessary.

Can you concur or reject based on reason?

The universe as it began is necessary. Does that make the Earth necessary? I do not think so. The Earth is a result and not a necessity. The Earth is necessary for us, that is all that I said. If the Earth was not here we would not be here. The Earth is not needed for the universe to exist.

 

[firedragon]

There are still unknowns out there. And energy is one of them. To the best measurements possible the total energy of the universe is zero. There is both positive energy and negative energy and they appear to balance out. That means that a Universe From Nothing does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. How and why the universe began is still largely a mystery. But a God does not appear to be necessary. Gods may be contingent on humans rather than humans being contingent on gods.

So "energy" is a necessary being? Or as you said the universe is necessary?

Just saying "it appears to be" and making some statement about God needs humans is internet meme repetition. It is not relevant. But if that is the level of discussion then of course it is useless. So ciao.

 

[firedragon]

The universe as it began is necessary.

If it began how could it be necessary?

 

[Kfox]

Science does not work with truths.

I never said it did, I said it is something some people use to find truth. Now don’t get me wrong, not all truths, just stuff concerning the natural world. I think a better explanation would be, that it is the best information concerning the natural world that we have at the moment.

So rather than making claims like that, why not try to understand it better?

I suspect you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Again; how are you defining science?

Since you asked whats the point of all of this, it is because you brought it up Kfox.

No, the only thing I brought up was your claim that God was a necessary being; something you have yet to demonstrate

 

[firedragon]

I never said it did,

This was your statement Kfox: "Science is a system of study in an effort to find the truth."

 

[Kfox]

This was your statement Kfox: "Science is a system of study in an effort to find the truth."

Good. Now explain why you believe God to be a necessary being.

 

[firedragon]

Good. Now explain why you believe God to be a necessary being.

No problem.

What you must realise is that I did not claim "God is the necessary being" as evidence to anything. I was telling that gentleman that the God concept I adhere to is of the necessary being, not a God who appears on TV. So asking about a God who should appear on TV is a strawman. Try and understand what someone says, even if you dont agree with them.

I do believe that there is a necessary being and I infer that it is God. So qualify your question. Are you asking me to give you why I believe there is a necessary being? Or are you asking me "why this necessary being is God" to which question first one has to surpass the first question.