Everything we observe in the world is contingent; it exists, but it could have failed to exist.
Every contingent being requires an explanation or a cause for its existence.
The universe itself consists entirely of contingent beings.
If every contingent being depended on another contingent being for its existence, this chain of dependence could never ultimately explain why anything exists at all. Therefore, there must exist a being whose existence depends on nothing else.
Such a being is called a Necessary Being—one whose existence is intrinsic to its own nature and is not dependent on anything outside itself.
Welcome Smr, which deity specifically are we talking about? Only if it’s a generic question it seems like an untestable and therefore unfalsifiable concept.
Myths aren’t nothing. They are a very powerful tool used in the human community. Yes, they often result in damage if clung to so fiercely that reality is eschewed. But myths also have the potential to teach, help maintain and grow bonds, and assist us in navigating complex situations. Frequently, they provide answers where otherwise none are thought to exist.
That all being said, some folks seem to be so utterly committed to a myth that even in the face of verifiable contradiction, they cling to it.
History shows us, however, that given time, myths die out. IMO, there will likely always be groups of humans who have some sort of god mythology. The current ones may fade away but they will probably be others taking up the gauntlet.
IMO, god mythologies in particular provide a lot of comfort, excuses, answers, moral framework, and exclusivity’s for folks who are unable or unwilling to find or develop those things on their own.
Yes, I believe there are good reasons to think that God is not merely a myth.
As for which God, I am referring to Allah, although the discussion can begin with the general concept of God, since reason allows us to examine that concept before identifying which understanding of God is true.
Definition of God:
God (Allah) is a necessary, eternal, and self-sufficient being who is beyond matter, time, space, and any partner or equal. By definition, God is completely independent and in need of nothing, while everything else ultimately depends on Him for its existence.
I am identified as an agnostic atheist. As such, I have not reached any definitive conclusions regarding the existence of gods. I do not believe any exist and I freely admit I have no way of knowing if any do.
That being said, I’ve not encountered anything in my life that requires any gods. Additionally, those who do have gods, when asked, have not provided any reason I find compelling or any reliable, testable, repeatable demonstration that any of them exist other than in their imaginings.
Do you have any reasons or evidence for identifying yourself as an agnostic?
How is that possible? Human reason has a very broad capacity, and the claims and evidence presented by different religions can be critically examined and evaluated.
Have you ever had discussions with followers or scholars of any religion, or have you personally studied the evidence and arguments, yet still remained unconvinced?
I myself was once an agnostic atheist. However, as I continued to investigate the question, I found myself increasingly convinced that God exists. There is something deeply compelling and fascinating about this truth.
Do you have any reasons or evidence for identifying yourself as an agnostic?
How is that possible? Human reason has a very broad capacity, and the claims and evidence presented by different religions can be critically examined and evaluated.
Have you ever had discussions with followers or scholars of any religion, or have you personally studied the evidence and arguments, yet still remained unconvinced?
I myself was once an agnostic atheist. However, as I continued to investigate the question, I found myself increasingly convinced that God exists. There is something deeply compelling and fascinating about this truth.
Some people are able to engage with myth, ritual, etc., almost pretending or play acting it while still aware it IS just a story but getting benefit from it AS IF it were real. Same thing with peak experiences (things like religious ecstasy or alternate state of consciousness) – they engage in and enjoy it and even consider it indispensable to living a quality life, but on some level are aware of, and when pressed a little, will admit, that it’s just an emotional high that they can’t begin to prove to anyone that it has the claimed divine origin or basis.
But in my experience and observation, most religious people end up believing their own BS, then defending it as their very identity, and consider anyone who rejects it or (and this is really even worse for them usually) is indifferent to it, as their implacable enemy who must be subjugated or removed from their awareness (e.g., deported or imprisoned in a gulag).
Since the latter reaction is more common or at least more overall impactful than the former, I am very uncomfortable with such notions gaining any level of uncritical acceptance. It isn’t just harmless personal beliefs in all cases. It erodes the believer’s respect for believers of different persuasion, or the unpersuaded. And that erodes civil society.
Lol – your list yourself as agnostic in your profile. Assuming you were honest in using that label.
Not really. The majority of those claims are unfalsifiable by design.
I have even BEEN a scholar of a particular religion, but that’s not really necessary to critically assess the truth claims. Believers often fall back on this notion that an unbeliever can’t possibly understand the nuanced and beautifully logical views of a religious claim because they haven’t applied themselves to it. But in most cases, they are just unfalsifiable assertions so no matter how much effort goes into framing them, they are inherently dismissible.
You cannot poof a god into existence by just making a definition.
Here’s another definition that is equally non-valid:
Eric the rainbow-farting unicorn is a necessary, eternal, and self-sufficient being who is beyond matter, time, space, and any partner or equal. By definition, Eric is completely independent and in need of nothing, while everything else ultimately depend on him for its existence.
If you claim your Allah to exist through this kind of argumentation, then Eric also exists. And we could continue with Blurg the Allah-slayer, Wanda the Blurg-negator, and Bob the ultimatest mostest powerfullest god that outgods all the other gods. And in this way you can continue to build up an infinite pantheon of gods, each one more powerful than the other.
This is of course absurd. As is your definition of a god. The way to figure out whether there is a god or not is to empirically prove its existence. A definition such as the above is worthless.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I found it interesting.
However, wouldn’t you agree that your position raises an important question? If someone sincerely seeks the truth, shouldn’t they examine the claims of every religion with an open and critical mind instead of dismissing them without careful investigation?
May I also ask what reasons or evidence have convinced you that God does not exist? If you reject the existence of God, what is the foundation of that conclusion?
Very well.
In the end, it seems that you have acknowledged one important point: everything in the universe depends on something else for its existence.
Now, do Eric and the other fictional beings actually exist, or are they merely imaginary? What evidence do you have for their existence?
If you claim that such a being exists beyond matter, time, and space, then it too would require an explanation for why it exists rather than not. And if it depends on something else, then that “something” must be greater and more fundamental than it.
Ultimately, this chain of dependence cannot continue indefinitely. It must terminate in a reality that is independent, self-sufficient, and higher than everything else. That alone would be the true ultimate reality, while everything else would be dependent upon it.
I am not trying to prove the existence of the Creator merely by defining Him.
Let me ask you this: do reason, consciousness, or pain have material form? They do not. Yet they are not imaginary; they are real aspects of our experience.
By contrast, Eric and the other characters you mentioned are purely fictional. They have no objective existence. So how can you compare imaginary beings with the One who is claimed to be the Creator of reason itself?
Also, what evidence do you have that the universe came into existence without a Creator? On what basis do you conclude that the universe requires no necessary cause or ultimate explanation?
Finally, regarding Eric and the other fictional beings you mentioned, could you please provide the reference or source where that argument originated?
I am not trying to prove the existence of the Creator merely by defining Him.
Let me ask you this: do reason, consciousness, or pain have material form? They do not. Yet they are not imaginary; they are real aspects of our experience.
By contrast, Eric and the other characters you mentioned are purely fictional. They have no objective existence. So how can you compare imaginary beings with the One who is claimed to be the Creator of reason itself?
Also, what evidence do you have that the universe came into existence without a Creator? On what basis do you conclude that the universe requires no necessary cause or ultimate explanation?
Finally, regarding Eric and the other fictional beings you mentioned, could you please provide the reference or source where that argument originated?
No, I haven’t acknowledged anything. YOU made the claims that a god exists, so the burden of proof is on you. I have just pointed out the absurdness of the way you define and “evidence” your god. After all, I started by stating the following:
As you “define” something that is not evidenced, that kind of definition can be used to define anything. And that definition is worthless unless you can actually give empirical evidence to show that the entity actually exists, and that it has all the characteristics of your definition. By the way, how do you show that something is “beyond matter, time, space, and any partner or equal”? That is impossible. And you will have to evidence or prove that there are no other gods. Which is again impossible. Thus, your angle of approach is absurd.
