Is God Necessary? | Episode 607 | Closer To Truth

Whether God exists may depend on whether God is necessary. Even if God exists, would it have been possible for God not to exist? In other words, even if God does exist, could it have been otherwise? Featuring interviews with Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, Richard Swinburne, Bede Rundle, and David Shatz.
Season 6, Episode 7 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.*
#Philosophy #Theology

[@clive2296]

Closer to truth is, by far, the best content in the internet. Thank you make it free for us.

[@caspersneep6183]

Not a theist by any means but Richard Swinburne at least presents his arguments in a very clear and understandable way and I appreciate that.

[@suatustel746]

Swinburne doesn't give a leeway to manoeuvres in his mind, sounds to good to be true, before you asked the question he's answering already its a cocksure demaniour....

[@MasterKoala777]

Claiming that God is “factually necessary” doesn’t make sense. As Kuhn pointed out, “What does that mean?”

[@FourDeuce01]

@@MasterKoala777 Without proof it doesn’t mean much.😂

[@melgross]

Well, he’s a bit too straightforward. That is, his ideas are so absolutist. I often disagree. But this time, he leaves a crack. I find that both theists and philosophers assume a position, and make no allowances for anything else. ‘It’s true because I say it’s true” is their way, The statement that god is necessary is one of those arguments that doesn’t allow debate. It’s meaningless, of course, but it serves the purpose. No matter how one looks at it, if god does exist, which I don’t believe, it still doesn’t explain anything. We may never know what “brute fact” is the ultimate reality underlying life the universe and everything. For all we know “42” might be the correct answer.

[@FourDeuce01]

@@melgross Good philosophers don’t do that.

[@garybalatennis]

Whether or not God actually exists, one thing we know. Man needs a God. For Man, God is necessary. Too much suffering, too much pain.

[@williamburts5495]

Since to be an absolute truth everything would have to depend on you I would say God is absolutely necessary if he is absolute truth.

[@Elaphe472]

We are like little kids who cannot be "alone" and without explanations; we must cling to fantasies for protection; we create images that gives us confort, serenity. Fantasies that solves the problem of death and injustice. We deceive ourself; so God. And "he" will have different stories and attributes according to moment in history and place in the world.

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

Genetic fallacy.

[@tylerpedersen9836]

Many cling to the fantasy that they are autonomous and that they will not be held accountable for their sins in this life.

[@Elaphe472]

@@tylerpedersen9836 including your sins.

[@Elaphe472]

@@tylerpedersen9836 Are you a sinner, Tyler? Did you have sex outside marriage? Do you lie? Do you envy others? Are you sure you worship the right god? Are you sure you can talk about god? Clean your own house before you play the monk. You are as much of a sinner as anybody else.

[@tylerpedersen9836]

@@Elaphe472 Yes, of course I am a sinner; a big one, as a matter of fact. I would never deny that (as much as I am tempted to have a higher estimation of myself than I should!). My point was an observation and a recognition of a tendency I believe all people have, but which to my mind is the fundamental unvoiced motivation of atheism: to rid oneself of knowledge of God (insofar as possible) so as to free oneself from His moral constraints and to pacify and excuse one's conscience for wrongful deeds. It's a temptation I share and that I have to resist by the power of the Spirit. I was making the same observation that John makes in His gospel: "This is the verdict: light has come into the world and men have loved darkness more than the light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:18

[@935pm2]

To me God's existence and God's non-existence are equally perplexing propositions.

[@Quidisi]

Fuuuuuuuck! I'm still grappling with, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[@myexisnotalone6902]

God is all we ever need

[@theoskeptomai2535]

What purpose is a mythological god?

[@myexisnotalone6902]

@@theoskeptomai2535 God has mysterious ways of showing purpose, what is myth for you is faith for me

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@myexisnotalone6902 And how did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned exists?

[@myexisnotalone6902]

@@theoskeptomai2535it's educational, cultural, spiritual, not everything that is known arises from conclusions but comes by heritage

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@myexisnotalone6902 So, how did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned exists?

[@bruceylwang]

The answer is in your Mind.

[@ashley_brown6106]

God is BY DEFINITION a necessary being. Otherwise He wouldn't be God.

[@cam553]

That’s the extent of your logic? Try, god is by definition, man-made.

[@joeprogrock]

Love you work Robert!

[@lauricetork2747]

i loved the discussions in this episode very much

[@spikespiegel9919]

The mental gymnastics of that swineburn guy are very strong

[@bd-hp5ob]

No one can break my heart like God can. God knows.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I hope your heart can begin to heal.

[@bd-hp5ob]

@Truth Seeker who's 52 years of age?

[@bd-hp5ob]

And who said anything about committing suicide?

[@josephhruby3225]

Excellent segment

[@Elaphe472]

I rather accept the Mystery than mystical man-made stories.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Great comment. I think I'm going to steal it and claim it as my own. 😉

[@ferdinandkraft857]

@@theoskeptomai2535 Wait, are you going to steal my comment?

[@Elaphe472]

@@theoskeptomai2535 Please do.

[@suatustel746]

Then you're close to be Agnostic... They're permanently in a limbo state , there'd to be self subsistent things exist the problem is how do we reconcile brute facts with abstract entities?

[@Elaphe472]

@@suatustel746 I don't know if I can be an agnostic since I can't help to see such connotation as a contradiction. If I suspend any conclusion about ultimate reality because "I don't know", then as well I don't know if someone does know. Maybe there is a woman in a coffee shop late at night looking through the window, and she "sees" a spark... that I can't see. Or maybe there is a monk up some cave who knows something... that I don't know... Or, maybe there is nothing to (be) known... But whatever made This, is capable of making it. ¿Alah, Yaweeh, a cosmic Accident, the Christian god; natural laws...? The mystery is a mystery up to a point since whatever that mystery is, is capable of creating a Universe with little creatures walking on a beautiful pebble. Like Camus said, Humans are the only entities that need to find meaning for their existence; and I shall add, if we don't find it, we make it up. The only thing that I am totally sure of, is that I can't believe in something that is contradictory, like a loving god who will punish me for not believing in him -since It is most natural to be confused amongst so many boats setting sail towards so many different ports, with all these angry gods ready to punish those who worship "false" deities. I rather be in a sincere limbo than pretend knowing what spiritual authorities are talking about. Too much talk fogs my eyeglasses.

[@clintonjesse6702]

this video is gold

[@Quidisi]

If you listen to this video at 1.5x speed, with vodka, your head will explode! If you listen to this video at 1.0x speed, without vodka, your head will still explode!

[@unzarjones]

If you watch it smoking weed, you'll rewatch it three more times.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

"Is it all word play, tricks with language to erect a preemptive wall of rationalization?" If a belief in god's existence is only based on word-play, then it's just a self-deceptive rationalization.

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

Agreed

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@Mystic0Dreamer Wow.... that's the shortest comment I've ever read by you. Hahaha... Hope you are doing well. John in Florida

[@justinrozario2003]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 you two know each other? How do two strangers on utube know each other??

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@justinrozario2003 Well... sort of. Mystic Dreamer and I have had conversations on KZbin many times.

[@justinrozario2003]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 intersting stuff

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Richard Swinburne is one of my favorites to listen to here on CTT. Regarding the TITLE "God". -- would the big bang not be: in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. The logos. GOD: creation, light, manifestation, form, unity, definition, emotion, expression -- all that is. Source. God is definition in the universe. God is knowing himself through us also -- we are God. Experiencing creation is... we are co creators. We are part of sonething far greater than most can comprehend.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@Andreaz-64 shut up silly woman. Know your place -- you were suppose to bring out the Divinity in man but know you walk around with a stap on thinking you're one with the dudes.

[@jdc7923]

My gut feeling is that the classic question: "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" is not formulated correctly. I think it should instead be formulated : "Why does this something exist, rather than some other something?" I think if we could see deeply enough into the first question (I don't know if we ever will be able to), we would see that it would be self-contradictory for nothing to exist. Consider the proposition: "Nothing exists." Where would the proposition be true? There would be no framework of existence within which it was true. What, within "The Field of Reality"?? If nothing exists, no reality would exist, no proposition could be true or false.

[@danielogwara3984]

The trick is that, nothing is both NOTHING and SOMETHING at the same time.

[@stunningkruger]

@@danielogwara3984 the whole is the hole is the whole? The-O (the magic circle)? allow me to share with you an on-line interaction i had with someone back in 2013 : “the present exists as absolute zero. Everything in between (i.e. the past) exists as a probability that depends on the observers, and the probability can influence the future. But the present cannot be measured. The present is absolute zero. And yet, the present is all that is true. Thus, nothing is true. So everything is permitted. From zero point forward, there is infinity, any number of probabilities, depending on the observers. But always, the present will be zero (i.e. the beginning, and then, again, infinity). If you understand that, you will see how free will and destiny co-exist, and you will see how The Program (with the help of its observers) can manipulate reality. You will see how so many people can actually believe that (to cite just one example) the Boston Bombing involved thousands of conspirators and crisis actors— an impossibility— while everyone else believes that a guy named Joker (Dzhokhar) and his brother did it (i.e. also not true). Welcome to The Program.

[@Emilnananaxo]

thanks. this made me think

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

The God of the theists is the ultimate internet Nigerian prince.

[@BugRib]

What about the God of the philosophers?

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

@@BugRib As John the evangelist told us, "In the begining was the Word." Yes, God was spoken into being by the philosophers.

[@saadessadeg5195]

Their God is their Ego my friend, they can not accept that they are just a creation!

[@D.A.-Espada]

Then you didn't understand what these men were saying. You're not close to being close

[@highground3609]

This broke my brain 😵‍💫

[@donaldmcronald8989]

God has the attribute of good. Phew!

[@Mustachioed_Mollusk]

Could have negative attributes. Like the farmer who raises, protects and love their heard before mysteriously cutting them down for their true purpose.

[@Monster_Mover_Stocks]

These questions make my brain hurt.

[@guff9567]

Why? There is zero evidence of God

[@hello_world_0]

Even if God indeed does not exist still you brain hurts. How matter first existed? What happened before Big Bang? Why it existed at all?

[@suatustel746]

@@hello_world_0 because you've disadvantages "you're mortal"

[@suatustel746]

@@hello_world_0 simple has got to be brute fact there's self subsistent things exists, the problem is how do we reconcile self subsistent things with abstract entities, if you can not stretch the contingent chain of events to infinity why not stretch to necessary chain of events infinite past...

[@Monster_Mover_Stocks]

@@abrahamgonzalez2061 And you know this because you read a book written by men from long ago. Good for you (pats you on the head and gives you a cookie).

[@junevandermark952]

I suggest that it is only because humans are so harsh and judgmental of each other, that so many are willing to place faith in the existence of a harsh and judge-mental god.

[@Lukas-cm2b]

i love the intro melody :P good choice

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Of course the life, the living, the self, the subject of knowledge exists nessecary!

[@Ndo01]

Necessity is a relational concept that only applies to things that are dependent on causality. God/the universe/reality simply exist uncaused. There can be no necessity for something that simply is. Even if God exists, he would only be necessary for things dependent on his chain of causality. God himself however would not be necessary.

[@MadderMel]

Does anyone know if Swinburne has debated anyone about the existence of God ? And is it online anywhere ? It's just that he seems incredibly self assured !

[@mr.cosmos5199]

God is laughing at our wondering!

[@publiusovidius7386]

Nice attempt at myth making!

[@IlluminatedGame]

Did he also laugh during the holocaust?

[@mr.cosmos5199]

IlluminatedGame Only at those conspiring evil against Him.

[@suatustel746]

I could have created a better world...

[@suatustel746]

@@mr.cosmos5199 l'm afraid your excuse let you down!!!

[@tinetannies4637]

The concept of "god" just moves the deck chairs around: Q: What created existence? A: God. Q: Then what created God? A: Nothing, God is eternal. Q: Then why can't existence itself be eternal? A: We need more deck chairs. "God" is essentially a conceptual distillation of the infinite into the finite -- of a single "something" beyond the boundaries of existence that created existence. But this only works if the same questions that are applied to existence aren't equally applied to God.

[@BugRib]

As a hardcore atheist since age twelve, I never thought I'd be able to appreciate episodes like this. But I actually think it would be a shame if this kind of intellectual activity were to disappear. I think that metaphysics, even of the religious variety, is worth doing for a number of reasons, not the least of which that it's not inconceivable that it could eventually lead to some falsifiable theories. For instance, there are aspects of quantum mechanics that seem to fit better with an idealist metaphysics than materialism. Probably not going to get my wish, but an episode on secular teleology, à la Thomas Nagel's later works, could be interesting. Also, I'd love to see new "internet video conference" long-form interviews with some of the new wave of philosophers of mind, such as Bernardo Kastrup, Philip Goff, Luke Roelofs, Hedda Hassel Mørch, and others. I'm sure any and all of them would be thrilled to be interviewed by Mr. Kuhn!

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I like to listen to Bernardo Kastrup too although I sometimes can't understand his ideas. But I'm glad you accept metaphysics. I never knew what Metaphysics meant until recently, and I'm 67 !

[@BugRib]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 - Yeah, me neither. I didn’t realize how closely tied metaphysics was with the seemingly intractable mystery of subjective, first-person experience. It all starts with consciousness! And I didn’t get interested until this year, and I’m 44! But I noticed that there was a “Hard Problem” of consciousness in my early thirties one day just out of the blue (before I’d ever heard of the “Hard Problem”). And I’ve been fascinated with consciousness ever since. I really only gave up on materialism/physicalism this year. I actually think “Closer to Truth” might have played a role. It definitely revitalized my interest in consciousness!

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@BugRib Thanks for sharing. I hope you don't mind me saying that I'm a "questioning Christian." Do you find your ideas about "consciousness" correlate with being an atheist? Anyhow... I also wish Mr Kuhn would interview Bernardo Kastrup. Consciousness fascinates me too, although not to the extent that Mr Kuhn seems to hold. I've always believed ( I think ) that there is more to reality than just "materialism." But we are all on a journey to find the answers. So first we explore the questions and sometimes the questions never cease. Right?

[@BugRib]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 - The existence of consciousness leads me to believe either that we have (or rather, are) souls, or there’s some kind of “cosmic mind” or “universal consciousness” of which our individual consciousnesses are derived. Bernardo Kastrup has definitely convinced me that idealism at least isn’t a crazy idea. Somehow or another, I believe that consciousness must be THE ontological primitive, the most fundamental aspect of reality. But even if there is a cosmic mind, I wouldn’t exactly consider that to be God. So I think I’d still consider myself an atheist.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@BugRib Thanks for your honest comments. You mentioned "souls", so do you believe we possibly have souls that can/will exist eternally? I agree with you regarding consciousness. I think God gave us consciousness when He created us in His image. So God must indeed be some kind of "cosmic mind" if I can call Him such. What do you think about the stories of Jesus? John

[@paulweston2267]

As I sit here watching this video, I know that 99.9999% of this chair is nothingness. Yet it holds me up. How can this be? Because I myself am 99.9999% nothingness. So exactly what IS reality? Conventional explanations of both Christianity and Atheism are meeting a brick wall. Lao Tzu is a good starting point. But if you ever truly want to be "Closer to Truth", you need to interview Tom Campbell. No human has all the marbles, but he has come closer than anybody else, ever.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

We have no other light in thinking! But God is not necessary, because this would be a proof, and a proof would destroy the future realm of freedom!

[@paulbolton4929]

Knowing god exists is not a inhibitor to freedom. Satan knows god exists and chooses not to follow.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

@@paulbolton4929 It's about the "paradise", this future realm of freedom and god, would be destroyed or could not evolve as such, if we are forced to it by a proof for this goal! ✌️

[@somethingyousaid5059]

I guess theoretically it's about an ultimate default isn't it. Okay fine, but what the hell would that have been? An eternally existent uncaused first cause agent (aka "God") that at some point caused a first effect that could never have been caused without the existence of that uncaused first cause agent? It's impossible to either prove or disprove that. My existential frustration is incredible. lol

[@danielogwara3984]

It’s possible to prove it if you look at reality from a mathematical stand point and if you use reason and logic. Nothing = 0 in mathematics. But the trick is, zero is both NOTHING and SOMETHING at the same time. The answer is in understanding the true nature of 0. Zero encapsulates all base real and imaginary numbers. This is what makes 0 something. Reality is possible by the interaction of these bases real and imaginary numbers, as they in turn create complex numbers which becomes the physical universe.

[@stunningkruger]

the first caused is the first cost. everyone pays to play

[@dewittreeve4345]

I don’t see how any there possible gods could have anything to do with religions as understood in the churches that exist.

[@cvsree]

God is necessary for what? There is nothing other than God. We live in lower level of Consciousness called Mind. Mind can be used to find reality with practice of self Inquiry.

[@TimCrinion]

The ontological argument is the technical version of God's name "I am".

[@markaponte7057]

Sophistry at itsbest

[@ericjohnson6665]

Belief in God is not necessary while we're mortals... but if we want a creation, we don't get that without a creator. So "necessary" how?

[@markaponte7057]

If there is a god then there's millions of God's

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

God is necessary for things, people and spirit to experience. God is necessary because he exists, not as much God exists because he is necessary. God experiences existence.

[@russellgehue5084]

There is no greater universe of discourse than that which is called “Being”, for it entails all that is. Therefore, of all the conceivable universes of discourse Being alone has no complementary opposite, for there is no greater universe wherein those complementary opposites might complete one another. Still, the force of linguistic habit impels the uncritical mind to think that there is both Being (what is) and Non-being (what is not). In truth, however, the law of identity tells us that “what is” is and “what is not” is not, and the law of non-contradiction prohibits us from asserting that “what is not” is. It follows then that Being is because it is possible for Being to be, whereas it is not possible for Non-Being to be.

[@kimsahl8555]

God exist, but the laws of Nature is necessary.

[@1974jrod]

Yes

[@Elaphe472]

If the cake needs a baker, why the baker doesn't need a cause. Religions and gods shows how much our imagination and fantasies can strech.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

What you see in science, looking back into the past, seeing only unpersonal forces there, this is only the "dead corpse", like Nietzsche explained, the real living (the creator) is no longer in it! God is life itself, organizing itself, can pull itself even out of the nothing. For this we are something like living "building bricks", like in Bible explained. And everyone has to work for god, even if he not want to.☝️

[@Westrwjr]

This Episode, more than any other I’ve seen (several hundred out of a total > 5,000), is most persuasive of the view that Dr. Kuhn’s goal of convincingly deciding between God vs eternal non-contingent universes (or else “Consciousness”), is presently unattainable. Thus, theists and atheists will continue to occupy their separate camps, with the entire matter being decided by, you guessed it, ‘Faith’. That’s a lot of time and effort (money) devoted to coming full circle. But, I suppose it was necessary to do that, anyhow.

[@wingsuiter2392]

Any being powerful enough to create a universe, such as the one in which we find ourselves living, would not be as self-obsorbed as any god that our Civilization has created, especially the Judeo-christian, Islamic god.

[@faisalqureshi1596]

Abrahimic God you mean, God is not self absorbed ...God just elucidated the reality...that reality is bitter to many!

[@TheQuranExplainsItself]

Quote a single verse in the Quran u can criticise.

[@infinitemonkey917]

@@faisalqureshi1596 Umm, the first 4 commandments are entirely about the god's vanity. That is self absorbed.

[@wingsuiter2392]

@@TheQuranExplainsItself the god of the Quran commands its people to pray to pray to it five times a day...this is self-absorption by definition. If you want to talk about horrible or factual inaccurate verses in the Quran, we can. It's not going to end well for Islam.

[@TheQuranExplainsItself]

@@wingsuiter2392 wrong! The Quran doesn’t talk about rituals of any kind. The Quran doesn’t even promote a religion. Hadiiths is where u get the organised religion not the Quran. Not a single person can find a single quote in the Quran they can critique not 1. Challenge all of y’all!

[@deepakkapurvirtualclass]

1. God's necessity means that He 'had' to exist. From this, it seems that there is some law/principle that ensures that God 'had' to exist. So, this law/principle seems to be above God in the sense that it 'ensures' the necessity of God/numbers. 2. Another view point is that God's necessity is a 'brute fact'. Well, then our universe is also a 'brute fact'. So, why give preference to 'God's necessity' over the 'necessity of our universe'.

[@dionmartin74]

It seems to me that it is necessary that someone explain to these learned gentleman what "begging the question" means. You'd think that would have been covered in the same university courses that taught them what "logically necessary" means, but apparently not.

[@bhoysofglencoe]

I think you need God it is someone to cling to for the People in trying times as well as good times!! "keep God" mikeeybhoy.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

„God“ is the life itself („I am the life!“), it is the real „living“, that is able to pull itself even out of the nothing and organize itself („Now I want to stand up!“)(that means "from eternity to eternity"), and which once will be in full glory and greatness („I am what will be!“) (theol. „advent of God“, philos. „arrival of being“) with all the promised capabilities, the life, that created us, but for that we are something like living „building bricks“, everybody has to work for that goal, if you want or not. So I recommend with Newton: „Be careful with your hasty judgements and conclusions about the future abilities of the mind [or the life]! God is the point, with Max Planck explained, where science and religion will meet! ✌️

[@mdragon99]

If something exists it is not nothing. Therefore nothing can not exist and existence is something. Now toke deeply and ponder.

[@cam553]

You’ll only get to reincarnation that way. But of course, the next life wouldn’t be you.

[@-undecided-1663]

If God always has the same design, because he knows all (omniscient) and has perfect morality (omnibenevolent), and will always realise that design (omnipotent) then surely that would make our world the only possible one

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

But why would God have the "same design"? Do you mean would God use the same "design" in any and all of His creations?

[@andrewwhite6]

Great subject matter! Seriously though, how much money do you need! Way too many adds and your background music levels need serious attention.

[@bipolarbear9917]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE)

[@AtheistCook]

The observer that observes reality is necesary, i do not think an invisible friend with superpowers is necesary.

[@MrRamon2004]

Yes he’s there, tried to imagine you will be amazing. We are light.

[@ingenuity168]

Man's sense of justice needs god to be the judge for human sense of ethics and morals. The fear of non existence led to Man's creation of a god who has a heaven and hell.

[@MegaCrash88]

Dear Robert, I admire your work, I truly do. I see how curious your mind is and how hungry your soul is to find answers to those brain-penetrating questions. When it comes to the questions like existence/experience of God, wouldn't it be more informative to interview Muslim scholars, philosophers as well. Just to see their point of view on those deep matters. I'm not a religious person. I wonder what their interpretations are and how different they think. I'm new to your channel and haven't seen all of your works yet. Please excuse my curiosity and accept my admiration. I wish you every success!

[@slash196]

People keep telling me god is necessary but I can never get a straight answer as to why.

[@suatustel746]

If God is necessary being consecutively we're necessary beings as well to complete big picture

[@jesseburstrom5920]

In math famously they construct more complexity to 'bat out against' famously the dynamics of Euclid is impossible to resolve even proven to be not resolvable unless restrictions. So as the discussion is resolved in low level we need to expand the platform to see how. But the syllogism of math is maybe good enough. I believe a structure of infinite growth is necessary to explain God.

[@ferdinandkraft857]

What?

[@alimulla6819]

Everything functions by its own laws to the atoms . Quantum entanglement must have its own functions according to its own laws whether we understand or not , find it spooky or mysterious does not undermine this concept . The intelligent behind this is god, it proves to be perfect regardless of light years difference of the two particles having simultaneous communications to determine the other

[@misterhill5598]

Yes necessary. We created God to entertain ourselves when we are bored. We create another God when we are scared to give us hope and feel less scared. we create different gods for different needs. We made team leader gods. We made a nation a gods. We even merged many gods into one. We are so clever.

[@jeanavo3865]

If you don't believe in Jesus Christ , you Forsaken your own Mercy.

[@misterhill5598]

@@jeanavo3865 meh. There are more than 400 millions gods to chose from. Your little God will need to get in line.

[@barnabyrt1012]

11:37 who created God is a stupid question.

[@frrankdesilva6504]

God is the set of all thoughts. As thoughts exist God must necessarily exit.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Did you meant "God must necessarily EXIST" or did you actually mean to say "exit"? If so, that changes the whole perception of your statement !

[@frrankdesilva6504]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Thanks typo. just corrected. lol

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@frrankdesilva6504 I'm glad we can both laugh over the typo !

[@Ndo01]

So God is contingent on the set of all thoughts? If we wiped out every conscious being in reality, we would erase God?

[@frrankdesilva6504]

@@Ndo01 Not just all active in some conscious entity but both active and possible. You will note the set of all thoughts is God as it satisfies all of the attributes expected of God. 1. The concept of God entails a single entity (One set) that has the following properties 2. Wisdom: The set of all thoughts will contain the perfect answer to every possible question 3. Infinitude: The set of all thoughts will have an infinite amount of thoughts 4. Sovereignty: There can be no thought that is not an element of the set of thoughts 5. Omniscience: The set of thought is all knowing as it contains all thoughts. If Mathematical Platonism (plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/) which is the view that mathematical concepts exist eternally. Then God must exist.

[@jesseburstrom5920]

Referring to thought about consciousness is part of life not evolution is more complicated. Say Maybe there is life not conscious which means need of exclusion.

[@nightoftheworld]

23:14 “My question about this is whether being a _necessary_ being and existing in all possible worlds is really a quality that somehow enhances your greatness or enhances your perfection?” G.K. Chesterton, _Orthodoxy:_ “That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already, but that God could have His back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents forever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point -- and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologize in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in the terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.”

[@dottedrhino]

"Something is necessary", at least because we observe that there is LOL.

[@joerocket1977]

To the final statement, why not all three?

[@raymondpiper8294]

We can never know if there is a God . If he is to be founf it is only in the searching for it but without ever finding it. It is in the possibility hinted at by the mystics and Prophits ,a hope not a fact . Without hope we are dead.

[@jakubkusmierczak695]

For revenge.

[@j.dragon651]

The creation is the creator. It doesn't need a god.

[@suatustel746]

Tautology..

[@waerlogauk]

So God is the 'Supreme terminus of explanation' about which definitionally we can know nothing. Thus God is a pointless concept the reality of which is irrelevant.

[@ashley_brown6106]

God is literally the most deep concept you could ever think of. His reality shapes OUR reality 100%. If there is a God EVERYTHING changes. Your logic makes no sense.

[@aj-font]

I have a hard time understanding the non circularity of the modal ontological argument: If someone says it’s possible that the greatest being exists, that is saying that the greatest being exists in at least one possible world. But for the greatest being to exist in one possible world implies that it exists in all possible worlds because that’s what a greatest being is. Reformed epistemology seems entirely circular. If you define God as necessary, then saying he is possible is saying he exists. It seems like I can define anything I want to exist that way by that logic. Furthermore, 7+5 follows from the axioms of arithmetic. They follow from the rules of a logical system of symbol manipulation. They follow necessarily from the premises. So the analogy that god is like mathematical addition seems a little off; because the former follows from axioms and the latter is simply an assertion. Also, theism is not a system of arbitrary symbol manipulation. To define god as necessary is arbitrary and to compare the property of existence to something like algebraic statements following from axioms is simply misguided and misleading.

[@aj-font]

If a theist wants to take as axiomatic gods existence, be my guest. I reject those axioms and now we are back to square one.

[@brudno1333]

So, if there is a god, does that god have parents? If not then how did god come to be? If god always existed, that would mean that he existed before the universe came to be. Would the place where god existed before the universe came to be still be around? Where is it, and how did that place come to be? Did someone else cause that place to exist, or did god cause it to exist? What does the Christian god use for power? If god caused the universe to come about, he must have generated a massive burst of power. Where did the power come from? Is it all just magic? Seems like the full explanation of god would be more complex that the explanation of the universe from zip to now. Where is the proof? Where is the god? If neither can be observed, one must conclude that it doesn't exist.

[@brudno1333]

@@realitycheck1231 Interesting. So in your telling, God is a thought creation of the intelligent mind. Don't think I can disagree.

[@simianbarcode3011]

I can label ANY imaginary being as "necessary", but that doesn't mean it actually exists, or performs miracles, or answers my prayers, or whispers into the minds of people as they write stuff down, or cares about what rituals we perform, or provides rewards or punishments in an afterlife, or anything else. That imaginary being can be assigned ANY name or set of characteristics and motivations, even arbitrarily defining it as "necessary", and nothing will have changed. "God", "Allah", "Krishna", "Odin", "Gandalf", "Spider-Man"... the only difference they make is in the minds of those who imagine their stories.

[@thejamesmcgrath]

I guess not, but then... how come why what is all the stuff??

[@hello_world_0]

Exactly..in the end there is always the ultimate question like this. Maybe God/Religion is just an answer/solution we made up due to our incapability to tackle to tackle the real questions

[@rudy8278]

Is a tree "created" or does it simply arise from natural circumstances?

[@rudy8278]

There is intentional cause and natural cause. Our universe may have become from the natural processes of the underlying reality, which seems to be an existential necessity. So, "God" may not be the "creator," but rather the natural cause of any universe.

[@nayanmipun6784]

Scientific evidence of after life made me belive in God more

[@cam553]

There is none.

[@nayanmipun6784]

@@cam553 none what? You may be the pro abortion leftist feminist

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

Robert Kuhn offers 3 choices as the answer. 1. The Laws of Physics This is my answer. However, I probably see the phrase "The Laws of Physics" to mean something quite different from what Dr. Kuhn may think of them. I don't see physics following or obeying any laws. Instead, what we are calling the laws of physics are simply our best description of how physical existence behaves. So there is no need for any "laws". All that exists is the behavior of the necessary foundation of all that exists. That behavior simply is what it is. It's not following any "laws". So, for me, the answer may simply be that something like quantum fields always exist and they are their existence has no explanation. 2. Consciousness. I don't bother considering this idea on a primordial level because I see consciousness as something that arises in the macro universe. In fact, as far as we can tell it takes billions of years to evolve. So it doesn't appear to have any primordial or necessary existence. Consciousness is most likely a contingent attribute of a macro world. 3. God. What does this term even mean? Why not just call the quantum fields "God"? What does this label add to anything? The idea of a primordial anthropomorphic conscious being who has all the typical human flaws like desire, a need to design something, or entertain itself, or rule over lesser beings that it creates? Seems to me a non-conscious quantum field as the foundation of all existence makes more sense. I might suggest as well, that all the theologians who claim that God must be omnipotent, omniscience, all perfect, all good, etc., seem to be ignoring that in their theologies their God must also have a myriad of human traits that we would consider to be serious character flaws. So their arguments for a perfect being who has character flaws simply doesn't make any sense. At least a primordial quantum field doesn't have character flaws as it has no sentient character. So it seems like a more plausible candidate from my perspective.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Your views on the "Laws of Physics" are interesting. But don't all science textbooks teach the "Laws of Physics"? Remember I'm getting old so maybe the textbooks have dropped the necessity of teaching such "laws."

[@adilabdurahman5846]

If God doesn't exist, then humans are very much able to make a Universe, make it like right now.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

That is one whopper of a _non sequitur_ fallacy. May I save it as an example of what idiots have stated?

[@adilabdurahman5846]

@@theoskeptomai2535 I may be an idiot but I don't think I am as much an idiot as one who's incapable of achieving what was already achieved in the total absence of intelligence.

[@Renato404]

God's necessity is just another one of those characteristics that god has because theists need that to be so. It all starts with possibility: is it possible that god exists? Sure. It is equally possible that god doesn't exist and the entire argument falls apart.

[@Renato404]

@Andrew Miles lol, you've got to make it sound harder than it is. Wouldn't want to jump to conclusions right on the first day. So you jump to conclusions 2000 years later... and hope nobody notices it. If they do notice it, you dazzle them with tons of useless information gathered meanwhile.

[@suatustel746]

Richard adamant, whatever the question he's facing, he doesn't give any leeway even he might be marginally over indulgent this essential being existence, my question is why can't we pluralise the concept of deity since they aren't accountable their existence..

[@nahCmeR]

Short answer: Nope Long answer: Never has been never will be.

[@ayushdeep7900]

Lmao

[@Dion_Mustard]

Surely "god" and faith are vital to some people? Many people worship "god" more than their own children, which is sad, but true. So short answer YES (for some) PS I have no belief in god. I am talking in general terms.

[@nahCmeR]

Live Life if he’s only necessary for some and not all short answers still no since people can live their lives without him. He’s still not necessary.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@nahCmeR he?

[@clamebuc1007]

Robert, One of these days you are going to have a rude shake up awakening. When it happens, let also know!

[@davecurry8305]

Is god a be able.

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

Nope, but Spider-Man is!

[@ikaeksen]

21:36 glasses?

[@FourDeuce01]

It’s not a good sign when the first line is a lie.🔥 You can’t get closer to truth by lying.

[@DestroManiak]

Being religious and being interested in spirituality are different things.

[@FourDeuce01]

@@DestroManiak Being interested in spirituality seems to be a meaningless statement.😏

[@ashley_brown6106]

@@FourDeuce01 how is it meaningless? It's literally the deepest amd most meaningful thing you can be interested in

[@FourDeuce01]

@@ashley_brown6106 Is that why no two people seem able to agree on what it means?😂

[@alikarimi-langroodi5402]

The real question is 'Are we necessary?' The answer is 'No, by the look of it'. We would be necessary if we all diverge as one. But that is not how God created us - to be like other animals. No bee, ant, etc does its own thing. You only have to look at spiders who rely on the wind to survive - land somewhere for the next meal.

[@jesusbermudez6775]

God has asked me to tell you this story "A naïve man who spent his time helping people and lived in a wealthy city distanced himself to a mountainous land. On his way there he kept helping people. He then falls ill and these thoughts come to him: What will I do afterwards? I will go to the top of the mountain and let the vultures eat me; I want no riches of this world; I am going to help my father, and I can work. He then goes back to the wealthy and miraculously finds work that allows to come out of his illness. He then understands. The vultures are the people he attracted and due to being naïve he did not know he attracted; he wants no riches of this world because he is human values in particular he is humble the greatest of virtues. He helps his father to die without suffering, and he works. In short God does exist and it is necessary so that we live peacefully. This story explains the purpose of life.

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

I disagree with the reference to 2+2=4 as being a brute fact, or a necessary truth. All of our mathematical formalism is actually contingent on how we have defined it. These philosophers and theologians have the mistaken belief that mathematics exists independent of human invention. They wrongfully assume that mathematics must always be true whether our universe exists or not. But that's actually already a flawed conclusions. In fact, 2+2=4 may very well be contingent on the existence of our specific universe. In other universes 2+2=4 may simply not apply, it's not only false in those case, but it's even meaningless.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Hmmm... but don't our math textbooks teach 2+2 = 4 as a "brute fact"? Or have our math books changed since I attended school? ( I'm 67.... ughhh ). However I do like your statement "... 2+2=4 may be contingent on the existence of our specific universe." That is very interesting. So do you see all abstract stuff and material stuff as being contingent on our universe? Are you implying that numbers themselves may be "meaningless" in other universes? Maybe that's why we are still waiting for any extraterrestrial life to visit us.. They have no way to calculate the distance between earth and their own own planet !

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 "Hmmm... but don't our math textbooks teach 2+2 = 4 as a 'brute fact'?" No, actually they don't. Although, having said that, it could be argued that they might teach this to be a 'brute fact' once the axioms of mathematics have been accepted. But then you have a fact that is contingent on the axioms of mathematics, That then becomes a contingent fact. In fact, 2+2=4 is actually contingent on more than just the axioms of mathematics. It's also contingent on accepting the rules of addition as well as our cardinal definition of number. We actually invented all these things concepts. You ask, "So do you see all abstract stuff and material stuff as being contingent on our universe?" That's a very deep question, because we are the ones who claim that the concept of number is 'abstract'. I actually disagree with our human-invented mathematical formalism. It has some things 'correct' in that they do indeed reflect physical properties of our universe, but it has other things 'incorrect' in that they do not reflect the quantitative properties of our universe. I even hold that if there are intelligent aliens in other parts of the universe they would disagree with our mathematical formalism and have a formalism which is different from ours. And yes, I did just say that I believe our mathematical formalism to have major problems and be incorrect in some areas. The reason it works so well in practice is because engineers actually ignore the parts of mathematics that don't reflect reality. On a final notes, keep in mind that our mathematical description of our universe does not correctly describe our universe. If our universe had to obey our rules of mathematics it would crash and burn,. You ask, "Are you implying that numbers themselves may be "meaningless" in other universes?" Yes. That, of course, depends on the composition of the other universe. I can't imagine life existing in a universe where numbers aren't meaningful. However, I can imagine life in another universe that has numbers that are dramatically different from ours. Perhaps were 2+2 might equal 8, or even potentially have multiple outcomes depending on what 2 objects are being added together. Our mathematical formalism has separated the concept of 2 from the objects that are being quantitatively represented. In our universe that just happens to work our fairly well, because in our universe it would be rare to add 2 objects together and end up with more or less than 4. Although, this isn't always true For example if we add 2 drops of water to 2 drops of water, we end up with 1 larger drop of water. In this case 2+2=1. So there are even instances within our own universe where 2+2+4 does not hold. One could argue that it's not fair comparing small drops of water with a large drop of water because they aren't the same thing. But then we end up with the following: 2+2=0 2 small drops + 2 small drops = 0 small drops. Because once they are added together the small drops disappear and become 1 large drop. In fact, notice here that I have given an example of why engineers often ignore mathematics because they can see that it doesn't apply to these situations. Instead, to try to make the math work then need to change to talking about different 'units'. So in order to make our mathematics work engineers need to keep inventing new 'units' to quantity. So 2+2=4 is far from a 'brute fact'. In the real world it's highly contingent on how we are defining the quantitative properties that we are working with. It only seems like a brute fact when we ignore that mathematics is about quantitative relationships and pretend that it's just about abstract symbols

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@Mystic0Dreamer Thanks for sharing about "math" and "brute facts." Did you comment once that you taught math, or was it "logic'? I like your examples, especially the drops of water. Now it makes sense to me ( and I'm not mathematically-minded). I guess it's just "weird" for us humans to imagine number functions as NOT brute facts. I like your idea of "contingent facts." What do you mean by "mathematical formalism"? Also, why do you say that "If our universe had to obey our rules of mathematics it would crash and burn"? I've never heard that before. I appreciate all the time you take to reply back. John in Florida

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

​@@johnbrzykcy3076 Thanks for the questions John. You ask, "What do you mean by 'mathematical formalism'?" That's an excellent question because most people seem to think that mathematics refers to some sort of natural phenomena when in fact it does not. Our mathematical formalism is a formalism that we as humans constructed over historic time. You can read about the historical development of our mathematical formalism. During that time all mathematicians were not in agreement with many of the definitions and axioms that had been introduced into the formalism. In fact, mathematicians still debate many of these issues. So our mathematics is far from being carved in stone. And there are many questions still open about how well our mathematical formalism might actually reflect the true nature of reality. You ask, ( Also, why do you say that "If our universe had to obey our rules of mathematics it would crash and burn"? I've never heard that before.) Our mathematics breaks down in our physical theories of our universe. Surely you are aware of this. Our mathematics breaks down when we address questions about the origins of the Big Bang. On questions of what goes on inside a black hole. And, perhaps far more importantly, our mathematics breaks done when we try to marry Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity. These are two theories that actually rely upon mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Therefore if our universe had to actually obey our mathematics it wouldn't work. It's actually a mistake to think that our mathematics correctly describes our universe. It does not. It's simply a quantitative approximation that actual engineers often need to ignore order to make things work. As I say, they often need to redefine their quantitative terms in order to satisfy the contingencies of the real world. ~~~~~~ Also, getting back to the historical development of our mathematical formalism, I am among those who are in disagreement with many definitions that have been embraced. In fact, I hold that there are better ways of defining mathematics than we have historically accepted.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@Mystic0Dreamer Thanks for the fast reply. I think I understand better now why you say our "mathematics breaks down..." I have indeed heard of the difficulties in trying to correlate Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity through the use of formal mathematics. Do you recommend any books on the subject of our mathematical formalism and it's history ? Thanks and hope you are having a good Sunday. John

[@Triliton]

Stephen Hawking once said that the creation of our universe did not need a god.

[@scambammer5940]

he also said, if the universe is "designed" for anything, it is blackholes.

[@GlynKearney]

Please define 'a being' if that is what a ? might be.

[@aj-font]

This analogy of “who made 2+2 equal 4” is entirely misguided. It is necessary due to the axioms. Different axiomatic systems produce different necessary propositions. The question “who made god” should simply be restated as “why is god necessary, what axioms ensure gods necessity? Or are we simply taking the statement God Exists to be axiomatic?”

[@thedduck]

Is this "God" as in the traditional sense of the word, like the one -- or many -- worshipped by the various religions in this world or something else entirely?

[@Ron-rk6iz]

We would not be here without a creator, whatever you wish to call it, a pretty dumb question.