What is the rationale for your belief in the existence of a superfluous God?

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, but there are degrees of faith. I think faith that the Sun will come up tomorrow is a lot more robust than faith in an invisible personage devoid of empirical evidence.

I don't think it requires any faith whatsoever to expect that the Earth will continue to revolve and the sun will continue to fuse elements for the next 24 hours.

 

[Valjean]

Descartes might disagree.

 

[Jumi]

My belief in a possible god or cluster of gods isn't connected in any way with the fact that I see nothing in this world requiring it.

 

[Gambit]

I'm not a believer, but the title of this thread seems quite loaded to me. It is basically saying, "If you know you are irrational, why are you irrational?" (Irrational from your viewpoint, that is.)

The title of thread asks the question: "What is the rationale for your belief in the existence of a superfluous God?" And if you had bothered to actually read the OP, you would have learned that we actually have believers on this forum who believe that God is metaphysically unnecessary.

 

[Gambit]

As a pantheist, I don't think I am the type that you are asking to hear from.

Correct. I am actually referring to those who allegedly believe in the existence of God as the creator. That being said, Brahman is metaphysically necessary to your pantheistic worldview. And I suspect you would take issue with anyone who would present Advaita Vedanta as somehow being compatible with atheistic materialism.

In Hinduism, Brahman (/ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2] In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][3][4] It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][5] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[1] (source: Wikipedia: Brahman)

 

[Midnight Rain]

What is the rationale for your belief in the existence of a superfluous God? Any "believer" who believes that God is not metaphysically necessary believes God is superfluous by default. That is, he or she believes that God is not needed to explain anything whatsoever. So, if you are one of these believers, please explain to me your rationale for believing in the existence of God. Because it would appear to me that your belief is completely irrational.

By the way, I know that there are more than a few "believers" on this forum who do not believe that God is metaphysically necessary. How do I know this? Because they have placed themselves on record by participating in a poll on my thread entitled "Is God's existence necessary?"

I rarely respond to threads like these because I don't normally like to defend my faith in a debate style.

But for me and for many pagans who don't align with traditionalist views view their gods as part of nature itself. They are not the great creators of the universe or of the world but rather representations of natural processes, energies and concepts of the world. So a god need not be all powerful or a creator of the universe to be believed in or worshiped.

 

[Gambit]

Sorry, but that doesn't logically follow. There are reasons for deifying things other than for metaphysical purposes, which means rejecting the metaphysical reasons does not equate to superfluousness.

Perhaps, I should (slightly) rephrase my original comment: "If you believe your God is not needed to explain anything whatsoever, then your God is superfluous by definition."

Merriam-Webster defines "superfluous" as "beyond what is needed : not necessary."

 

[Gambit]

Our existence isn't necessary either. Very little is

Agreed. We live in a world of contingent beings. That's why we must posit a necessary being. And as I see it, if you don't believe God is a necessary being, then you really don't believe in the existence of God.

By the way, the term "God" (with an upper case "G") refers to monotheism. IOW, if you do not purport to be a monotheist, then you need not apply.

 

[Gambit]

What if I don't believe that God is superfluous?
What if God is both physical and metaphysical?
What if those parts of his nature are part of what makes Him God (and me not god)?

... I guess that I should just keep it to myself.
Sorry, the question confused me.

I'm not employing the term "metaphysical" to refer to that which is "beyond the physical." I'm employing the term to refer that branch of philosophy which is concerned with the ultimate nature of reality.

By the way. mainstream Christianity (that would include the Baptist denomination) does not believe that God is both physical and nonphysical. I think you're conflating the doctrine of the incarnation with the doctrine of God. But now I'm digressing from the subject matter of the thread.

 

[Gambit]

This sounds to me like nothing but a flame baiting...
"if you think god is not necessary then you think god is unnecessary by default."
Nothing but double talk worded to insult....

Apparently, you failed to take into account the the question I asked in the OP, namely: "What is the rationale for your belief in the existence of a superfluous God?"

By the way, it doesn't appear that believe in the existence of God, so I don't know why you're posting in this thread.

 

[atpollard]

I'm not employing the term "metaphysical" to refer to that which is "beyond the physical." I'm employing the term to refer that branch of philosophy which is concerned with the ultimate nature of reality.

By the way. mainstream Christianity (that would include the Baptist denomination) does not believe that God is both physical and nonphysical. I think you're conflating the doctrine of the incarnation with the doctrine of God. But now I'm digressing from the subject matter of the thread.

Thank you for the clarification.
I do not believe in a superfluous God, so carry on (I got no dog in this fight)

[Off topic: Some of the post resurrection scripture suggests both a fully physical and beyond physical Jesus - (God in my world view)].

 

[Gambit]

I don't see God's existence as metaphysically necessary. But, that is why I have "faith" or "believe" in the existence of God, rather than "know" that God "must" exist.

The question is not whether you know that God exists. The question is why do you believe that God exists, especially in light of the fact that you do not believe the creator is metaphysically necessary to account for the creation!

Science is not even close to being developed enough to make such leaps/assumptions.

I have already explained this to you. The question of why there is something rather than nothing is a metaphysical question, NOT a scientific one. The mystery of existence is beyond the purview of science. And if you think otherwise, then you apparently are expressing a not-so-tacit faith-commitment to scientism.

But, my faith is based on my personal experiences with the divine, and that is not relevant here.

The rational justification of your belief in God's existence is relevant here because that is the subject matter of the thread.

Question: Do you believe God is the creator? Yes or no? (It's a simple question; I expect a simple answer. If you cannot answer the question with a simple "yes" or "no," then I would advise you not to respond.)

 

[Gambit]

Good point.

So, are you admitting that your belief in God's existence is completely irrational?

 

[McBell]

Apparently, you failed to take into account the the question I asked in the OP, namely: "What is the rationale for your belief in the existence of a superfluous God?"

I find your blatant dishonesty disgusting.

By the way, it doesn't appear that believe in the existence of God, so I don't know why you're posting in this thread.

I am posting in this to present my opinion that your OP looks like nothing more than double talk worded to insult.
Your replies have thus far reinforce that outlook.

 

[Gambit]

I recall saying that technically I don't think God is necessary, while still being a believer.

Just for the sake of clarity. Do you believe God is the creator?

 

[Gambit]

Right. That tells me enough.

For what it's worth, I voted "I don't know" in that other thread.

Do you believe in God's existence?

(Agnostics typically do not believe in God's existence. That's why I'm asking you the question.)

 

[Gambit]

Faith is believing/trusting that something is the case without the sufficient evidence or reasoning required to "know" that it is.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean our beliefs don't entail some kind of rational support. It doesn't appear that you have any rational basis whatsoever to justify a belief in God's existence.

 

[Quintessence]

Perhaps, I should (slightly) rephrase my original comment: "If you believe your God is not needed to explain anything whatsoever, then your God is superfluous by definition."

Merriam-Webster defines "superfluous" as "beyond what is needed : not necessary."

The logic still does not follow here, though thank you for clarifying what you meant by "superfluous." If the logic somehow works for you, by all means hold to it, but please do other theists the courtesy of respect instead of insulting all of us by claiming our god(s) are "superfluous" because they don't fit your vision of what that word means.

 

[Gambit]

I find your blatant dishonesty disgusting.

I believe you're projecting.

 

[Gambit]

I don't think it requires any faith whatsoever to expect that the Earth will continue to revolve and the sun will continue to fuse elements for the next 24 hours.

Of course it does. This is known in philosophy as the "problem of induction."