God is necessary and must exist

God is being-as-such.

dumb frogposter

>God exists if I define God as something that exists
Profound.

Go to bed Spinoza.

If we say that unconditional Being exists, it literally means the same thing. Not our fault that you have a knee-jerk reaction to the term God, which is really a convenient shorthand for the philosophically illiterate.

>If we say that unconditional Being exists, it literally means the same thing
Do you have an argument for why that should be seen as true?

Even according to Spinoza's definition of God, couldn't praying for things (like Christians do) or miracles be possible without implying that God is not perfect?

We are modes of extension, which is an attribute of substance. Substance is expressed through the infinite continuum of attributes, of which thinking and extension are included. If someone were to pray and ask for something, since modes and attributes are expressions of one single substance couldn't praying just be a mode of thinking that is channelling itself through its attribute, through 'substance' and consequently through other attributes and modes, which may or may not receive some kind of energy that causes the desired effect from said prayer. It sounds awfully new-agey, but, thoughts?

God is the name given to the infinite first cause and essence of the universe. That's what God is, and it exists. What do you call it?

Ethics is literally undeniable proof of God's existence.

>implying you are anything else but a temporary modification of the one substance

>God is the name given to the infinite first cause and essence of the universe. That's what God is, and it exists. What do you call it?
For one thing there's no reason to believe an infinite first cause would be intelligent, whereas God has connotations of intelligence.

There are ultimately two options: either the universe is an infinite regress, or there is an unconditioned cause at the end of the chain of being. We can at least agree that both of these are rational conceptions throughout the history of philosophy.

>God

>implying the one substance isn't eternal and thus incapable of temporary modifications

T. brainlet who gets triggered by the word.

Why use a word to describe something that isn't fitting?

Why isn't it fitting?

>unconditioned cause
I don't see an argument for why that unconditioned cause, assuming it's the case, ought to be anything at all similar to the concept of God.
Higher thought was one of the very latest traits to have emerged in billions of years of evolutionary history, and it only has the ability to exist at all now provided that an elaborate physical scaffolding of neurology is in place and in working order. Given this, everything we know about intelligence informs us that it's the worst possible candidate for traits we ought to expect an unconditioned first cause to have. It's the most conditioned / physically dependent thing in our entire observable reality. And if the unconditioned first cause isn't intelligent, there's no point in calling it God.
You can try to say "but the first cause would be so far removed from our own experiences that there's no reason why it can't have intelligence without any prior physical conditioning / dependencies." But then if intelligence was available from the very beginning independent of any physical prerequisites, then what was the point of those billions of years of evolutionary biology leading up to our own version of it emerging? And if this topic is really so far beyond our own experiences that nothing we know can tell us anything meaningful about what to expect it to be like, then you're basically saying we don't have any coherent way of talking about it at all, in which case your own argument is as baseless as any other argument about it and there's no point in discussing any of it.

Christian ontological philosophers: so fucking stupid that they equate old conglomerate tribal deities formed by multiple folktales and myths which show their limitations, human personalities, faults, and clear lack of omniscience or omnipotence with a conceptual prime mover or unconditional being that bears no real resemblance to the deities, and then get huffy when anyone points out that the only accepted sources of "information" about the deities make it clear that conflating the two concepts is idiotic. Anyone trying to argue the biblical God as omnipotent, eternal, and omniscient is a heretic blithely ignoring their own scripture.

You seem lost, Reddit is ------>

>Prove god logically
"THEREFORE HE LITERALLY EXISTS IN THIS WAFER AND WE'RE GOING TO EAT HIM."

God is whatever you perceive to be the top authority. If you see multiple then you have a pantheon.

...