It ain’t necessarily so
I wonder sometimes if it was easier in the first century to convince people of the truth of Christian theism…one God, creator of all things, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…than it is today. There were many “gods” competing for their allegiance, but at least folks readily acknowledged the spiritual realm. Many nowadays first need convincing that the spiritual exists, as their “god” is science or materialism.
But whether one is a materialist or a spiritualist (in the philosophical sense of the word…I’m not talking seances here), it seems to me one has to acknowledge the reality of necessity. If anything at all exists, something must exist necessarily, i.e. it could not NOT exist. If the material is the whole of reality then the universe is eternal and not only that, it has to exist.
But does that make sense? What is it about the universe that makes it necessary? We can easily conceive the possibility that the earth not exist, and the contingency of every object in the universe is also plainly seen. So if all the material in the universe is contingent, what properties would a material-less universe have if it would still exist because it is necessary? And with no necessary material in it, how is it that any material objects came into being?
I believe a much more reasonable explanation for the existence of anything, including an empty universe, is that there is a necessary being outside of the material reality, and this spiritual being created the material. We can imagine that nothing at all exists, including this necessary being, but if something exists, something exists necessarily. And the only plausible description of this necessary being is the same as the God of theism.
Agree? Disagree? Discuss.