Is god necessary anymore?

Your premise make no sense. God does not exist, just because a theist thinks so.

If I said that aliens from outer space are taking over the earth, would it be true, just because I thought that it were true? Think about it!

Oops!
Sorry Pheonix. I meant that as far as a theist is concerned God exists and the question does not affect their faith.

Seeker- I then can infer from your statement that if one believes in a God, one can extrapolate that, for that person, it is a moot point to ask whether God is necessary for him.

I have it now!

Seeker-
Just because someone believes that god exists does not automatically make him necessary and we can just say that we don't need him. And if you don't believe in god, there are many substitutes in this world but that is all beside the point because we are assuming that god does exist.

Individual, who is the God if he is an unecessary part of our lives? How is he then our God?

Not really sure what Individual had in mind, Seeker, but surely there could exist a GOD who, like many parents, at some point says: I gave you life and the means to make something of yourself. Now you are on your own.

Since all we can do is to guess whether or not there are gods...that is as good a guess as many currently popular guesses!

Frank hit that one right on the nose. We can still have a god who birthed us but then left us to our own devices.

truth
Individual, you are referring to the God of DIEISM, the indifferent "prime mover," the "architect" of the universe, the creator of all meaningfulness (what is meant by "Let their be light"--not a grand lightbulb, but meaningfulness) as in Plato's Grand Designer, the creator of "platonic ideals." This God is unlike the Christian God who stays involved in human lives. Both are nonsensical to me.

truth
Individual, you are referring to the God of DIEISM, the indifferent "prime mover," the "designer" of the universe, the creator of all meaningfulness (what is meant by "Let their be light"--not a grand lightbulb, but meaningfulness) as in Plato's Grand Architect, the creator of "platonic ideals." This God is unlike the Christian God who stays involved in human lives. Both are nonsensical to me.

Assume that God did indeed create the universe for man and has since left us. Will there ever be a time when he is needed again, or is already needed. Then, if he is needed, will God ever come back?

Try this thought experiment.

Suppose Richard Dawkins is right, that "God (s)" is a "mental virus" and that an anti-viral agent was suddenly distributed world wide. What would be the social consequences ? I suggest that this is the ONLY way of testing for "necessity".

truth
Now that there would no longer be a felt necessity for God(s) there would very likely be a great demand for the guidance of philosophers and mystical gurus. That would pose some problems, but they would be better than the need for priests, malams, and pastors..

JLN

I reached the conclusion that for most, their particular virus would in time be relaced by a mutated other. In other words "theism" is a "preferred" partner of "reason". Within particular groups it functions as a social catalyst, but between groups it is more like a social antagonist. Necessity lies in the need/desire for a trustworthy mental life(+death)partner. The average mind cannot or will not appreciate that "order and chaos", and the "passage of time" are mental constructs and it seeks the personification of "constancy and certainty" as a paliative.

truth
So, Fresco, are you saying that even if the virus-caused belief in God were eliminated, many people would continue to subscribe to a theist doctrine (your "mutated other") as a "rational" ("'preferred' partner of 'reason'") functional equivalent of the prior non-rational belief?

truth
Oh, I forgot your central point, that the inability of people to recognize and accept the constructivist nature of human understanding necessitates a belief that supports an objectivist, absolutist perspective.

truth
What I find amazing is the fact that most people seem to need--almost as a psychological imperative--to see the contents of experience as objective and values to be absolute, and both to be "given" by a deity, while SOME people (a minority to be sure) are able to live comfortably with relativism, constructivism and atheism. What is the relevant psychological difference between these two broad types of mentalities?

Yes,

I think the anti-viral would have short-lived effects.

As to the psychological makeup of the dissenters I think this is clearly a function several aspects most important of which are conditioning and intellectual ability.

A "religious upbringing" clearly raises the stakes when questioning one's social obligations. It also enforces a strong perceptual set on thinking and communication such that alternative rationalities are subject to atrophy. If we continue along this line and define "intellect" as "the potential to observe different rationalities we can argue for the inverse relationship between intellect and theism provided that mental excursions are not proscribed by the strength of one's theistic conditioning.

A further aspect to consider is of course physical and mental well-being which can deteriorate with age. Philosophical integrity may indeed be sacrificed by any of us in times of stress.

truth
Which is what is referred to by "no atheists in foxholes."
I would distinguish between fundamentalist theism and the kind practiced by Gabriel Marcel, Paul Tillich, and Soren Kierkeggard in positing an inverse relationship between intellect and theism.

and perhaps Martin Buber?

truth
By all means, Dys. And how about Albert Schweitzer? Christianity also has its very deep dimensions. What about the most intriging idea (Tillich's) "the God above God"? This brings to mind for me the question of what existed BEFORE the Big Bang, before the beginning of the Universe. What created that incredibly dense (unitary) singularity that exploded into the world of multiplicity we now experience? It blows the mind. That reminds me, how are you feeling? (how's that for tasteless, dark humor?-- right up your alley) Well enough I suppose to get into theological discussions. Have you completed your tests yet?