Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?


Necessary Being Argument for God’s Existence
The necessary being argument teaches that that which does not have to exist exists and can only be made from literally nothing by that which does have to exist. It assumes that nothing that exists in the universe has an independent existence.  Even after being made or created it still has no independent existence.  The creation requires God ongoing support to stay in existence. 


The Bible never actually speaks of God producing something where there was literally nothing.  Yesh m'aiyan, something from nothing is used by say an artist who has rubbish and its nothing in that sense and he turns it into something.  The necessary being argument comes from how Christianity to look credible began to delve into philosophy and ended up with the philosopher's God.  Having said that, this God is less crude than the Bible version.
It presupposes that a being making things but not using anything to make them must have infinite power to make things from nothing. The distance between nothing and something is infinite.
God is said to be that being. He is what powers he has. If he is a necessary being, he does not need something to hold him together. He has no components. Thus he is literally his love and his justice and so on. This makes no sense for love and justice are not powers but abstract things.
The logic is that God turns nothing into something. If you ask what made God the answer is that he is so simple and simple beyond our imaginings that he needs no maker and his existence needs no explanation. But something being simple does not prove no explanation is needed. Simplicity and explainability are two separate things. Richard Dawkin's said that God is so intelligent that he cannot be simple for intelligence requires complex minds. The Christian answer is that a mind is not the thoughts it has. So a very simple entity can have very complex thoughts. But if God is simple then he is his thoughts and they are part of him. God not being his thoughts would mean the thoughts are not his thoughts and exist independently of him - the thoughts will exist but the mind that thinks them may not exist. So God is his thoughts. We have a contradiction - God is and isn't simple. God is nonsense.
The logic is that something cannot come from nothing. So creation must have come from something that was always there. That something is God. The argument contradicts itself by saying that something did come from nothing after all. It says that something cannot come from nothing unless God makes something come from nothing which makes no sense. 0 becomes 1. If that is impossible then even God cannot make it possible. What we have is, "Something cannot come from nothing if there is no God. There is a God so something can come from nothing if there is a God." That is really a circular argument - a trick.
The word creation implies God making that which is not God. Since there is nothing else but God God must make all things from nothing.
The necessary being argument is a paraphrase of the dogma of creation from literally nothing.
Creation from nothing is impossible for an infinite God who is his own power cannot make anything that is not part of himself. The doctrine says God is all power and then that there is power that is not him, that is created entities for they are made out of energy and power.
The argument assumes that the universe cannot be self-existent (cause itself or be the reason for its own existence) and so it is not a proof. It is absurd for it says that God makes himself from nothing and makes the universe from nothing when it would be easier to say the universe makes itself from nothing. Something coming from nothing by itself is far less absurd than something coming from nothing by the power of God and even more so when God himself comes from nothing for if something can come from nothing who needs God? Then you have two or three absurdities or problems instead of one, a god doing the impossible by causing himself and then the impossible happening again when he makes things out of nothing; whereas with the idea of it coming into being by itself you have merely one absurdity. The fewer absurdities the better. Simplicity is the law! It will be answered that we believe in many things that came from nothing and which are not important so why not believe that God exists? Why make an exception of him? Why not when we don’t need him or see him or hear him? Things are complicated enough without bringing that big being in. It is unfair to argue that since things are destroyed in the universe, the universe cannot be the necessary being for nothing is really destroyed but is converted into another form of energy.
The proof from dependence presupposes that it makes sense to say that God created the world from nothing. This creation idea is foolish for if God didn’t need a creator then it is not necessarily true that if something exists then it had to have a maker or creator. It is foolish because if something exists, it is made of power and power can never be put out of existence. It cannot become nothing again. If it cannot become nothing again then it didn’t come from nothing in the first place. The idea of something becoming nothing is incomprehensible at best and incoherent at worst. The proofs for God even if satisfactory would not be satisfactory to the layperson or even to most philosophers. And incoherent it is. Let us do some maths. If something can become nothing then 1 can become 0. This is impossible. Creation is impossible so the proofs for God are only a waste of time. They are religious conjuring tricks meant to reassure the gullible that the utterances of the Church are reasonable.

Religion says that God is an exception to the rule that everything needs a cause for God’s existence is his essence. Then they say then that they don’t understand what this means. So it is not helping anything at all. It is absurd to say that God’s nature is existence and essence are the same though the largest religion in the world says it is not absurd (page 27, Part 1, Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine). Existence is not a quality. Existing things have qualities. For God to cause his own essence he would have to both exist and not exist at the one time. And existence is a part of us not something outside of us.

God is important and matter (and us too!) is supposed to be unimportant in comparison. If something was never made but just existed it would be most likely to be an unimportant thing. We are saying that it could just be as easy to say that a lump of rock – or anything at all so there is an infinity of options - just exists and there is no reason for it as it is to say that God just exists. God is the least likely thing for there is an infinity of other things any one of which could just exist. And also for God is supposed to not just exist but to be the reason for his own existence which is as bizarre as the other things religion says about him. He may be the reason for his own existence but that does not give him importance because there is no reason why he is the reason for his own existence. It does not solve anything.

The prime mover (things don’t move by themselves so they need an unmoving God to move them) and the first cause (nothing causes itself and so an uncaused God is needed to cause all things) arguments are just different aspects of this argument that since things in the universe enter and go out of existence they must be held in existence by a being that needs nothing but itself to exist. But all things may be made of energy that changes but doesn’t go out of or come into existence. It may be this being so there is no need to bring in another one or an external one such as God. The being that exists of and by itself does not need to be an intelligence.
If you can imagine a God causing himself you can imagine each building block of nature causing itself. There could be countless necessary beings. Those who answer that these blocks would still need infinite power to exist for when they might have not existed some infinite power must cause them, do not realise that if component A causes component B and B causes A (which makes sense like a ring does with one part supporting the other) you have something that is not infinite but still depends on itself. This idea is no stranger than self-creating spirits. The idea of material things causing themselves this way has been accepted by most physicists and is probably verified by experiments that substantiate the quark theory (page 47, 48, God and the New Physics). It is also believed by modern physics that the universe when it first appeared was simple beyond our understanding – which strikes out the design argument - not just in shape but in the structure (page 49). Even the laws of physics with their complex results are all very simple (page 221).

Everybody who believes in a spiritual God believes that in some sense even if he is not three persons he is one and more than one – perhaps in his attributes, so matter could be able to be both its cause and its result in the ultimate building blocks of nature.
Brian Davies in The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil says that the existence of God is not derived by God from anything. He doesn’t need anything to exist. He doesn’t depend on anything. God does not cause himself because that would be like God existing before himself to make himself. God does not make himself and nothing causes him to exist because existence is his by nature (page 65, 66, The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil). What do we mean by saying existence is God’s by nature? We mean that his essence is the same thing as his existence. His nature is his existence. There is no distinction. This is the same thing as simply saying that God is uncaused. Davies says that saying this is not the same as saying God is a necessary being, a being that somehow has to exist. In other words, it just isn’t possible for there to have been nothing – there had to be a God. Davies is not rejecting the necessary being thinking but just saying he doesn’t need it – the essential is in having a God who is uncreated and causeless.
The argument from necessity cannot be discussed properly without discussing eternity.
There are only two definitions of eternity and one is the opposite of the other.
1) Eternity is like a present moment which didn’t have a past or future. So the present there doesn’t change and its like a static present moment. That is what it consists of.
This makes eternity necessary. It has to exist. Even if there is nothing it has to exist and is an aspect of nothing. Another word for it is timelessness.
Time then is often seen as unnecessary so it must be created by a necessary being. Is each moment of time happening all at once in the “moment” of eternity? Time proceeds from eternity so it would be. The two have to run together at the one time. Eternity cannot change so it is always there.
2) Eternity is time that had no beginning or no end. It does change.
It could freeze so that there will be no future. It follows that each moment is unnecessary. For example, there doesn’t have to be a next moment. So it follows that from start to finish there was no need for any moments at all.
The necessary being or God would have to be eternal in the first sense. Eternity the state of permanence is the right state for him and if time is not a thing but changes then it could happen that God could end up frozen if time stops. He wouldn’t be almighty then.
A God who cannot not exist is absurd. When there could have been nothing he could put himself out of existence or cease to exist. But he cannot for the power that composes him cannot just become nothing. So we end up in contradiction. It is a greater absurdity to say that there being nothing at all is impossible than to say that a being that exists can go back to being nothing or turn into nothing. The scales tip in favour of the idea that the necessary being God is rubbish.


Evil refutes God argument
The problem of evil comes into all this. In reality there is no problem of evil. Evil simply contradicts and refutes the existence of a perfect God.


The necessary being argument when put together correctly assumes that what we need to explain is how good things can come from nothing.  Evil is anti-being and thus if any allegedly created thing were evil that would refute the argument.


The Christian answer is that evil is really just good that is in the wrong place and time so it is not the thing that is evil but the way it happens.  That is evil in itself for depression for example really is just evil and is not something that is out of place and time.  The argument assumes that evil is not real but it is up to hard evidence and experience to determine that.  It is evil to merely assume that.  A theory of goodness that calls on you to become evil in such a fundamental thing is an evil not a good.


The notion of God being evil or a little evil in his intention would ruin the notion that God needs no explanation and the universe does. If God is perfectly simple then he needs no explanation we are told. He cannot be perfectly simple if he is even a little evil. We would need an explanation for why he suffers a defect.
God lets us suffer and do great harm. Religion says he is only being a good parent and refusing to protect us from all evil for it is bad for us to be sheltered all the time. We need our space to make our own mistakes and learn from them. Good parents do shelter their children all the time and letting them take risks at times is a form of sheltering. Being sheltered from being sheltered too much is still being sheltered. Real parents communicate their love to their children. God leaves us suffering and has no concern for helping us understand why. It is an insult for people to tell us he loves us. Who are they to say? That is no good when God can tell us himself and only allow suffering when we understand why it is happening. 


Even if God is impersonal and does not really love anybody or anything but just supports existence in so far as evil is anti-being then evil would refute even that kind of God.  God would be the wrong word for the being.


Relationship to First Cause


We have the argument that nothing can exist without a necessary being -  being that needs nothing to create it.


We have the argument that all causes have to start somewhere so there was first cause, possibly God, to start it all off.  This would be an uncaused cause.


Notice the two arguments are really the same in the sense that they point to a necessary being.  The first cause argument simply looks at the very first cause while the necessary being argument looks at all causes as a whole.


Which cause seems to be the most important?  Clearly it would be the first cause to most people.  But in reality if all causes cannot be unless God causes them one cause is as important as another.  Each one in a sense is a first cause. 


The argument fails to prove a God even it is correct


The necessary being argument if it proves anything only proves a creator but a creator is not necessarily a personal God or even if it is it is not necessarily the Christian God.  It need not even have intelligence the way we have it.  It may have something more like artificial intelligence.  Artificial intelligence is when something does not really have any intelligence but functions as if it does.  The argument would only prove what it needs and that is a creator that is just there and which made from nothing and which has artificial intelligence.


Do not think, "The argument points to something so I may as well go a bit further and hold that that something is my Christian God."  That is abusing the argument.  If the argument is absolutely correct then it DISPROVES that God.  There is no such thing as going further when the argument only proves a creator with artificial intelligence and who is in no way like a person.


A creator that has more than it needs to have needs explanation.  If our impersonal creator is enough then we end up wondering, "Why is there a loving God when there might just be an impersonal intelligent creator?"


The argument is not really an argument for God and it is not evidence for God.

Being contingent means you might not have been or might not have existed. You are a “might not have been”.  The necessary being argument says that God is non-contingent.  He is that which is not a "might not have been."  He is non-contingent and nothing contingent can exist without him. The necessary being argument is in reality the only real argument for evidence for a creator but it fails on both accounts.  It is totally wrong and will soon be buried forever along with Thomas Aquinas. Religion uses it to give the false veneer of credibility for its lies. There could have been nothing. There should have been nothing. There isn't. Necessary non-existence is what should be. The concept of necessary existence contradicts this fact so it is total rubbish.  And even if the argument is right it only gives you a creator not a God.  The two are not necessarily the same thing.
A HISTORY OF GOD, Karen Armstrong, Mandarin, London, 1994
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ, Doubleday/Image, New York, 1964
A PATH FROM ROME, Anthony Kenny Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1985
A SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
AN INTELLIGENT PERSONS GUIDE TO CATHOLICISM, Alban McCoy, Continuum, London and New York, 1997
APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Part 1, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill, & Son, Dublin, 1954
APOLOGETICS FOR THE PULPIT, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD, London, 1950
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin Books, London, 1991
ARGUING WITH GOD, Hugh Sylvester, IVP, London, 1971
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
CONTROVERSY: THE HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER, Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books, London, 1971
CRITIQUES OF GOD, Edited by Peter A Angeles, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION, David Hume, William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1907
DOES GOD EXIST? Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1982
DOES GOD EXIST? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena, California, 1972
DOING AWAY WITH GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall Pickering, London, 1993
GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003
GOD AND PHILOSOPHY, Antony Flew, Hutchinson, London, 1966
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1967
GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1990
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
GOD THE PROBLEM, Gordon D Kaufman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1973
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 2, Frederick Copleston SJ Westminster, Maryland, Newman, 1962
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press, London, 1963
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
IN SEARCH OF CERTAINTY, John Guest Regal Books, Ventura, California, 1983
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V. Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image Doubleday and Co, New York, 1961
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 1, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND RELIGION, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
SALVIFICI DOLORIS, Pope John Paul II, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1984
TAKING LEAVE OF GOD, Don Cupitt, SCM Press, London, 1980
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007
THE BIG QUESTIONS, Simon Blackburn, Quercus Books, London, 2009
THE CASE AGAINST GOD, Gerald Priestland, Collins, Fount Paperbacks, London, 1984
THE CONCEPT OF GOD, Ronald H Nash, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983
THE HONEST TO GOD DEBATE Edited by David L Edwards, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963
THE KINDNESS OF GOD, EJ Cuskelly MSC, Mercier Press, Cork, 1965
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins, London, 1990
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum, London-New York, 2006
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM, London, 1982
WHAT DO EXISTENTIALISTS BELIEVE? Richard Appignanesi, Granta Books, London, 2006
WHAT I BELIEVE by Anthony Kenny, Continuum, London – New York, 2006
WHAT IS FAITH? Anthony Kenny, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992
WHY DOES GOD? Domenico Grasso, St Paul, Bucks, 1970
Why I Became an Atheist, John Loftus, Prometheus Books, New York, 2008