Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Just a minor point to throw in. The Big Bang theory is discredited amoung some Chirstians as saying where it it come from. Surely the same can be said about God? Where did he/she/it come from? And if God was always around can't the universe be continually expanding and collapsing and expanding again without the need for a god. In the end it's probably a matter of 'faith' where ever you stand.
If God had been made by somthing else, then God would not be God, and that something else would be instead. We could then ask what made that something else? Another something else? It looks like we are starting down the road of an infinite regress, which is logically impossible as an explantion of anything. So ultimately there has to be something that is "just there," and being "just there" is part of the definition of God, if he exists at all.
Why can't the universe be what is "just there"? Well, theoretically it can, but consider the following argument. It's short, but pretty dense, written up by a philosophy professor. But work through it; it's very powerful. I've written up an explanation of the meaning below to try and make the statements easier
1. The truth of There exist things whose existence it is logically possible to explain cannot be explained by there being things whose existence it is logically possible to explain (the existence of those things is just what is to be explained).
If little Susie asks about why there are golden retriever puppies, she can be told about golden retriever parents. If she asks about golden retriever parents, she can be told about golden retriver grandparents. But if she then asks about why there are golden retrievers at all, she cannot be told about golden retriever parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents, or the like; these will all be the tings she want to know about - why have any golden retrievers existed at all. If little Susie asks why there ever have been any possibly explicable things at all that exist though they might not have existed, she cannot properly be told about there being possibly explicable things that exist but might not have existed; these are what she is asking about.
Premise 1 is plainly true; whatever Xs are, there being Xs cannot explain there being Xs.
2. That a logically contingent existential proposition is true can only be explained by some other existential proposition being true.
If, in the relevant sense of explanation, A's truth entails B's truth, A entails B. No existential proposition is entailed by a set of propositions that does not contain any existential propositions.
3. If an existential proposition does not concern something whose existence it is logically possible to explain, it concerns something whose existence is logically impossible to explain.
4. The truth of There exist things whose existence it is logically possible to explain can only be explained by a true existential proposition concerning something whose existence it is logically impossible to explain (from 1, 2, 3).
The upshot of the argument so far is that it is inevitable that one should come to something whose existence it is impossible to explain. For the theist, this is God. The atheist is left to find for himself something that exists and whose existence is logically impossible to explain. By this argument, it is shown that demanding an explanation for the existence of God is invalid.
4. The truth of The natural realm exists is not sufficient to explain the truth of The natural realm exists, and the truth of The natural realm exists can only be explained by a true existential proposition concerning something whose existence it is logically impossible to explain (from 1, 4).
Therefore, one is left with two options:
1) Posit a existential proposition as an explanation of the natural realm which refers to something that exists outside of the natural realm and is logically impossible to explain. This is the positing of some sort of supernatural reality, such as God.
2)Simply refuse to answer the question. This latter option is to leave onself in the awkward position of having a question (Why does anything in the natural realm exist, even though it might not have?) which is intelligible and basic and very well could have had an answer, but simply does not. One can adopt this later position only if one is willing to undermine the basic assumption of human science and knowledge that
If it is logically possible that the truth of a logically contingent existential proposition be explained, then there actually is an explanation of its truth (whether we know what it is or not). However, if you do this, then mystery lies on your side of the fence, not the supernaturalist's.
Note that this isn't a proof of God. One can choose either of the two options above. But number two comes at a subtle, but actually quite hefty, intellectual cost...
Secondly the Bible is all well and good as a source of 'evdience' but what about secondary support from independent sources? Does any exist?
See my earlier post.
*I'm also sure many atheist might be swade into believing if the sky suddenly peeled away and big booming voice said 'I exist!'. I might be converted in such a case.
Coming to us in a way we can better understand by putting on human flesh rather one-ups that, doesn't it?
But no, probably most atheists would not. CP5670, for example, has made very clear that he hates God if he exists, and he is not alone in that. Since ultimately nothing can be proven either way, the atheist, like the theist, has to choose what he will believe, and if one has enough emotional interest vested in a decision that will sway the decision. Basically, when you get right down to it, all the atheist philosophers I've ever read reject theism because they just plain don't like it.
Poll
