Sorry it's been awhile, but I'm back now! The minor nuisances of real life have a way of interfering with more important things, and for someone who is supposed to be on a hiatus from academia, it is amazing how little time I have available to me these days.
Anyway, CP5670, we've been talking for some time now, and I think I see at least part of the reason why our conversation has yielded much argument, and little resolution. In effect, while I am speaking from the Christian perspective, you seem quite determined not to deal with the Judeo-Christian God in your ideas, but rather this alternative conception of God which you have.
As arguments against the Judeo-Christian God, your arguments amount to setting up a straw-man (or straw-god, as it were
) and knocking him over. Firstly, you insist that this god would be nothing more than essentially a very powerful but still fallible human, despite my explicitly describing to you the Judeo-Christian understanding of God. By insisting upon this and making such a being the target of your objections, you are arguing against the existence of Zeus or some similar sort of god, but not against the Almighty and perfect God of Semitic monotheism. Secondly, you insist that this god can and must be subject to empirical verification any time an investigator wishes to put him under the microscope. In this you are essentially demanding that he, or better, it should be like a mute force of nature, and not the being that Christianity posits. Finally, the god you describe as so despicable and the reasons you give for despising him once again assume a very different story than the one that Christianity would tell you.
According to it, God made us free to choose our path, whether to follow his best or not. Automata were not what he wanted to create; he wanted to create other free beings like he himself was free. That there would be consequences to the choice seems to have been inevitable: one cannot allow the possibility of good if there is not likewise the possibility of evil. So you ask why God did not create a universe and inhabitants of that universe which had no possibility for evil, and I rejoin that such a universe and such an existence would be far less than this one. If I were forced to recognise God and forced to follow his ways and forced to be his puppet on a string, his piano-key to be played, I would lose all that it means to be human. If we are not free to choose, are not given the possibility, are not given the
I can, then whatever existence is left to us is far below this one, and indeed hardly worthy of the name. God did not make a world full of evil. He made a world that carried the possibility of evil and the possibility of good, and set us free in it. Without this choice, without this freedom of will, there may not have been the possibility of suffering, ignorance, and dislike, true enough, but neither would there be any possibility for true joy or happiness, for we would all be mere executions of the vast divine computer program. In other words, the entire point of creation would be lost.
You would despise God because you find evil in the world. But I say to you that God did not make an evil world, did not make a world of suffering and pain and ignorance and despair. God created a world that was good, and a people that were good and whole and pure and perfect after their kind, and he set them in that world and gave them the choice of good and evil, of life and death. That choice stands before us every day, and whether we rail against it or not, we must make it, and face the consequences of our choice. Would you have the choice removed from you, and be rendered nothing more than the execution of a program, devoid of will or meaning? Would you not then become nothing, and surrender all that is in you to make you human? What kind of existence would that be, this forced obedience, this puppet-on-a-string action, this unknowing, unfree, unmeaning love of God? It would be nothing, unworthy of existing. If the world is now fallen and broken from the perfection that once it was, God has promised us that he will restore it to us anew, made perfect once again. The resurrection you despise is far greater a thing than you or I know, CP5670. All that is marred, smeared and bleared now will be made anew, and we will be changed, no longer the fallible, weak and degenerate creatures we now know ourselves to be, but the perfected beings that the depths of our hearts tell us we are supposed to be. God will indeed make the world good again, and he will restore it to all who choose. On that day, we are promised, that though "now we see through a glass, darkly," that then we shall see "face to face," for "Now I know in part; but then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)
If you wish only to argue against the sort of god whom you have described, I will wholeheartedly agree with you. I have no use for Zeus, either. But one cannot knock Zeus on his ass and justifiably declare it a victory over Yahweh. He is an entirely different, and more potent, matter.
Anyway, that having been said, I move on to the specifics of you last post me:
Yes, we do need at least one assumption for any kind of deduction, whether or not it has anything to do with reality, as even the logic rules themselves are assumptions. That is what I was saying about assumptions (axioms) earlier.
So you cannot then claim that merely the rules of logic are your base assumptions. There must be more (and there is).
Incidentally, if you have heard about this recently, a man named Stephen Wolfram has claimed to basically have discovered a slightly different path to learning about the universe using some sort of computer simulations, which he claims makes things much simpler to understand; it does sound a bit too ambitious, but if the guy's history and stature is any indicator, there may well be some credibility to his ideas.
Interesting. I've not heard about this before. I shall have to read up on it.
I am using the logic-based view of "simplicity" here, as it is the system through which the human brain thinks. Now, the factor (G) cannot be used in that form in such an equation, as it is more of a tensor than a scalar variable in comparison to the assumptions; (G) basically denotes a set of many variables. Now think for a second about what the existence of god would mean here. We are assuming that this god essentially thinks like one of us, for the method in which the Bible describes him is basically an average (not even a relatively intelligent; just a powerful) human. It is generally agreed upon that the brain of an individual (not of a mob) is among the most complex and difficult things to predict in the universe, if it is possible at all. Now, if the entire universe was solely in the power of a single human, think about how unpredictable and disorderly it would be. (look at the absolute monarchies of older times and observe how they operated; this god would be no different, except on a larger scale) He could simply make or break things according to his own random whims, and the whole universe would be in a perpetual state of unpredictability. This would not only add in many extra variables, but some of them would be IRVs, which should be avoided at all costs when trying to put together an explanation. (decidedly indeterminate forms are second only to paradoxes and contradictions in their annoyance in problems )
Now, we shall try assuming the atheistic view and that god does not exist. The primary variable that this would introduce is the one of purpose: why do we exist, and do we have a reason for our existence, or do we merely exist out of a random chance and hence have no real purpose? Is the entire concept of purpose simply a human-based idea that has no relevance in the real world? This question is currently indeterminate as well, but it cannot be proven that it is not possible to determine this either, as is the case with IRVs, and so it is undecidedly indeterminate. However, the god assumption also raises the same question, because no religion adequately explains the purepose in a form that is consistent with what we see in the world. Following the Bible rules is no purpose, because what do we do once we get to heaven? I personally think that an eternal and unlimited happiness is almost as bad as eternal sadness, because it does not change with time and thus leads to stagnation, as there is no end to think of. There is really nothing observed today that completely contradicts our logic and science laws and therefore requires a god to explain (cannot be explained using logic and math); it is just that we have not yet determined an exact structure from the assumptions to the effects, or proven that it is impossible to find such a path. If history is any indicator, however, that should change with time.
This seems to me, if I may say so, CP5670, simply balderdash.
First, it is true that (G) entails a great deal of other propositions (P), but even if we regard (G*) as nothing more than the denial of (G), (G*) entails the denial of (P), and thus is still no more simple than (G). But of course, (G*) is not simply a negation of (G), but is a positive idea of its own, and entails its own peculiar set of propositions (Q), which of course are denied by (G) in turn. So if we want to be more specific, (G) entails (P+Q*), while (G*) entails (P*+Q), and since (P*) is no more simple than (P), and (Q*) is no more simple than (Q), for they are denials of their respective counterparts and thus must be of the same complexity as that which they deny, (G*) is still neither more nor less simple than (G).
Secondly, I once more rejoin that the Judeo-Christian God is not "basically an average (not even a relatively intelligent; just a powerful) human." The Judeo-Christian God is omniscient and omnipotent, and, I repeat, his reason for using human terms and forms in his revelation is to make the communication effective and meaningful - the same reason why one is best advised to speak Malay if one wants to communicate with Malaysians. An omniscient and omnipotent God is perfectly capable of maintaining an orderly universe; he is, after all, omniscient and omnipotent. If you want to argue against a Greek sort of god, go right ahead just the way you are going, but if you want to argue against the Judeo-Christian God, then, for heaven's sake, argue against the Judeo-Christian God!
Actually, Christianity would posit a purpose to human existence. In the words of the Westminster confession, for example, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and serve him forever," or in an alternative way of saying much the same idea, the purpose of our lives is indeed life itself lived in communion with God. If I may follow this trail for a moment, the idea that our eternal destiny is to sit in heaven in a state of bliss that would be extremely boring if not for its superlative blissfulness would most expressly
not seem to be the case that Christianity would posit. It seems to me that when we are resurrected, it will be to an existence whose vibrancy and depth we can now barely imagine. So far from sitting on some cloud fingering a harp in some sort of ecstatic stupor, we will discover that this life we now live was but a shadow in comparison to what we will live then. All that is good in us will become the more powerful, and the dross shall have been burned away in the glories of our new existence. Our creative exercise will be greater and deeper than it is now, our emotions at once made holy and made the more passionate, our reason the clearer, our bodies imperishable and strong, and indeed more than can be said awaits us on that day. We are told of a new heavens and a new earth, and the way the Bible tells it, we seem to inhabit both, being both spiritual and physical creatures at once, even as now in our fallen and broken state we are cut off from the spiritual and long for it, if ever so obscurely in the depths of our hearts, as the fulfilment of what we were meant to be. We shall live at last in communion with God, in the light of his life and greatness and love. There we shall discover that, so far from winding down into stagnant, torpid bliss, life in all its true vibrancy will have just begun. Life in communion with God
is the purpose of life, and is the state (or better, the starting point) where we at last find our fulfilment and meaning.
Finally, the statement "There is really nothing observed today that completely contradicts our logic and science laws and therefore requires a god to explain (cannot be explained using logic and math)"is predicated upon assumptions regarding the nature of God and his relation to the universe that are, well,
. God is not contradictory to natural or logical laws. Indeed, the assumption of order in the universe which begat scientific enquiry is historically rooted in the belief that God, in his omniscience and omnipotence, made it so. God is supposed to be the source of logical and natural laws, and if evidence is ever found that these are in fact contradictions, that will be far more potent ammunition in the atheist's bag than will the continued appearance of a logical and rational universe.
Science provides a temporary solution to determine whether or not something lies in this absolute realm: all thinkers should be able to confirm any given observation, and if that cannot be done, then it is not in the absolute and should be disregarded for the moment.
It is extremely and unjustifiably presumptive to believe that science provides such a solution, for the criteria you describe fail to yield results in the simplest of tests. "All thinkers should be able to confirm any given observation" immediately excludes all of history, for but one example, for we have no way to test whether, say, the Roman empire actually did exist, or whether I ate toast for breakfast on Tuesday morning, and can rely solely on testimonial data. So unless you want to throw away all of history, we are going to have to admit the possibility that we can regard some things as objectively real without requiring that they be immediately accessible to all would-be observers.
Why then does he not simply shape our brains so that we must accept his existence and cannot think otherwise? Also, if the Bible is assumed to be the truth here, the god described there is very limited in terms of his capabilities and thought process, almost as limited as we are, as he does things just like an average human would. As Top Gun said, why does this god simply not "beam himself down from the sky" and reveal himself to us, which is probably within his power, and instead chooses to remain only partially unknown?
See above regarding freedom of choice and the nature of God vis a vis his revelation of himself to us. As for beaming himself down from the sky, his becoming incarnate as one of us in the person of Jesus Christ rather one-ups that, doesn't it?
And if he did one day appear as a 500 foot tall fellow or something, would we still not be able to find all sorts of reasons why not to believe that this was a manifestation of God? Maybe it was a mass hysteria or delusion, maybe it was some grandiose trick perpetrated on the masses by some twisted prankster or religious fanatic, or any of an unknown number of explanations that could be put forth. What if we recorded it on videotape? Easily enough faked. The testimony of many witnesses? We didn't believe it last time, why would we this time? If a direct revelation of God is what you are looking for, such things are not uncommon, and are regularly reported among converts to Christianity today, but one has to be willing to believe in the possibility or one will stubbornly refuse to accept the revelation, no matter what the evidence might be. I refer you to your own response to the story of my brother's miraculous healing: an explanation is readily available to account for the occurrence, but you refuse to consent to that explanation and insist that some alternative explanation must be the real one, despite the fact that there is no posited alternative. Such attitudes are common in humanity, and I find it hard to believe that any action by God could convince someone with free will to become a Christian unless he were willing to have an open mind.
But how does one determine whether the current categories are adequate for explaining an event or not? Simply changing the categories will not do much if one system has not yet been analyzed to its fullest potential.
Well, technically an expansion of the categories of a system is still a modification of the categories, but to get to your intended meaning: it is always, of course, possible that this or that system of categories could be expanded or modified to account for any given phenomenon. Nevertheless, if a system does not currently exhibit the ability to provide an explanation for a given phenomenon, and an alternative does exhibit that ability, logical pragmatism would lead us to adopt and/or integrate that alternative into our categories. To make an example of myself, I find that no viable alternative to a supernatural explanation yet exists to explain the events of my brother's miraculous healing, but I do not discount the possibility that an entirely natural explanation might be found one day. If and when that were to occur, and I were satisfied that this new explanation indeed accounted for the phenomenon in a simpler and more plausible fashion than my currently held position of a
creatio ex nihilo intervention by God, then I would unhesitantly adopt the new position. However, no such explanation is currently evident, and so I am left either to accept the available explanation (an intervention by God) or live with no answer to the question at all, despite there being a readily available one.
Well, it cannot really be determined what is "intrinsic" to a religion and what is not. (Hitler really believed that he was serving god and christianity, so technically his ideas would be "intrinsic" to it as well) I would say that anything that is purely an idea that cannot be put into reality can only be defined as how the majority of humans/thinkers interpret it. One thing though: the existence of a god is not all that hard to accept for me; it is the existence of a human god, a book of god, and a reward/punishment (heaven/hell) system similar to our governments that sounds less likely to me. What do you think of these other extras? (just curious )
Actually, it was in the early centuries of Christianity's existence that were fomulated the Christian creeds. These creeds amount, in typical Greek style, to succinct summaries of what it means to believe Christianity. In essence, they are the statements of what is integral to the Christian religion, as anyone accepting these statements is considered an orthodox Christian, and anyone not accepting them is, by definition, not. The two primary Christian creeds can be found
here and
here. These creeds are by no means the fullness of Christianity, but as shorthand renderings of what is integral to Christian belief they serve extremely well.
Also, if Christianity is true, it does not exist merely as an idea but can be "put into reality" as it were - Christianity posits a description of objective reality. For this reason, it is possible to evaluate Christianity as a truth claim, rather than confining it to the sphere of non-objectively-related idea.
About the "extras" as you call them
, while maintaining my reservations regarding the way you phrase and conceptualise them, I shall say that God has chosen to reveal himself to us in the fashion that he has (presumably so that his revelation would be understandable to all manner of men, and not just the intellectual elite) and if he has so chosen then I find that I must encounter God in this same fashion. If God wants to portray himself to us using human terms, and wishes to outline our options regarding eternity in the forms of life or destruction, and so on, I do not see how I am in a position to argue with that revelation, anymore than I am in a position to argue with gravity not being a repellant force.
It is based on an analysis of what one can see in the world, and certainly makes sense in terms of science; not sure where the "emotional" thing comes up here.
I call it emotional because it is stereotyping. It is, if I may say so, a very biassed analysis that would say that religion somehow inhibits our intellects. Lack of critical thought is a reflection of the laziness and/or stupidity of the individual in question, not of what beliefs he might hold. I hope that I am something of an example of a Christian who can nevertheless engage in critical thought, even as you seem to me an example of an atheist who isn't one unthinkingly. To equate religious with irrational and unthinking, and non-religious with rational and thoughtful, is entirely unjustifiable. If observation leads someone to conclude such a thing, I am inclined to think that the observer is observing through tinted glasses.
That really seems to undermine the reputation of Christianity to me. The main thing is this resurrection concept? What if one does not want to be resurrected? I think what is happening here is that the majority of people have always been obsessed with eternal life, and so the creators of this faith decided to drop in something that would appeal to the common man to gain support; I don't mind extending life by a large amount, but a transfinite life for humans with all their flaws would cause some serious problems to humanity as a whole. The process of human thought needs to be changed before this can be done.
The resurrection is central. It wasn't just "dropped in," it is the foundation and central point. As I quoted earlier in this topic:
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:17-20)
If Jesus were not resurrected, then Christianity would be redundant, merely a restatement of Judaism at best. It is because of Jesus' resurrection that Christianity exists, and without it Christianity falls.
As for why we should want to be resurrected at all, see my words at the beginning of this post, and also consider the following:
If your concern is that resurrected and thus eternally living humans would cause all sorts of problems for the race as a whole, I remind you that our resurrection will also involve our perfection. The foibles and weaknesses and evils that now plague us will no longer. If I may quote 1 Corinthians again:
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body...
And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. (1 Co. 15:42-44, 49)
In short, the imperfections that worry you will be no longer. The resurrected life will be greater by far than we know now. You personally, CP5670, appear to look forward to the day when we humans will have a clear and true knowledge of things. In the resurrection, this will at last be attainable, and more by far besides.
I am certainly willing to grant that [a manifestation of God] is possible, but everyone should be able to confirm it by direct observation to put it into the absolute realm. If some people see a god and some do not, that is not very credible evidence as far as science goes.
As I said above, the thing is that God has revealed himself as a person, not a force. Now, when dealing with a person, we do not use the same sort of criteria at all for evaluation as we do with a force. If George claims that one day he said to me "Ooga-booga," and that I relied "Unga-bunga," that does not mean that I shall always reply "Unga-bunga" to every occurrence of someone saying "Ooga-booga," nor that my reply of "Unga-bunga" on that one occasion should be banished from the realm of objective reality if I do not. Likewise, if a personal being exists with the power to make himself directly perceptible to human beings or not, we cannot say that because he sometimes makes himself perceptible that he must always be so. His actions are determined by his own choice for his own reasons, not by involuntary necessity. If he should not choose to manifest himself in certain ways at certain times, we cannot simply dismiss out of hand the claim that he once did, any more than we can dismiss George's claim that once I chose to reply "Unga-bunga" to his "Ooga-booga." No, when dealing with persons, we have to investigate the objective probability of a claimed action by other means than we do claims regarding forces of nature. This is the stage where actual evaluation of Christianity begins.
Well, it cannot be shown that anything is definitely beyond human comprehension; scientists are assuming that it is not, so that we can at least attempt to find this truth. (no harm in at least trying with the potential benefits; simply giving up like you seem to be doing sounds quite silly to me, no offense intended ) Also, we have not directly perceived anything yet for which an explanation would truly invalidate our starting axioms, which is the only way that a set of rules can be shown to be completely illogical; phenomena are always otherwise undecidedly indeterminate, not even decidely indeterminate, which means that the probability of a future explanation still exists. (this can be applied to just about everything today) The only thing that has been even semi-proved to be decidedly indeterminate is the actions of IRVs, and even many scientists today are not accepting it completely. There is really no reason why we should not try to understand this god in its entirety. (after all, it has not yet been shown that we do not have the capacity)
Also, the Bible does indeed describe this god as basically the "omnicompetent human" you are talking about, and one that is not right at the edge of human understanding either; we can certainly imagine things far, far greater than him.
I base my assessment of the human mind's inability to comprehend God in his entirety on the assumption that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite (I do not use the term transfinite here, but infinite; more on transfinitude later). It is certainly true that there is no harm in trying to understand - that is what the discipline of theology is all about! As we try to understand the revelation we have received, we learn much about God and his relationship with us and the world in general. It is certainly a rewarding pursuit, and one I would encourage anyone to embark upon. Yet any theologian will tell you that no matter how deep and far we plumb the depths of God's mode of existence, we will have only scratched the surface. God is infinite, and therefore the knowledge of him to be had is inexhaustible. We can imagine comprehending him in his entirety only by imagining him as ceasing to be infinite.
As for invalidating starting axioms, who said anything about invalidating starting axioms (except for (G*), if that is what you mean)? God's existence is not a contradiction of logic, nor would it reflect a delegitimation of the natural laws we see in action around us.
As I said before, God has revealed himself to us using human terms. It is metaphoric communication, even as we must constantly be using metaphoric communication to express intangible concepts. Try defining the word "understand" for example. Looking it up reveals definitions like grasping, perceiving, or comprehending something, each of which is metaphoric, as is "understand" itself: standing under = supporting (an idea or concept) = giving a foundation to = etc. Grasp and comprehend are both metaphorically extended in this case from physical meanings ("hold with the hand," and "take in or embrace"), while perceive's semantic range is likewise extended from it basic meaning of "become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses" to refer to the intangible "grasping" of concepts by the mind (incidentally, perceive is also derived from a Latin word meaning "to grasp"). God's revelation to us is metaphoric as all our language is, and while it is useful in teaching us about God, we must always recognise that the anthropomorphic imagery in the Bible is
imagery. So yes, God is often described using such imagery in the Bible, and it would be folly to assume that the metaphor was literal.
Incidentally, what counts as "greater"? What criteria are used for deciding that? What would something greater than an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving and personal God look like, anyway? An impersonal Force of some kind? That would seem far lesser, not greater, so then what?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will admit that reorienting our view of truth seems at first a bit of a difficult thing to do (the power of habit is not to be underestimated ), but once we do so we find ourselves in a far better position to understand the Bible and its message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, here is where the issue of what we can perceive comes in. How can we tell whether or not the Bible has any credibility when we cannot objectively perceive most of the stuff contained within it?
How does that follow? I was talking about reorienting our view of truth from the Western mode (static, rarified, and decontextualised) to the Biblical mode (dynamic, organic, and contextual).
This sounds fine to me actually, as a transfinite loop can indeed be used to forego the whole idea of cause. Now, my question is that, if you are willing to accept a transfinite god, why should a transfinite reality without a god not be equally plausible? (in terms of time)
Ah, now this one I have been looking forward to since I first read the post!
Before I start, here is that brief word regarding transfinitude. In short, I do not grant a transfinite God, but an infinite one. The term "transfinite" is one which I have never encountered outside of my conversation with you, CP5670, and I do not feel familiar enough with the term to start throwing it around before I understand its nuances better. Moreover, given the definition you gave to sandwich, it seems that transfinitude amounts to some sort of intermediate state between finitude and infinitude, or perhaps a kind of continuum in which both are somehow subsumed so that the infinite becomes as the finite, and the finite the infinite. I remain skeptical of the value of this concept, at the very least in regard to the way it has been used in this conversation. In effect, it seems that here transfinitude has been used in an attempt to pull God down from the infinite while at the same time to bring us out of the finite and onto the same level as God - a means of trying to usurp the throne while mitigating the consequences. I will thus insist upon an infinite God, since that is the sort of God that Christianity assumes, and will continue to speak in terms of infinitude and finitude in my arguments and discussion.
Anyway, here we go!
I would like to refer you to the argument I posted earlier regarding the logical impossibility of explaining God's existence:
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 retriever 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 this argument 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.
The proposition
The natural realm exists is an existential proposition whose truth it is logically possible has an explanation. A monotheistically-conceived creator God is one such available explanation, but there are others of course. As such, by the preceding argument, 1) the truth of
The natural realm exists is not sufficient to explain the truth of
The natural realm exists, and 2) 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. Therefore, one is left with two options: one can either 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, or one can simply refuse to answer the question. The former option is the positing of some sort of supernatural reality, and the later 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 if one wishes to undermine the basic assumption
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), but then mystery lies on your side of the fence, not the supernaturalist's.
This argument also speaks to your fun and playfully specious little purple dragon theory. If one were to attempt the gargantuan task of trying to draw up the full definition of God, one would have to include the idea of being logically impossible to explain (for if one could explain this being's existence by reference to some other thing, then this being would cease to be regarded as God). Now, if "God" (i.e. the being who created the universe) were created by the purple dragon, and the purple dragon was in turn created by you, neither "God" nor the purple dragon are really God. At this point we are left to consider whether you are God (that is, whether your existence is logically impossible to explain). Looking at you, we find that your existence is logically possibly explicable, and that therefore you are not God either. So continuing backwards through the chain of explanations we suddenly arrive once again at the original being "God" who created the universe. We thus find no being about whom the proposition
There exist things whose existence it is logically impossible to explain is true. If this situation occurs, then no explanation can be posited whatsoever for any existential proposition being true, and the rules of logic implode into a very nasty mess. Therefore, I conclude that your theory is false!
I think I have addressed in one form or another most of the issues you raise for despising God already in this post (which is getting very, very long), so I'll move to your last question...
If it were somehow irrefutably proven by the rules of logic that God could not exist, I would, after getting over my initial shock and incredulity (I've been arguing that such logical proof in either direction is impossible), accept it, but I would despise this new reality with all vehemence in my body and soul. As a theist I could accept the fact that I had been wrong, but as a human being I would find the results to be vile. I find the idea of reality without God hateful in the extreme, because it destroys everything in me that I value as a human being. If there is no God, there is... nothing. My philosophical mind would inexorably lead me to nihilism. If all that exists is the physical universe, then it is a closed system and everything that happens inside it is determined beforehand by the chain of cause and effect, including all acts of human "will". There is no such thing as freedom, and any appearance of freedom is only an appearance. Without my freedom, without free will, without choice, I am no longer a man, but like Dostoevsky said, only a "stop in an organ" or "a piano key." The only possible exception to this horrible determinism is events of pure chance, which does not introduce freedom (self-determination) into the situation, only haphazard and causeless meaninglessness. Either way, we are non self-determining; we have no choice. Either we and our actions are determined, and thus meaningless, or we and our actions are random, without cause, purpose or direction, and thus again meaningless. Reality without God negates everything that human nature demands that there should be: reason, meaning, significance, value, dignity, worth, etc. Such an existence, one without any truth or an absolute of any kind save senseless, brute matter, is insufferable. In rebellion against this, well, this nothing that I would despise so thoroughly if only I could find something to despise, I would probably try pursuing atheistic existentialism for awhile. Of course, atheistic existentialism amounts to nothing more than trying to invent for ourselves some sort of meaning in the face of nihilism, and is thus nothing more than a lie we tell ourselves. I think the best summary of how I would, as a human being, react to such proof might be found in Dostoevsky's
Notes from the Underground (especially chapters 7 and 8).
On the other hand, the atheist when faced with incontrovertible proof of God's existence, if he were as open-minded a man as I hope I am, would accept that he had been wrong, and would not suffer the same sort of consequences that I would in the reverse situation. He would have found that, despite whatever misgivings he may have held or did still hold towards God, that his existence as a human being would have been ratified. He would have a justification for his existence, and a free will, and a meaning and truth and objective value and all the rest, in spite of his always not wanting to buy the package at all. In other words, I believe the atheist would indeed have a far better (i.e. happier) time adjusting to the consequences of proof against his belief than vice versa, because the consequences would be what his human nature demands be the case (even though he may not want them to be the case).
Anyway, that's enough of a post for now!
P.S. I thank you for the compliments, sir. You have been quite engaging to talk with as well.
