|
Post by Caroline on Feb 17, 2017 14:45:46 GMT -5
1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe is an existing thing. 4. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
Premise (1) seems pretty self-evident, yet many atheists argue that the universe simply has no explanation of its existence. So premise (2) is logically equivalent to their contention that if atheism is true, the universe has no explanation.
A. If atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence.
This is logically equivalent to:
B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.
(B) is virtually synonymous with (2).
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Feb 20, 2017 20:16:41 GMT -5
Hi!
Though some atheists may take too much on faith, that doesn't add any credence to assertion 2 here. There are a looooooot of steps missing between assertion 1 and 2.
Logical arguments need each assertion (or "grounds") to be proven on its own. Saying "if the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God" is logically equivalent to saying "if the universe has an explanation, that explanation is raspberry Jello." There's just no connection between the two.
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Feb 21, 2017 9:56:07 GMT -5
Yes…as I said on the other thread, each premise needs warrant for belief for the argument to be accepted as true. In support of premise (2), as I said in my recent blog post "Explanation please", “The cause of all space, matter, and time must be immaterial, timeless, personal, and unimaginably powerful. God is the only explanation that fits that description.” Raspberry Jello does not meet the qualifications.
|
|
joe
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by joe on Mar 3, 2017 19:13:13 GMT -5
“The cause of all space, matter, and time must be immaterial, timeless, personal, and unimaginably powerful. God is the only explanation that fits that description.” Immaterial? By definition Timeless? Likewise Unimaginably powerful? Perhaps a stretch but I'll allow it. Personal? Buhwhut? How exactly does that follow?
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Mar 3, 2017 21:29:11 GMT -5
Personal - having a free will to choose to create or not.
|
|
joe
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by joe on Mar 3, 2017 21:30:28 GMT -5
Does a spark have free will regarding whether to create a fire?
|
|
|
Post by Caroline on Mar 3, 2017 21:38:40 GMT -5
Is this a trick question? No, it does not.
|
|
jeff
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by jeff on Mar 29, 2017 7:12:42 GMT -5
I'm still wrapping my head around this one, and Joe I can understand your hang up between assertion 1 and 2.
I would guess most atheists/naturalists are fine with saying the universe just always existed. We as Christians believe that God has also always existed. The naturalistic community likely isn't satisfied with that answer. But if we grant God being immaterial, timeless, powerful, personal, then the explanation for his existence makes sense, more sense for the universe just being there. The universe being material, expanding, finite, suggests that something started it, and if honestly pressed for the cause of it's existence, one would have to land on some "Great Cause." A spark perhaps. Probably a really big spark.
As for the spark creating a fire, it does not have free will, but a spark needs someone/something to create it, and conditions must be right for a fire to start.
|
|