(June 16, 2012 at 9:40 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Although many people treat this question as non-sensical saying if it always existed, it had to exist...I think it's a question worth asking.
When it comes to finite things existing in finite numbers, one wonders indeed why it exists at all rather than not. Why such a number as opposed to another. It seems the question is asked because whatever existed is something that needs an explanation as to why it exists rather than not.
When it comes to God, he is Ultimate existence and a neccessary existence. Whatever he is, he has to be that. But the same cannot be said about how much energy/matter existed in the past. Neither are the quantities assigned to each thing an absolute thing that must be the way it is. It didn't HAVE to be that way. For example whatever quantity of matter exists, one can always question, why not more, why not less. The same can be about the quantities assigned to them as properties.
To say it simply is that way seems rather a weak answer. This is not a definitive proof of God, but it shows we have knowledge of God as necessary existence upon mediation. This is why we are unsastified with other things having no explanation, because we know they are not things necessarily so, but reality is what HAD to be in reality.
Now if God was finite, we would ask why he wasn't more greater as opposed to less. If he fell short of perfection, we can ask why he falls short.
But if God is ultimate, and is necessarily so, then he is the only thing is explained independantly, while everything else seems to require an explanation being dependant.
Finite things are not necessary existences. They aren't such that it's impossible for them to have been otherwise. The same is not true of Ultimate Existence and Necessary existence.
Now this is not hard core proof. It can always be dismissed that things don't need explanations.
But I think intuitively we know everything needs an explanation. God is his own explanation, being necessary and ultimate existence. Why he is the way he is, is because he had to be that way. But everything else is not their own explanation, and need an explanation.
Thoughts?
This is simply a form of the ontological argument.
Refutation: http://www.paul-almond.com/ModalOntologicalArgument.htm
Without the detail found in the attached refutation, I find it disingenuous to say all things need an explanation, but not god (god is its own explanation is the same as saying god does not require an explanation).
