It seems to me that if one wishes to believe something, then it makes this thing much easier to believe however if one rejects the possibly of the belief without consideration of the evidence then one is hard-pressed to accept any evidence that contradicts his own preconceived notions. The presuppositions of the atheistic position is that it is at least empirically, impossible to prove god exists and if-so facto (given atheist tend to be strict empiricalists) then god must not exist however many atheist will apply genetic fallacy in order to justify those presuppositions on which their argument is based.
Now if one looks at the evidence objectively one can at least conclude that God exists if not a Monotheistic God.
Disregarding all preconcieved notions we can deductively prove God without Appealing to Biblical authority. Of course the analysis is required but truely if athiest abandons reason simply because that reason no longer supports reason then perhaps he ought to reconsider his worldview because I happen to know plenty of pseudo scientists who abandon reason to fit their needs: Young Earth Creationists.
1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)
2. Bu
3. Cu
Where B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.
Premise one
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise Two
The Universe began to exist
Therefore,
The Universe has a cause.
Regarding premise 1:
It seems rather intuitive. It is confirmed by virtually every area of our sense experience. It is a axiom at best.Even quantum fluctuations, which many suppose to be uncaused, are causally conditioned in that they depend on the existence of a pre-existing quantum vacuum.
David Oderberg argues:
We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something. [1]
Regarding Premise two:
"An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist" WLC
If the Universe was infinite along with being temporal because it relates to causes within time, which likewise always existed, then is an infinite temporal regress because it goes into the past forever. The universe must be explained this way in order to avoid an absolute cosmic beginning to all of space-time reality. It requires there exist an actual infinite within natural reality, because past causes and events have to go on forever into the past by definition given an eternal universe. This perennial philosophical problem is not an issue under theistic accounts which produce arguments for transcendent being like a personal God because traditionally God is considered the only non-contingent or always existing, non-caused cause. The infinite regress is stopped by an ontological commitment to a supernatural personal agent that is the ultimate cause of the existence, and according to the kalam cosmological argument, the beginning of the universe.
Now if one looks at the evidence objectively one can at least conclude that God exists if not a Monotheistic God.
Disregarding all preconcieved notions we can deductively prove God without Appealing to Biblical authority. Of course the analysis is required but truely if athiest abandons reason simply because that reason no longer supports reason then perhaps he ought to reconsider his worldview because I happen to know plenty of pseudo scientists who abandon reason to fit their needs: Young Earth Creationists.
1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)
2. Bu
3. Cu
Where B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.
Premise one
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise Two
The Universe began to exist
Therefore,
The Universe has a cause.
Regarding premise 1:
It seems rather intuitive. It is confirmed by virtually every area of our sense experience. It is a axiom at best.Even quantum fluctuations, which many suppose to be uncaused, are causally conditioned in that they depend on the existence of a pre-existing quantum vacuum.
David Oderberg argues:
We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something. [1]
Regarding Premise two:
"An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist" WLC
If the Universe was infinite along with being temporal because it relates to causes within time, which likewise always existed, then is an infinite temporal regress because it goes into the past forever. The universe must be explained this way in order to avoid an absolute cosmic beginning to all of space-time reality. It requires there exist an actual infinite within natural reality, because past causes and events have to go on forever into the past by definition given an eternal universe. This perennial philosophical problem is not an issue under theistic accounts which produce arguments for transcendent being like a personal God because traditionally God is considered the only non-contingent or always existing, non-caused cause. The infinite regress is stopped by an ontological commitment to a supernatural personal agent that is the ultimate cause of the existence, and according to the kalam cosmological argument, the beginning of the universe.
