Janszoon

I think the biggest flaw in this whole argument is right here. Who's to say the explanation isn't something other than God? And who's to say universe even has an explanation of its existence to begin with?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

SATCHMO

Pure logic and pragmaticism are oversold concepts these days.

God is a concept, and the nature of the connotations that this concept is infused with is largely dependent upon the individual's personal outlook. There is no such thing as an objective stance in such an argument. How is it possible to argue for our against the existence of God when the closest working definition that we can come to for what god isis that which cannot be defined? It seems wasted breath and brain cells to ruminate over such a concept. It comes down to whether or not your existential paradigm is more functional as an atheist or as a theist.
We will never through the process of infinite regression reach a point of singularity. I personally just believe that a deterministic outlook that accepts everything as being chaotic and random to be very bleak. My world view is makes much more sense if accept the paradigm of an intelligent universe.

streetwaves

Indeed, but I would not have said that the current state of the universe is necessary. At perhaps the very most I'd say that the existence of the Universe is necessary (or at least cannot be proven to be otherwise). After all, the argument put forth by the theist here aims to prove God is needed for the Universe to exist at all.

__________________
rateyourmusic

Neil Loots

Cursed consciousness! Consciousness and the capacity for reflection are the bane of existence (although without them, of course we wouldn't be discussing any of this at this forum, unhappy paradox!). Especially in relation to god, the universe, evolution and other subjects, thought tends towards, that is to say desires, a final signified; an unequivocal answer. Impossible! Then again, indeterminacy and chaos do not necessarily have to equate with nihilism: there is a certain freedom in embracing the essential indeterminacy, chaos and inauthenticity of one's (impossible) apprehension of death.

__________________
One morning, upon awakening from agitated dreams, Gregor Samsa found himself, in his bed, transformed into a monstrous vermin.

SATCHMO

Cursed consciousness/blessed consciousness - there 2 sides of the same coin w/ the unofficially designated goal in life being going from the former to the latter. Change how you perceive the world and the world you perceive will change.
I agree, determinism doesn't necessarily equate to nihilism but for some it is more of a razor's edge to walk upon than for others.

cardboard adolescent

^i think i'm going to stop flipping that coin

davidMC1982

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Does God exist? What is the explanation for the existence of God?

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Rephrase it and make them argue against it. For instance, "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is Satan." It's as valid as suggesting the explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

I like to think so.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1,3)

Why? By definition, the universe is everything. An explanation for the universe existing only goes to encompass that explanation within the universe, adding yet another layer of explanation required. It is quite clear that we'll never have an explanation for the universe unless we somehow reach a stage where the question becomes the answer too. If we do reach this point, it would only prove the inevitability of the universe existing.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2,4)

See points 2 & 4 above. The addition of God to the equation has added nothing but an artificial layer of complexity to something already complex enough. We're slowly breaking down the universe into its component parts; quarks, bosons, strings/membranes. Why stick a great behemoth of a puzzle (God) in the way then stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la, problem solved?"

The problem you have is that they're proposing a theory that cannot be falsified, it is therefore not a theory at all. You could set up a similar argument for anything you sought to "prove". Construct a similar argument "proving" they sleep with their mother and you might get them to see the point.

All they've really stated is, "God exists because I say so".

Dave

cardboard adolescent

^^ it seems that the dialectical method is pretty much the explanation that makes the question the answer (that is, the dialectic is the question and the answer), but i disagree that it's inevitable or inescapable. someone has to ask.

Terrible Lizard

Another conundrum is the question that if there is a creator, does this being wish to be discovered at all. Surely a sentient all-powerful being could hide any evidence of its existence.

__________________
“YOU ARE SCUM SLUT.”
-John Martyn

dac

This argument is dismissed easily by just looking at number 2. Why should we just assume that God is that reason? Why not Zeus, or some American Indian god or whatever?

__________________