"Why does anything exist at all, as opposed to nothing?"
"Is there an explanation for every being that exists?"
Christian philosopher, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, proposed that the answer to the above 2 questions lay in the concept of a Necessary Being, i.e. God. His argument went like this:
- Everything that exists has an explanation, either in the necessity of it's own nature, or in an external cause.
- If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God.
- The universe exists.
- Therefore, the explanation of the universe is God.
Is this argument coherent?
Does it contain logical errors?
Does this argument make sense?
Does it contain logical errors?
Does this argument make sense?
Watch this last video for this argument, where we summarize it from beginning to end, and you decide if it's convincing or not. I think it is a very powerful concept, which points to a Being which is Necessary, timeless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, and personal! Sounds a bit like the God of Scripture to me! Let me know what you think....
Until next time..... have an Intelligent Faith!
Just a few things, Pastor J, and take them for what they are worth to you. First: Dr. Craig argues - if I understand him correctly, and I think I do - that God is timeless before the creation of the universe, but actually exists in time since the creation. You can find his argument in his podcasts under "Doctrine of Revelation" or "Doctrine of God." I don't remember which and I'm sorry for that. For this argument, it isn't vital, but in general you might want to know. I wish I could give you the exact number of the podcast, but I didn't write it down. Sorry about that. But I wanted you to know of his slighty different take time and timelessness. Or, perhaps you are of the same opinion but didn't find it necessary to expalin here. The only other idea I would suggest is to refine your language a little and line up your points in a more concise manner. That's not meant to put you down, because overall it's excellent, just a little choppy in certain spots. You also might want to point out (as Dr. Craig does) that this argument does not require one-hundred percent certainty to be a good argument, just more plausible that not, even if it's only 52 to 48 percent more plausible. You do mention that at one point, but Dr. Craig leads off with this point in his podcast lessons, so establishes the idea at the start, which I think is a good idea. To quote him directly: "An argument is a series of statements of premises that lead to a conclusion. The argument must obey the rules of logic. Its conclusion must follow from the premises by the rules of logic, and the premises need to be true. These are the two conditions for an argument to be considered sound. But remember that the premises must be evident, somehow supported by the evidence, so that you know or realize, or have good reason to think they are true." You can find how he begins this argument by reviewing his podcast, "Existence of God" number 1, dated 2010/08/23. Please keep in mind that this is just a suggestion and by no means an attempt to get you to do anything differently. Good job. God bless.
ReplyDelete