Actually your expansion is incorrect. It should be something like: “On what grounds can anyone assert that God exists, because its nature is that it exists?”
No, your “expansion” is merely a different question.
My expansion was just that: taking “Why is it [God’s] nature to exist?” and replacing the word “God” with its meaning “someone whose nature is to exist”. And, of course, rewording a little so that it would be less awkward - and that gives us “Why does someone whose nature is to exist has nature that is to exist?”.
Explanations cannot extend to infinity. Any chain of explanations must start somewhere, and that starting point is a brute fact, something that cannot be “explained”, and does not need explanation - precisely because it is self-evident, because it is a “brute fact”.
Great! You just formulated a proof of God’s existence!
Now, it is not a very good proof (otherwise you would see what you have proved), but that’s still great progress!
One problem here is that “bare fact” is not something that is explained by itself. It is something that has no explanation at all.
The word: “universe” literally means “everything that exists”, so it cannot be explained.
Oh, does it? In that case, how comes the word “multiverse” exists?
Rather, I disagree with your apparent epistemology of seeing which assumptions lead to favorable conclusions and then choosing whatever is most favorable. Rather, I try to look at reality and make conclusions based on my experiences and my senses, because these are fundamental to action and communication.
I’m pretty sure that you do not. The method you describe would look like this: “I look to reality and my senses tell me that Moon has a colour of green cheese. Therefore I make a conclusion that Moon is made of green cheese.”.
Also, I said nothing about conclusion being or not being “favorable”. If you do not understand my position, it might be a good idea to ask about it.
Yes, of course. That gets to the point: Broussard must give us some reason for thinking the atoms themselves are not enough to account for the tree’s existence. I’m tired of repeating myself.
You mean you have not heard of electrons, protons, neutrons?
Perhaps you should take your time and formulate your position a bit more precisely?
You must give the critical thinker reason
to think the tree’s atoms require some supernatural cause.
There are several attempts to show that God exists, but every one I have seen rests on uncertain or else false premises.
You know, that’s an interesting double standard. You demand demonstrations from others but yourself offer grand declarations (“every one I have seen rests on uncertain or else false premises”) without any demonstration. As if your opinion was “true by default”.
