Therefore, I think it’s a bit more reasonable to assign the attribute of self-sufficiency to the universe than to God…
There is no logically valid reason to apply self-sufficiency to a being that is potentially existential, or had a definite beginning.
if we must assign such an attribute, that is. Other than that, it’s pretty much parallel to your own proposition of God.
No it is not. I advise you to read things in detail instead of misreading them or flapping through them with the assumed confidence that you know what you are talking about.
The validity of an argument is in no way dependent on the validity of other arguments.
It depends on the nature of the arguement. In terms of “necessity”, from particular premises, a thing can be necessarily true because some other proposition is logically invalid. 2 + 2 cannot be 5, therefore it must be something else that doesn’t have the nature of “five”. If a thing cannot come out of nothing, then there must be an absolute timeless being. If it is logically “
invalid” that thing can have an absolutely natural beginning, then it must have be created by something that not merely natural, but supernatural. The validity of this fact has also been shown to be the case on numerous occasions.
You and Benadam seem to be of the opinion that we must take sides…that we must support some theory pertaining to the origin of the universe. I don’t see any obligation to support a theory or to take sides in this matter.
You ought to be compelled to the most logical conclusion. If God gives us an objective purpose meaning and the dignity of an ultimate moral fulfillment in heaven, then the validity of believing in Gods existence is a very important. Its been shown many hundreds and thousands of times before, that Absolute-Naturalism is not a logical conclusion. People cling to it because they want it to be true, or have failed to grasp the relevance of the logical evidence against it. We as theists also what God to be true; the only difference being is that our position fulfills not only the objectivity of human dignity, but it is also logically defensible.
The real question is, do you have any respect for logic?
If all available theories are inadequate;
Incomplete knowledge of a cause, is not synonymous to being logically inadequate. Naturalism is logically inadequate in explaining existence. If Naturalism is not true, then there is only one other intelligible thing that can be true.
there is no onus on anyone to choose to support whatever theory they deem most plausible.
You don’t have to believe anything. We were talking about which is more plausible belief. I thought you were here because you wanted to understand which is more plausible? If you are not here for that then what are you here for?
Again, I’m content with saying, “I don’t know.”
I think you are content with not knowing; this seems to me to be more consistent with the contents of your posts.
Some people don’t feel this way, but in my experience, doubt is more honest than certainty will ever be.
We live in a world where survival, morality, happiness, and knowledge of ones end and beginning, are the number one goals for psychologically advanced beings. If we can know what is more likely to be the case through logical inference, then this can help understand where we are going and how we are going to get there. Being honest about the evidence is about choosing a position that is the most plausible and living according to that plausibility. There is no dishonesty in that. The unjustified agnosticism that you’re promoting as an alternative has always seemed to me to be an attempt to shun responsibility in regards to the pursuit of knowledge and truth. You are attempting to wrap it up in honesty, but to me its far from it.
So it’s more reasonable to believe a being always existed, having never been caused, and that it magically created principles (creating things, by the way, would be impossible without causality to begin with) so that it may enjoy the spiritual progression of hairless monkeys? Give me a break…
Nice straw-man. It almost makes you sound intelligent.
Again, if you don’t know how God created principles and maintained his own existence,
God created the world through the perfect power of his will and mind, and assigned principles of how things ought to behave. How that is possible, is beyond my comprehension, but i don’t know that its not logically possible. However, i do know that the universe didn’t come in to existence by itself because i know that such a thing is logically impossible, given that i know the meaning of nothing.
In respect of Gods existence, this has been explained. God exists necessarily because God is existence.
I can always assert that the matter present during the Big Bang did the exact same thing.
No you cannot.
