The discussion of my post (concerning the extence of God) on Hot Abercrombie Chick’s site is quite the heated debate (in which I have participated), and at the request of one the people with whom I was debating, I’ll post some of it here so that he can respond in a less “noisy” envinronment.
So, here’s some of the debate so far (I hope I pulled out what is relevant):
**Me**: Claiming that God is needed to explain the existence of the universe is dependent upon the supposition that God a necessary entity (something that doesn’t need an explanation for WHY it exists), and, furthermore, that he is the ONLY necessary entity. But BOTH of those claims are only suppositions. That is, one could ask, if God explains the universe, WHAT explains God? If the UNIVERSE needs an explanation for why it exists, why doesn’t God? And why can’t we suppose that the universe itself, is a NECESSARY thing…one that doesn’t itself need an explanation for WHY it exists (it just does).
In other words, you can’t just ASSERT that the universe (or the Big Bang, perhaps) needs something to explain why it came to be, but God DOESN’T need such an explanation, without a further defense of this assertion.
**Ozy**: Your point is perfectly valid except for one thing: It is science (physics) that has to explain the reason for the universe being in existence, that is the very nature of science and being scientifically. When you do go around postulating the universe, then the inverse of your argument holds just as strong: why not postulate a God. As a matter of fact, you can start postulating anything that is not disprovable, but that is the whole occams razor thing, you can postulate it, but if there is no need for it, it won’t be true. When you cannot explain the universe with science, then the best explanation for its existence is true, which is probably a creator, and not that it just exists, because it can’t just exists by the very rules science (physics) states.
Science disproves the universe being able to exists, but the universe does exist, so science is a wrong theory, any theory that does not disprove itself is more likely to be true.
And to counter Tina’s argument about this free will thing:
There is one simple explanation why God can have a free wil and stil always choose to do only good: a vastly higher level of intelligence.
**Me**: Perhaps you stated this in an earlier comment, but what “rules” of science entail that it cannot explain the universe? The assumption that *I* have always understood these kinds of arguments depending on is the following: that all (non-necessary) entities and events are CAUSED by something. (And if we are to assume that God is the only necessary being, then he is needed to explain to explain what caused the universe). This isn’t really a SCIENTIFIC principle, but just a general assumption…which only works at showing that God exists IF you assume that he is the only possible necessary entity.
Regarding your comment about God and free will. Either the ABILITY to choose evil is necessary for free will or it isn’t. And God either has that ability or he doeesn’t. I’m not sure how level of intelligence is relevant to deciding either of these issues.
So, Ozy: respond away!