The God most scientists believe exists is most likely not the God of most religions. More probably not necessarily an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God, possibly not even a thinking God.
The argument for - #1:
1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.
– which is what everybody means by ‘God’.
Not so sure - #1:
The error in logic is that every contingent thing has an explanation of existence. This is solely our human experience. Sort of a causality thing that applies within our infinitesimally minuscule surroundings. What if there exist elsewhere in the universe or even other universes wherein contingent things can and do come from nothing?
1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.
– which is what everybody means by ‘God’.
Not so sure - #1:
The error in logic is that every contingent thing has an explanation of existence. This is solely our human experience. Sort of a causality thing that applies within our infinitesimally minuscule surroundings. What if there exist elsewhere in the universe or even other universes wherein contingent things can and do come from nothing?
The argument for - #2:
1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
Not so sure - #2
Again, causality, which is certainly apparent, would dictate a transcendent cause. If there is a cause, it certainly isn't obvious. If humanity is the reason for the universe, why so much more than just the Earth and humans? And really? Is the whole evolution thing really needed.
1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
Not so sure - #2
Again, causality, which is certainly apparent, would dictate a transcendent cause. If there is a cause, it certainly isn't obvious. If humanity is the reason for the universe, why so much more than just the Earth and humans? And really? Is the whole evolution thing really needed.
The argument for - #3
We can summarize this argument as follows:
1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Not so sure - #3
We can summarize this argument as follows:
1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Not so sure - #3
