• William Lane Craig vs. ...

    by Published on 09-30-2010 09:33 AM     Number of Views: 3623 
    1. Categories:
    2. William Lane Craig vs. ...,
    3. Atheist, Agnostic, Agtheist,
    4. Richard Dawkins

    Dawkins thinks a non-existent God who created universes is better than an existing God who creates universes. But that is logically incoherent because there is no possible universe in which a non-existent being exists.

    This is not my most favorite proof, since I prefer my resurrection proof using the Minimal Facts Approach and the 4 Step Proof for God, but the ontological is the most elegant.

    The Ontological Argument (The Nature of Existence or Being)
    1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect in every possible world). Hence atheism is false. The basic meanings are Atheism is the word in the English language to claim God does not exist. Agnosticism is the word in the English language to say one is not sure.
    2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (eventually you would come to a world with a maximally great being because there would be an infinite number of possibilities).
    3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it would exists in every possible world (true by definition, because part of being maximally great is to exist in every possible world).
    4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then He or She exists in the actual world.
    5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
    6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.


    by Published on 12-15-2009 02:56 AM     Number of Views: 2135 
    1. Categories:
    2. William Lane Craig vs. ...

    Each of the major changes in our evolutionary development are themselves so improbable without God's involvement they would have to be a miracle and thus proof of God, the giver of miracles, since atheism doesn't allow for miracles.

    Atheists don't think God would be all-good to allow suffering, but that suffering happens anyway in a naturalistic world, so is it a doublestandard to accuse God and not an atheistic world. Any theory someone has ought not to contradict itself, and this accusation against God by atheists is contradicting themselves.

    If God caused less suffering in the world would that draw more or less people to Him in a loving relationship? If there is no suffering what need do you have for God? Once you realize suffering occurs because of man's sin, you will be dependent on God.

    In order to maximally save the most, it appears a world of suffering is necessary, because God is not going to prevent the creation of some on account of the many who refuse His saving grace.

    To deny the cause of the universe outside of time is to deny a cause for the universe, thus nothing would exist. No matter how you think about God and the universe, each time the only explanation that makes any sense is that God did it.