I’m a Christian, and I believe in God, but I am able to see the folly of trying to prove God’s existence using mere logical tools. I remember the deceased Christian apologist, Dr. Walter Martin, referring to this topic during a lecture at a Christian college. Dr. Martin said that all an agnostic has to say is, “The universe is.” That’s it. That’s the only fact. Any statement about the universe origin is just speculation. To say that this universe cannot come into existence unless some giant intelligent force intervened is pure speculation.
As you suggested, if we were godlike and had the ability to look at 100 universes since their inceptions, then we can make logical inferences and empirical theories. If 90 universes were devoid of life and 10 universes were full of life, we could collect data and analyze it. If in the 90 lifeless universes there has been no intervention from an outside intelligent force, while in the 10 full-of-life universes there has been intervention from gods, then a good case could be made that life existence requires gods.
The reason we tend to assume that a found watch in a desert was created by a human is obvious; we already have seen watches and watchmakers. Otherwise, we would be speculating.
When I share the gospel with an atheist, I don't get bogged down in these silly arguments. I just pray, share God's Word in a reasonable and polite manner, and let the Holy Spirit do its work.
Thank you for a reasoned response from "the other side." I was beginning to wonder if it was even possible.
> Yes, to “prove” the existence of a deity or deities using logic is a waste of time, since it is next to impossible.
Well... not *necessarily*. Assume for a moment that there was an intelligent, universe creating deity. And assuem that said deity *wanted* to be discovered. There are quite a number of ways in which this deity could prove it's existence, if it so chose. I'm personally fond of Carl Sagan's notion of messages buried within such things as pi or the square root of two; these would be *impossible* to truly fake. Only the entity that created pi or the square root of two would be able to change them.
> The reason we tend to assume that a found watch in a desert was created by a human is obvious; we already have seen watches and watchmakers.
Keep in mind the main reason why the "watch" analogy is not jsut silly, but intellectually dishonest: it posits a *single* watch. Now, if you found a planet where the entire surface was covered with watches, clocks, hourglasses and the like replicating themselves, eating each other, consuming resources... THAT would be relevant. But as it is, the story always is "Imagine if you found a single watch..." Well, in that case, imagine you found a single well-formed organism sitting on a pedestal on an alien world, surrounded by *no* other life whatsoever. Then in *that* case, the actions of some intelligence would be reasonably inferred.
> I just pray, share God's Word in a reasonable and polite manner, and let the Holy Spirit do its work.
A better strategy than used by many of your co-religionists here on FR. FR is often enough the place to go if you want to have embryonic faith aborted (as has happened to me numerous times).