And, conversely, it doesn't mean it is prima facie evidence that it is of God! Remember, the party that makes the claim must provide the evidence (the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence is required). Doubt is justified until proof is established.
You just need the presupposition that there is an intelligent CREATOR
There you have it! The a priori, blind faith, initial step. From there on, we can "explain" everything. That's positively medieval, FK. :)
The presupposition is that there is God and now we proceed to prove the presupposition by all means. That's not how one gets to the truth, FK. The cause is established by working retroactively towards the cause, based on available evidence.
Sure, we can make a reasonable assumption that if we see a house there must be a builder who built it and an architect who designed it. We can do the same thing about the Creation. But we don't know anything about either, except that something HAD to cause this to happen. As to who or what or how is unknown.
We agree on that. The rest is filled with human fancy.
You appear frustrated if things cannot be explained without God.
I am frustrated with those who attempt to explain everything through God. Saying the "cause is God" is not an explanation FK. If I scratch my head, is that also from God? Is God causing my head to itch? And if so, where is the poof?
And, conversely, it doesn't mean it is prima facie evidence that it is of God! Remember, the party that makes the claim must provide the evidence (the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence is required). Doubt is justified until proof is established.
But if the Bible says it is of God, and it doesn't make immediate sense to us, that still IS prima facie evidence that it is of God. The Bible IS proof. Now, I know we part company here, but it occurred to me that I hadn't restated that in a while. It's a position statement I shouldn't neglect. :)
The presupposition is that there is God and now we proceed to prove the presupposition by all means. That's not how one gets to the truth, FK. The cause is established by working retroactively towards the cause, based on available evidence.
Although I offered the possible presupposition that "there is a God", the even better argument is that we don't even have to start with "There is a God". All we really need to start with is the presuppositions of absolutes and antithesis. If we can start with only that, then "a" God being "there" must follow. Trouble is, in our modern, relativistic world, we can't even start there with many people.