freejohn, you have kicked off a wonderful discussion. Anytime this group of participants engage it is beneficial to us all.
I see this particular argument as a contradiction in terms. What does Uni-verse mean? It means one. Therefore, if we are to consider the whole, then multiple “universes” must themselves exist within an even larger Universe. Once there, to the larger whole, don’t think you have arrived at the end of your journey. God does not exist within that Universe. It exists within God, for God IS existence. Of everything! And more!
It is natural to try to make our beliefs consistent with our knowledge of the external for the key to belief is understanding. When we try to understand God we are going beyond that, going beyond our understanding of “the world.” The door to that understanding is Faith. It is normal to try to make things coherent within what we already know but when it comes to God, forget that. It is a whole new world that you can only understand through experience, but once you experience it the Bible unfolds its mysteries to you.
Once you believe and study God’s message in the Bible, you will see lessons about life you didn’t know were there. You will see the answers to questions which have sold millions of self-help books and made hundreds of authors wealthy simply by explaining what is already explained. They are just explaining them to non Bible readers.
21st Centurion does a wonderful job of explaining the common fault of Begging the Question. That and Hasty Generalization are the two most common errors in thinking. Yet, in this case it is just of ancillary interest. To prove God destroys that which you just proved, so why bother if that is your purpose. To understand God you MUST beg the question, but don’t let that bother you. Logic is of the natural, physical world, man’s world, but God is of the Spiritual world, within which the natural world exists. God is More.
My learned friends have given you much to contemplate. They have explained the natural, scientific reasoning of why God exists. Yet, that is simply explaining God’s existence, not who God is. What does it matter that God exists if we are not going to embrace Him and learn His message? Learning that He exists is just academic. To make it meaningful you need the experience of which I spoke. Can you experience beauty and not feel God? Can you love and not feel God? What about poetry, even sensual pleasure? A delightful aroma? Can science explain that? Sure, scientists can talk about the senses and what senses the sensation, but can they explain the delight, the awe, the reverence, the sadness, the pity, the kindness, etc., which result from those sensations. For that you need something more. I am not saying that you cannot experience those emotions in a secular manner but for a believer they come naturally. For a believer they also evoke a desire to say “Thank you, Lord.” in recognition of the Source. I doubt a secularist feels a need to say, “Thank you, body.” To make God meaningful you must experience Him and His Love and that will lead you to the Truth and Life.
As I said, belief opens up a whole new world. What is the purpose of a static belief that God exists? It is more important that you know God. To know God you must experience God. Faith is the door to that experience and Faith is gained through Grace. Grace is granted following Bible study and prayer. Do it! Nothing else matters. Then, you don’t need these discussions, although they are still fun and helpful. Then, when you encounter evolutionists and non-believers who mock your belief you can just smile, secure in your belief. If you choose to engage them, fine for with the help of these Freepers you will be well armed, but you need not engage them if you don’t want. You will have the Truth. They won’t.
Thank you oh so much for your wonderful insights, dear Mind-numbed Robot!
I particularly liked your observation that if we can "prove" the existence of God, then what we are testing wouldn't be God.
It's sort of analogous to the situation in which a biologist is trying to understand what life is. The "scientific" way to go about the problem would be to take a crittur down to its parts, then study them. But if this done, then of course, one is dealing with a non-living crittur — "You can't get there from here."
Or as the poet said [Blake]: We murder to dissect.
Life itself is not a direct observable. But one definitely knows when it is absent.
Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay/post!