It is nonsense. Anyone using this objection must confront the logic behind it. Was there a beginning, or was there an infinite past? You must choose one. There are no other options.
Once you select one of these two possibilities, you must accept the implications of that choice. If the universe resulted from a necessity that had a beginning, then why could this necessity produce something so extraordinarily coherent? Remember, there was nothing before this event—that is what one must believe. This is a claim that something incredibly coherent emerged from nothing. And why did it have a beginning?
On the other hand, if we assume that this necessity has always existed, what are the implications? Something produced something but had no beginning. There is no requirement for coherence from the start; coherence could have developed over time. But how did this occur? Was it through logic? Did a series of iterations eventually lead to coherence after an infinite duration?
If coherence arose at least once, then, with infinite time, it must have repeated itself. Many overlook this critical aspect: the implications of their explanation. One implication of assuming an infinite past is that everything physically possible must have happened. If it occurred once, it must have happened again and again. In other words, it happened an infinite number of times.
Another implication is that the complexity of existence must constantly increase if it is physically possible. This suggests that intelligence will arise, and some intelligences will become more complex, intelligent, and powerful. There is no inherent limit to this process; remember, there is no limit on time. Thus, the implications are that there must have been intelligences of infinite power and knowledge in the past—not just once, but an endless number of times. What happened to this infinite number of entities with unlimited power and wisdom?
Accepting anything self-existent leads to absurdity unless that self-existent entity precedes every form of physical existence and possesses the power within it to create. This notion leads to the conclusion that such an entity is the only possible explanation for existence. All other assumptions lead to absurdity. Yet, atheists do not accept this, no matter how logical, because they find such an explanation distasteful.
This premise is emphasized by examining the reasons atheists give for their atheism. All of them are based on flawed reasoning. So, if one espouses atheism, they might say they have no reason to be an atheist other than a resistance to what is obvious.
The real enigma is why atheists find the obvious distasteful.
You’re quite missing the point here, Jerry. This isn’t a post speaking favorably of atheism; it is rather aimed against faulty or deficient conceptions of God (specifically, conceptions of God that are not sufficiently removed from atheism).
"What Caused God?" Is Actually a Good Objection"
No, it is not.
It is nonsense. Anyone using this objection must confront the logic behind it. Was there a beginning, or was there an infinite past? You must choose one. There are no other options.
Once you select one of these two possibilities, you must accept the implications of that choice. If the universe resulted from a necessity that had a beginning, then why could this necessity produce something so extraordinarily coherent? Remember, there was nothing before this event—that is what one must believe. This is a claim that something incredibly coherent emerged from nothing. And why did it have a beginning?
On the other hand, if we assume that this necessity has always existed, what are the implications? Something produced something but had no beginning. There is no requirement for coherence from the start; coherence could have developed over time. But how did this occur? Was it through logic? Did a series of iterations eventually lead to coherence after an infinite duration?
If coherence arose at least once, then, with infinite time, it must have repeated itself. Many overlook this critical aspect: the implications of their explanation. One implication of assuming an infinite past is that everything physically possible must have happened. If it occurred once, it must have happened again and again. In other words, it happened an infinite number of times.
Another implication is that the complexity of existence must constantly increase if it is physically possible. This suggests that intelligence will arise, and some intelligences will become more complex, intelligent, and powerful. There is no inherent limit to this process; remember, there is no limit on time. Thus, the implications are that there must have been intelligences of infinite power and knowledge in the past—not just once, but an endless number of times. What happened to this infinite number of entities with unlimited power and wisdom?
Accepting anything self-existent leads to absurdity unless that self-existent entity precedes every form of physical existence and possesses the power within it to create. This notion leads to the conclusion that such an entity is the only possible explanation for existence. All other assumptions lead to absurdity. Yet, atheists do not accept this, no matter how logical, because they find such an explanation distasteful.
This premise is emphasized by examining the reasons atheists give for their atheism. All of them are based on flawed reasoning. So, if one espouses atheism, they might say they have no reason to be an atheist other than a resistance to what is obvious.
The real enigma is why atheists find the obvious distasteful.
You’re quite missing the point here, Jerry. This isn’t a post speaking favorably of atheism; it is rather aimed against faulty or deficient conceptions of God (specifically, conceptions of God that are not sufficiently removed from atheism).