Late Christian philosopher Charles Hartshorne famously proved that the existence of God is not an empirical issue, but rather an issue of meaning.
Either “God exists” entails a logical contradiction, or else one is entailed by “God does not exist.”
Frankly, what this means is that one of the interlocutors is talking nonsense. Either the atheist or the theist is confused.
Without getting too much into which option we can place more epistemic confidence in, I just want to ask:
Can we all agree that Hartshorne successfully refuted any version of atheism that happens to be sympathetic towards the view that God could exist?
If so, I think that is a great triumph.
It is true that the Atheist position is one of defining words such that any God concept is defined into contradiction.
But it is also true that the Judeo-Christian position is one of refusing coherent definition of related words.
So the choices you offer are not really comprehensive.
Well, no. Hartshorne might prove that any necessary being cannot only possibly exist, but he has not shown that any being he or anyone else discusses is a necessary being.
Theoretically, one of God’s attributes is eternity.
Therefore, if God exists, then he neither begins to exist nor stops existing, because eternal beings just don’t do those sorts of things.
Now, everything that begins to exist or stops existing is caused to do so; therefore, if God exists, and he’s eternal, then he has no cause.
A contingent being is one who’s caused to exist; therefore, if God exists, then he’s eternal, uncaused, and non-contingent.
If God is non-contingent, then either he’s necessary or impossible.
So the whole god complex boils down to whether or not you believe something can exist eternally? And that believe then dominos into all of the other decisions being decided for you? Seems pretty rigid.
There is no way to empirically or scientifically prove or disprove God’s Existence unless He deems it so. God has made Himself known, but only to a few. Since this was done no actual physical form was presented. God made Himself known to Moses in the form of a burning bush. There must be a reason why it is not possible for people to be in a physical audience with God.
Since the Bible isn’t considered a credible source for nonbelievers for God’s Existence, then nothing else in this universe will suffice. Not even people who witness on God’s behalf. I’ve even read that even if God made Himself known a nonbeliever would spit in His Eye for the perceived iniquities perpetrated by Him.
An analogy in my mind that would describe a nonbelievers search for God is a joke I remember: Two friends are walking along in a dark allely when one drops a quarter then runs a ways to where a street lamp is. The other asks his friend :“What are you doing?”
“I’m looking for the qurter I dropper.”
The the other friend being puzzled by this asks “But you dropped your money in that alley?”
“I know,” says the other “But the light is better over here.”
My point being if people who want proof of God limit themselves to one criteria of discovery, they will never find an answer. Sometimes looking for answers requires going outside of the box of thought. So in essence, a nonbeliever limits their freedom of thought by searching in certain parameters that could invaribly produce unsatisfactory results.
But, if a nonbeliever cares for nothing other than what their senses can tell them, then God has no place in their lives.
Again, to prove anything, whatever it is has to first be defined.
The typical definition of God includes eternalness, but as FJ pointed out, the syllogism isn’t proper;
Just because everything that began had to have a cause, doesn’t mean that everything that didn’t begin didn’t have a cause.
Not that such is relevant.
Tx = x is contingent
Cx = x is caused to exist
Ex = x is eternal
g = God = that being who’s eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient.
(1) b(Tx=>Cx)[/b] p
(2) b(Ex=>~Cx)[/b] p
(3) Eg p
(4) Tg=>Cg 1; UI
(5) Eg=>~Cg 2; UI
(6) ~Cg 3,5; MP
(7) ~Tg 4,6; MT
This should put to bed any issues regarding the argument’s deductive validity. Now, you are saying that the second premise is false. How can an eternal being be caused to exist, considering that causality entails one thing bringing another thing–either a substance or accident–into existence?