David G

This question falls into an area of modal logic ie modal logic describes the relationship between what is necessary and what is contingent or possible and what is impossible. Or what has to exist necessarily or self existent or what exist contingently ie is possible but not necessarily so.

One way to do this logically is to imagine multiple possible worlds ie you have the actual world/universe and then what the universe could have possibly been given different circumstances.

A thing or being or truth that exists necessarily is something that exists in all possible worlds including the actual world. It requires no further explanation because there is no logical/coherent way of imagining it as anything else. For example the equation 2 + 2 =4 is something we would not attempt to explain further because it is more plausible to assume it could not possibly be something else. That is, it is true in all possible worlds.

A thing or being that exists contingently may possible exist or not exist in some possible world ie my friend John exists in this world, but does not exist in all possible worlds ie I can imagine a possible world whereby given different circumstances John would not exist. I can therefore reasonably ask "where did John come from?" or "How is John here?"

So we could formulate an argument with a starting proposition

"If John exist, he exists as a necessary being."

To pull down the premise I would simply have to provide a logically coherent example of a possible world where John does not exist. I could say for example, "If John's parents had never met then John would not exist. Therefore John is not a necessary being because he does not exist in all possible worlds.

Or I could start with the proposition

"If 2 + 2 = 4 is true then it is necessarily true (ie true in all possible worlds).

To pull down the argument I might say, perhaps there is a possible world where the laws of mathematics are different ie if the starting conditions at the big bang messed up the maths somehow.

The one making the premise could then logically ask you, "then why is 2 + 2 = 4 true in the actual world?" And if a plausible coherent explanation could not be provided, then it would stand as true that 2 + 2 = 4 is more plausibly understood as a necessary truth ie true in all possible worlds.

So we then apply that to the question about how God is possible and I will put forward the proposition

"If God exist, He exists as a necessary being."

It would be up to you then to describe coherently a possible world where God did not exist. If you succeeded you could then logically ask yourself question ie "how could God exist?" If not then the answer would be the same as for the question how is 2 + 2 = 4. Because it is necessarily - ie there is no logically coherent alternative.

Because God by definition is a necessary being the atheist cannot simply deny God's existence on the basis of lack of evidence. To deny God and remain logically coherent he must demonstrate why God cannot exist in ANY possible world(to do so only requires he can imagine one possible world where God does not exist).

Otherwise it stands as more plausible that God exists rather than not.

“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School

quoted in The Boston Globe, 23 October 2005.

‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’

Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127–128, 1977.

‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’

Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network - Bill Moyers interview with Richard Dawkins

‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’

Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.

*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

“‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’”

Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 317:1848–1850, 2007.

“There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place … On the left of the picture there’s an ape … On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”

Bernard Wood (prof. of human origins, George Washington Univ.), “Who are we?” New Scientist, 2366 (26 Oct. 2002), p. 44.

“The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology.”

Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 284.

Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology,

University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada

"Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists."

I find Atheists tend to believe that morality is a product of evolution - a survival mechanism of sorts.

I therefore find it curious that Atheists often accuse God of being immoral.

But what moral code then would apply to a hypothetical Supreme Being other than his own Supreme Code? Why, should/ought the Supreme Being be subject to an "evolved" morality - or "majority rules" morality.

Could it be that when the Atheist makes the argument - God might be hypothetical, but the awareness of a Supreme code(subconscious or otherwise) is very real? Why else would the Atheist automatically assume/invoke (passionately in many cases) a code that must apply to God Himself?

Atheists tend to ask this question with an "Aha Aha" attitude - as though they have trumped the origins question. The suggestion they are making is that an uncaused God is illogical, which I personally find fascinating as a topic - But I have yet to hear an atheist put forward the formulae demonstrating why they think there is a logical inconsistency between causality and God, which is a little frustrating because after tempting me with the ice-cream cone they simply disappear. AND I WANT MY ICE CREAM!!! So could someone PLEASE satisfy my curiousity and spell out for me WHY or how they deduce an uncaused God is illogical.

Note I am not examining whether God can be proved scientifically or otherwise – Only whether the CONCEPT of an Infinite Creator God is logical. I’ll start by presenting a logical relationship between Causality and a Creator God –

A) Everything that has a beginning has a cause

B) The Universe has a beginning

C) Therefore the Universe has a Cause

And

A) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

B) God does not have a beginning

C) Therefore God does not require a cause.

What Atheists tend to present is

A) Everything that has a beginning has a cause

B) Aha Aha I’ve got ICE CREAM

C) Therefore God must have a cause.

So can someone please give me the logical connector between A) and C) I want the B. I WANT MY ICE CREAM!!!

Is there a program that will burn MP3s from hard drive to CD in the order I want - as opposed to alphabetic order? I can usually organize a playlist in Windows Media Player and then burn - but I sometimes burn audio books and Windows playlist tries to separate the different books into different CDs so I cant use that. What programs the best for burning MP3s to CD in the order I want them burned?