Quote Originally Posted by Hardcore Newbie
Who's definition are we going by? Yours? God's? It's certainly not mine.

The definition of God

There's a possibility for a Flying Spaghetti Monster too.

OYG! FSM exists too!

No, because there is no definition, or essence of a FSM

Only if one subscribes to your assumptions would they think that.

Not necessarily

So, why is it necessary to assume? You lost me here.
We all hold our own assumptions about God because God is necessary in itself due to the definition of God.

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation. (by definition of intelligibility)

2.The existence of the universe this either

a: is unintelligible, or

b: has an explanation (from step 1)

3. No rational person should accept 2-a (by definition of rationality)

4. A rational person should accept 2-b: The universe has an explanaiton

5. There are only three kinds of explantion:

a: scientific: explantions of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical conditions, plus relative laws, yield the event explained)

b: Personal: explantions that cite the desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of some personal agent.

c: Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existenceor qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific. (There can't be initial physical conditons and laws independent of what is to be explained)

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be essential. (the universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.)

Therefore

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but God could create an entire universe.

Therefore,

10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

As a house implies a builder, and a garment a weaver, and a door a carpenter, so does the existence of the universe imply a creator.