Quote Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
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.
But of course God doesn`t need a creator. God is the only thing that gets a free pass on this implication because it suits your view. Why does the rationality stop at god, why can it not stop at the existence of a universe?