Quote Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
Here's a modern cosmological argument in favour of theism:

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

2. The existence of the universe thus 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 explanation.
(from steps 2 and 3)

5. There are only 3 kinds of explanations:

(a) Scientific: Explanations of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the event explained)

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

(c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific. (There can't be initial physical conditions 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 (hold on to your chair)

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.

The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence. (ontological arguement)

I'm Agnostic, I can't stand religion. :thumbsup:
pretty good logic except for one part: the universe is the ONLY thing that exists necessarily. the universe is, by definition, everything. it must exist because nothing can not be part of the universe.