if this is a double post i apologise ... but it's very late and im sure ive missed loads out.The reason we provide a rational defense for our claims is because..
a) Reason demands it
b) God as revealed in the Bible commands it.
As long as people have questions we should have answers. People are rational beings and it doesn't seem proper for a rational being make a decision or conclusions without a reason to do it/evidence to base it on. One must first find out IF there's an elevator BEFORE he makes a step into it..lest he fall down an elevator shaft. We must first know IF the lady we're marrying IS our wife BEFORE we marry her...we shouldn’t just blindly get married to whomever without even checking first that its the right person. Also we should know THAT there is a God, which description of this God is correct, BEFORE we make a decision to give ultimate commitment to this ultimate being of ultimate worth.
Also, God doesn't NEED us to do anything. He's entirely self sufficient in Himself. While He doesn't NEED us, He does WANT us and chose humans who know Him personally to confirm/proclaim, and defend the good news that God hasn’t left us in the dark, but has revealed Himself, the promises that He will deal with evil in the end, and has provided a way for us to know Him, to be forgiven for all the wrongs we've done, and be put right with Him through Him through the the Gospel/goodnews: That Jesus lived the perfect life in our place which we could never live, died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, and rose agains from the dead to offer us His perfection in exchange for our sins as an abolsutely free gift.
(This, at the very least betrays god’s impotence. If it is indeed as powerful as it claims, it should just be able to rewrite history keeping intact free will, if it is as powerful as it claims. Another thing which betrays god’s impotence is in judges, when it can’t drive out the nihabitants of the valley as they had iron chariots (alternatively Judah couldn’t drive them out, and god was supposed to be with him, evidently not “with him” enough to drive people out if they have iron chariots.
At the very worst end of the scale (assuming god exists for the purposes of the analysis, and that the bible is the truth as supplied by god written by man) it means he prefers human sacrifice over forgiveness. This shouldn’t come as unexpected however, as repeatedly, from the very start he seems to want sacrifices, but is usually appeased with mere animal suffering.)
I also find that your question answers itself or at worst is self defeating. If I understand you correctly, your'e asking me for a REASON, for WHY we need reasons for knowing whether God exists or not...IF you find it natural, proper, and necessary to ask this question, asking for a reason, then I don't see how one couldn't see the necessity to ask for a reason for why one should believe that a Theistic God (there is no other kind of god) exists...especially something of utmost importance as the topic as to whether there is a God we will all answer to in the end.
Lastly, the paper has summaries in the back, and can be summarized in the following 4 ways:
1) There’s only two possible kinds of beings which could exist: (reasoning?)
a) The kind of being which has existence in itself (an independent being)(needs a verifyable example) …and/or
b) The kind of being that must receive its existence from another (a dependant being)(again no example).
2) If every being was the kind of being that received its existence from another, yet there was no being with existence in itself thus able to give existence to another, then no being could receive existence; thus nothing would exist.
3) But since something does exist, and beings are receiving their existence from another, there (therefore) must be a being that has existence in itself, which then can give existence to every being that must receive its existence from another. (Every dependant being must be dependent on a being that they can depend on, namely an independent being). This is what Theists call "God".
(again, fallacious reasoning, a misrepresentation of the facts. This is when you take established fact, and use it to illogically prove a point. It generally boils down to not thinking through everything and ending up with “I don’t know therefore god.”
It’s also quite bizarre as you say that everything is dependent on an independent being, which, of course, is a contradiction in terms.
If something is independent from the universe, it would be in it’s closed system and unable to effect ours, yet repeatedly in the OT, and finally in jesus, YHWH interacted with humanity.
Another thing, why does it necessarily have to be god, this “independent entity that everything depends on, and how come, (if Jesus was god) he could interact? If he was independent of all physical processes, he shouldn’t have got older, or been able to move about. Why not some kind of universe making machine or a team of gods or pixies? All are on a comparable level to YHWH, Allah, or any number of imaginary deities which claim to have made the universe)
4) Therefore God exists.
(bad logic, as outlined above, I could use precisely this argument to prove anything metaphysical to exist, I could say my invisible massless dragon made the universe by having sex with itself, and it exhibits the powers you’ve listed above)
Another way it can be expressed though there are many ways to state the same thing:
The only possible kinds of beings that exist are:
Necessary being and Contingent being.
A necessary being must necessarily exist and cannot not exist. It cannot have any possibility to not exist. It can have no potential for change, otherwise it'd have a possibility to not exist. (example of anything with no potential to change?)
A Contingent being, if it exists, has a possibility to not exist and does/can change.
1) Contingent being exists (IE: ME) (good an example)
2) Every contingent being has a possibility to not exist.
3) Whatever has a possibility to not exist, is in different in itself as to whether it exists or does not exist. It is not necessary for it to exist, because it exists, but, could equally not exist. (What the hell are you smoking?examples would be useful of something existing then not existing...)
4) Since a contingent being is necessarily indeterminate in itself as to whether it exists or does not exist, there therefore must be a cause that exists beyond it, which determines it to one or the other.
(Do you mean two parents have sex(the cause) , and the offspring is the result of the cause?)
5) Since no contingent being can determine itself to exist, but rather needs a cause beyond it to determine it to exist, that means there must be a cause for all contingent beings which exists beyond the contingent order/or kind of being (IE that there must be a cause that is itself not contingent).
(Specific examples? Beings do not make up the universe, they are expressions of the universe, i.e. conglomerations of matter that can move faster due to complex chemical reactions, the matter is necessary to make up the beings, but it has no consciousness that I know of until it is in the specific place (i.e. in a chemical structure called the brain))
6) A cause that is not contingent, having no possibility to not exist, is by definition necessary.
(again, just playing with your own words to imply a “being” as opposed to just amino acids, or a self replicating organic molecule)
7) Therefore there must be a necessary being that causes the existence of every contingent being that exists.
(as outlined above, no being is needed to cause another being to “sprout” into existence. Bad, bad reasoning.)
Or
1) Finite, changing things exist. (ie. like Myself)
2) Every finite, changing thing must be caused by something else.
3) There cannot be an infinite regress of these causes.
(But time is not infinite, it goes back to a certain point, like depth, width, and length all have the “origin” from which they all come from, before this there was no time as we currently know it, and all causality becomes moot from previous to that point. An example would be imagine a grid just after the big bang, we can see the energetic matter expanding along the lines of the grid (axis x y and z) in every direction, from the origin. As soon as time begun, they started expanding, before that, all the dimensions were equal, and time wasn’t as we know it, and axis x, y, and z were all on one point, all pointing to the point.)
4) Therefore there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists.
(only under current causality laws. Yes, but as pointed out above, causality didn’t apply in a singularity)
If you're saying to yourself "OF COURSE there is an infinite regression"...or "WHY CANT there be an infinite regression"..For a defense of this argument, especially as to why there CANNOT be an infinite regression/because its impossible/irrational/contradictory, please look at the "Answering Objections" section in my paper listed as Undeniable argument for the Theistic God (again, no other kind of god)..or something to that effect.\\\
Some reasons why there cannot be an infinite regress are:
1) Its a denial that effects needs a cause= the explanation is there is no explanation. Commonsense reason would tell us that if every effect needs a cause beyond itself, and there is a series of effects/things that have been caused to exist, that series must have been caused by something which exists beyond the caused series (IE: uncaused) which started the series and sustains it in existence. Also, by adding 2 effects together, 100, 1000,000, or an infinite amount of effects together cannot equate to the cause that is needed for those effects to exist, there therefore must be a first uncaused cause for the effects/effect series. To affirm the possibility of an infinite regress is equivalent to very bad math. 1 effect plus 1 effect can never equal a cause, neither could you get a cause by adding a whole bunch of effects together. To affirm an infinite regression is to deny that everything that comes to be needs a cause. To affirm an infinite regress is to deny the very law of causality, which states that: every effect needs a cause.
(see causality of a universal singularity above)
2) While there can be an ABSTRACT infinite series, there cannot be an ACTUAL infinite series. You can have a line with two arrows of the end pointing outward...or an infinite # of points between mathematical/abstract points A and B, but no matter how far or close together you put two actual books together, you cannot get an infinite amount of books between them. Theres a big difference between abstract and concretely actual.. the logically possible/concievable vs actual. All non theistic views confuse this difference.
(as you just pointed out, you can have an infinite number of points between two points. Singularities are points. If you had converted an entire universe into books then put the entire book universe in singularity form, you could fit infinite amounts of books between the arrows)
3) Lets assume that every effect in the series were really causing the continued existence of each other. If mother caused child to continue to exist, and the mother died, but the child lives on, WHOD be causing the existence of the child? The mother? No, shes gone. The child? No a self caused being is impossible. If every effect were causing each other to exist, and one died, then the whole series would cease to exist. Since things have died and were still here, that cannot be possible..therefore there must a be a cause for every finite changing thing in the series, that exists beyond the series, is simultaneous to the series, and thus is not part of the finite changing series...IE is thus infinite and unchanging.
(again, you are mixing up social dependency on biological dependency. A self replicating organic molecule (such as the DNA in the child) should be able to sustain itself (and cause itself, it’s called growth) until old age, when the copying of DNA has caused it to degrade to such an extent to make the body unusable any more.)
Lastly..
1) I actually do exist= I have actuality.
2) I must change in the process of thinking or stating, “I exist”. I must have potential or room for the change I undergo, as in the case of my potential to continue to successively exist= I have potentiality.
3) My potential to exist cannot actualize itself, anymore than can an extinct bird actualize itself. Mere potentialities/possibilities cannot actualize themselves.
(False analogy, a live human and an extinct bird quite clearly are different in this regard. It would be like saying a carrot can’t self actualize, when it quite clearly can via self replication, and passing on it’s individual organization of DNA to make itself somewhere else. So you see, things can cause themselves, unless you’re saying life doesn’t exist, salamanders can’t grow limbs back, and we cannot repair cellular damage nor grow)
4) I cannot actualize my own potential to exist, therefore I cannot actualize the potential for the existence of anyone else. I cannot cause my own existence therefore I cannot cause the existence of anyone else. This is the case with every being with potential for change; while they may move things, which already exist, into certain forms, beings with potential don’t/can’t cause the existence of anything.
(actually you can “actualize your own potential,”* by eating foods that will be converted to your body via metabolizing them)
(you don’t cause the existence of anything, only the universe can do that, you can however change what already exists into something you can use)
*the language here is getting slightly too high on the bullshit technobabble scale for my liking
5) My actuality doesn’t explain why I here. That I’m here doesn’t explain why I’m here. Looking in the mirror doesn’t explain why I am continually existing, that’s why I must go on a search outside of myself, for a being outside of the kind of being with potential for change.
(to be quite frank, “why” is a human concept, caused by observation of causality. For example, a cavewoman could say “why are these logs here?”
“to make fire” replies the caveman.
Why is an extension of how x can be useful to us. Just the concept has been given a long time to develop into the current philosophical “why” as to why EVERYTHING is here.)
6) Therefore, since my actuality doesn’t explain why I’m here, my potentiality to exist cannot actualize itself, and I can’t actualize my own potential to exist ( which is the case for every being with potential), yet my existence is being continually actualized, this means that…
(nope, your own potential to exist is the average values of the quantum chaos in your subatomic particles. If they all simultaneously decided to become photonic energy (just per se), you would disappear in a flash of radiation. However averages keep you “apparently” static. You still need to supply energy for your chemical reactions though, and supply water for your chemical transit system (blood). This is “actualizing your potential” as I understand it, i.e. making it so in your current form you can continue to exist, i.e. stay alive.)
7) There must be a being with no potential to actualize/cause (ie. uncaused) that exists, who is actualizing my potential, and every being with potential, to exist. A being with only actuality, having no potential to actualize or cause, is uncaused. Adding up an infinite amount of effects, going backwards, cannot equate to a cause that the effects need to have in order to be there. Therefore…
(nope, it’s just averages, no god is needed, and I’ve addressed causality loads above)
There must be a first, uncaused, pure actual being who exists, that is actualizing the existence of every being with potential for change. He couldn’t have created the universe from pre-existing matter, for matter has a beginning, nor from sharing part of himself; this would mean that he’d have parts of himself to share which would imply differentiation and potential for change or betterment. The first uncaused cause could only have created time, space, and matter out of nothing=ex nihilo.
(matter is observed randomly popping into existence from the energy of the universe, and disappearing again, seemingly at random, it’s widely accepted that matter comes from energy. Also you put limitations on an omnipotent god, by saying he can’t do x or x, because of your reasoning)
9) Since this uncaused being can do the first and greatest miracle, creating the universe out of nothing, it would be consistent to say that He would and could do other miracles. Therefore miracles are not only possible, but also actual.
(nope, fallacious reasoning, “I define it so it must be true fallacy” still unproven him doing the first “miracle” and not even any time given to alternative hypothesis, such as other universes with different causality properties making our universe, or whatever. There is also no logical proof for miracles beyond probability and hoax. Considering how powerful your god is supposed to be, you would have thought it could manage more than stains that look like Jesus or curing random cancers. Homeopathy, a cheerful outlook, and other such methods have yielded similar results, it is far more likely it’s random chance. Notice at Lourdes and evangelist revivals or whatever, noone ever regrows a limb do they?)
10) This is what Theists mean by, God.
11) Therefore, (the Theistic) (no other type)God exists.
12) The God described in the Christian Scriptures is identical to this God of nature, therefore…
13) The God of the Christian Scriptures exists.
(that’s awful reasoning. That’s similar to saying “your toy car has the exact same features as my toy car, therefore it’s the same and you stole it!”
It also fits the description of Allah, the hindu gods and ancient greek, Egyptian, tribal or whatever god I can make up in a second. Prove to me it’s YHWH and not one of the others.)
This is all based on 5 principles: The law of non contradiction (being cannot be non being/opposites cannot both be true), the law of identity (being is being/ being must be identical to itself) , the law of excluded middle (its either being or non being/ theres nothing in between being and non being)(look up shroedinger’s cat), the law of causality (Non-being cannot produce being.(already addressed) Only being can cause being), and the the law of finality/analogy (every being acts towards an end; being communicates being, act communicates act, or being is finalized, or being is diffusive of itself, being must have some resemblance to the being it produces). All of these are self evident and undeniable,(except I denied them) which must necesarily be explicitly or implicitly affirmed in every thought or statement, as it applies to thought and being. One cannot deny reason, without using reason to do so. Reason is actually inescapable, and it leads one to discover that God exists, and has a nature that is knowable to all rational beings.(no logical proof for god’s existence, it’s more likely he does not exist)
mine's the bold type.