1. the universe has a begining
2. something or someone must have begun it that is outside or not included in the designation “universe”
3. this therefore leaves two options (1) an eternal God (2) an eternal succesion of gods.

Yet, you, Rantz, reject both! What’s to argue about? Why does the Bible have to even be a point of discussion at this point? I’m talking logically here and I’m not sure where this line of reasoning breaks down.

Ian: I can have faith that tomorrow is Friday. It doesn’t change the fact that, ok, I write this at 4 past midnight… So I have faith that tomorrow is Monday, yeah, I can have faith that is so. It won’t change the fact that tomorrow is Friday. I’d be wrong, but I would still belive it because I have faith in it. We can have misplaced faith. Just having faith doesn’t mean we are correct. If all it took was faith, then my favorite teams would win every year, because I have faith in them.

And this from someone who believes in God.

Also, to say the the Bible is self-explanatory is, in my opinion, a misstatement. There are reasons that well intentioned, sincere, education people have debated and continue to debate the texts of the Bible: everything from meaning to historicity to application. The Bible isn’t all mystery and code, but it isn’t “The Cat in the Hat” either.

And this from someone who follows Christ and thinks the Bible has been inspired by God…

Rantz,
I’d have to say that god by definition would be eternal and without a creator. If god were a created being that that being would be inherently something other than god. Perhaps something more along the lines of a superhero. For example, the Greek gods of mythology or the pantheon of Hinduism would fall into the superhero category. God is the singular superlative; nothing can be greater than god.

Ian,
I suspect the outlandish claims of the Bible require your question to be turned on its head: What proof is there that the claims of the Bible, many of which run counter to the ordinary way things work, are true?

What is faith, but the distinguishment of right and wrong? Faith allows us to understand what is right action from a biblical standpoint, and, by extension, what is right action by our morals. Faith also allows us to be able to distinguish wrong. Though, one must also understand that faith isn’t simply the acceptance that God exists. I can have faith that tomorrow will be Thursday and, when tomorrow comes around, be it Thursday or not, I’ve still had faith that it would be Thursday tomorrow. And while this may seem a silly analogy, it is also a simple one. Another would be if, say, I was sky-diving. I would (hopefully) have faith that my parachute would work properly before I jumped out of the plane. Now, despite if my faith is based in truth or not, I’ve still had faith one way or another. Faith was once explained to me as expectance + yearning. I expect that this event is going to happen, and I also want it to happen, therefore I have ‘faith’ that the event will transpire.

And, for the sake of not being long-winded, just a question in response to your statement of:

“That is assuming that what is stated in the Bible is the truth. You can’t draw from another unproven conclusion to prove your clause.”

What proof is there that the Bible is unproven? What proof do you have/exists that the Bible is not truth?

I hereby conclude that without faith, the existance of God is nearly imposible to accept. With faith, the denial of God is nearly impossible to conceive. Our ideas are not seperated by right or wrong, meerly faith.

And, as with your second point, perhaps I jumped to conclusions here, connecting the ‘supernatural being’ in Seans post to the God of the Bible. If it’s seems that I made that jump without any real basis, my apologies. Sometimes I make connections in my mind, and just assume that everyone will be able, by some obviously non-existant means, be able to follow my train of thought.

All I meant to point out, or I suppose rather, to reinforce, was the fact that if the universe did have a beginning there must have logically been something (God in my assumption) that predated the universe in order to create it. And, because time can’t really exist outside of the universe, it is (in my opinion) quite logical to assume that this person/thing would have to be eternal.

I guess then also, that I should place my bets on the whole ‘God’ thing. Sometimes, it’s seems that philosophy had it right in the first place. Common practice for many age-old philosophers was the deduction of an answer through persistent, clear, and logical reasoning. Take, say… a human life as an example. Because we know that instantaneous (and spontaneous for that matter) biogenesis is not possible, the why deduce that that person(s) had to have a beginning, they had to be created. And, what is a creation without something to create it (ie. the two parents of the child). And, logically, each of those parents had two of their own parents and so on and so forth until the beginning of human existence. And, when there was no human existence, what created humans? Well, since there is no creation without a creator, and there are no humans around to create any other humans, one must deduce that there must be some other super-natural being that defies both age and human understanding in order to have created humans in the first place. And, while I’m not sure about you, this seems to be a well mapped-out description of God.

The universe is the same way. So, unless the universe had no beginning, then the universe had to be created by none other then a super-natural being who defies both age and human understanding; ie. God.