Mikhailtheplumber~

Don’t know if you will get to this as it is quite late and the thread is stale but here are the answers to what you asked of me.

As an aside I really extremely dislike Kierkegaard precisely because of his “leap of faith” argument in part because it is using an improper definition of faith (faith as trust or hope) but mostly because if one is leaping one is resting more so on opinion than anything else. Thus I find that is really personally important that when I explain things of Christian religion that I never had to make someone “leap” without verifiable certitude or resolve a question based upon opinion.

On to your questions.

I think that you are making my argument more complex than it actually is. It is not a proof of anything other than that there is a god and that it is good and as such if science is correct in that the universe is 15 billion years old that is how old it is and the god isn’t trying to trick us. It is not an argument that the god is eternal or triune or purple stripped or anything else.

I think we both can agree that personal experience does in fact give indication that something is true. My personal experience of jumping off the porch and landing on the ground gives me an indication that I am being pulled down towards the center of the mass of the earth and that the concept of gravity is indicated as true. Thus personal experience is an acceptable indicator of truth especially if said personal experience is repeatable. Personal experience is also used all the time in criminal cases. There may be no other evidence that John James robbed the bank other than the personal experience of Jane Smith seeing him do it and yet this is enough to convict.

There are only 4 possible options for the question of “is there a god”. I covered this above but let me repost for clarity.

1.) creation indicates that there is no god and there is in fact no god.
2.) creation indicates that there is no god and there is in fact a god.
3.) creation indicates that there is a god and there is in fact a god.
4.) creation indicates that there is a god and in fact there is no god.

2 is nonsense for it posits a fully chaotic system that is unverifiable. It is like an imaginary number – it doesn’t really exist but we can talk about it and do equations with it.

Our universe is either 1, 3, and 4. For 4 we can say that even if there is no god it is best to live as if that god actually existed. Why? If creation indicates that there is a god it thus indicates that you will be happier being a theist than not, even if there is no god. Being in harmony towards which creation points and indicates always results in increased happiness (because one is in harmony with reality) even if that towards which creation points is not there.

We really only then are concerned with whether or not creation indicates that there is a god or not. What then are the basic fundamental indicators?

1. Does the human person have an innate an unlearned concept of “a god” or not?
2. Does creation indicate that it is its own cause?
3. Does creation indicate that it is an end in it of itself or is it unfolding and shot towards something which it is not?

Solid argumentation can be given for all three of these, but I will save space and refer you to Plato, Aristotle, or St. Thomas Aquinas as well as many other figures.

You asked to have more detail that man has an innate idea of “the god” as part of his constitutive creations.

I don’t know of any ancient civilization that lacked belief in any god.