> Hmmm...what, logically, prevents us from positing that the universe might be self-existent, when the concept of God is not similarly restricted? Perhaps the fact that God needs no prior cause follows logically from some of its other properties. I challenge anyone to come up with a demonstration of this. Seriously. I would be very impressed. And it had better not be anything as absurdly flawed as the Ontological Proof.

What? You didn't like the Ontological proof? You're just saying that because you're jealous of St. Anselm's grammatical... litheness. :-} Personally, I think Anselm was one of my favourite theologians to study. The ontological proof is very simple from a philosophical standpoint, and yet, it's amazingly hard to wrap one's brain around, simply because of Anselm's amazing grammar. To wit:

"For if that greater than which cannot be thought can be thought of as not existing, then that greater than which cannot be thought is not that greater than which cannot be thought, which does not make sense."

> Q: Why is God supernatural?
> A: Because it is the first cause, and is thus outside the regulation of the physical universe (the realm of natural things), which it created.

Not to squabble, but I think taking that for granted as "why God is supernatural" is one HFIL of a logical leap. I haven't heard any serious argument state that that is the entirety of God's supernaturality, anyhow; though it makes the logical flaw stronger, I'd say you're putting words in people's mouths here.

> Find the logical problem with this argument, and then try to explain either question from a more reasonable foundation.

You're not going to like any explanation I have, I promise you. But I do want to make something clear right off: I don't have any proof of God's existence. Not any. If someone is firmly committed to not believing in God without scientific prrof of His existence, then it is simply not to my understanding possible to sell him on the existence of God without some sort of logical trickery. That is simply because faith exists in a realm seperate from reason, and trying to reason to questions of faith does not work.

Now, anytime I try to explain this to anyone, a semantic bungle pops up. Specifically, people hear "reason is seperate from faith" and immediately take that to mean that all faith is inherently irrational and unreasoned; to put it plainly, "blind faith." This is not the case. Reason and faith can (and, to my thinking, must) support one another, but cannot *replace* one another. Coming to a solution that lies in the realm of faith by way of reason and proof is by necessity itself irrational; as Tillich taught us, there cannot exist faith without doubt. If one has complete knowledge of something - one knows, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that it *is* - then one cannot have true belief in it. I *know* that the letters I'm typing in this box are black. That is not a belief of mine, it is knowledge. However, I *believe* I'm making a coherent point, here - I don't really *know* I am. (Anyone who tries to bring Nietzsche into this gets a free kick in the teeth).

If this all sounds like semantic bungling, well, it is. But we're in the realm of fine details, now - we're trying to examine the foundations of logic and faith, and that's a sticky wicket. Language does not exist that deals well with this problem. With any luck, though, I've been clear enough. If not, well, ask questions. :-}

Back to the question of God's existence - specifically, what makes God supernatural. I have to default to the book of Job on this one, extended a bit by Karl Barth and clarified by Jack Miles. God is an unknown quantity. But, more than that, God is an *unknowable* quantity. His reasons, His actions, His being all exist in a realm and in a way totally beyond human understanding. Nothing man can say or think about God is accurate; God transcends all of it. We cannot rightly categorize God as "supernatural" because "natural" and "supernatural" are phenomena of human thought, and no more. They don't truly apply to Him. However, we apply them to God because it is the best we can do - because, even though we cannot possibly understand God, we *can* understand ourselves, and we can understand the way in which we relate to God (or, perhaps more appropriately, the way in which God relates to *us*); understanding that relationship requires us to make some statements about God, even if we know they aren't perfectly accurate.

That's about the size of it, really; God *cannot* be understood, defined, or codified. And that's the part scientific types have a problem with; they don't accept the existence of something like that, something which cannot be understood. As I said before, there's no way anyone can make you believe in God if you won't accept his unknowability; there is no scientific proof. The most anyone can do is convince you (or fail thereto) of the existence of God's shadow.

> I don't know if I got anywhere in these few paragraphs. I don't even think it's possible to put these ideas into concrete terms, where a logical argument could be constructed. I suppose that in the end everything just reduces to bickering about semantics, so I thought I'd get my bickering in.

Funny. Me too. :-}

Darienselm