[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Well first of all, I think that anyone (atheist, theist, agnostic, whatever) that spends enough time thinking about the subject should be very confused about the origin of the universe, first cause, or whatever you want to call it. I feel any answer any side provides is very inadequate and likely leads to more questions than answers. It seems so much more likely to me that nothing would exist than that something would exist. If I weren't so certain of my own existence, I would have concluded that the universe does not exist [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I think it's pretty clear that science does not yet have a satisfying answer to this. However, I believe that this is fundamentally different from the types of questions science didn't have answers to in previous centuries. It seems to me that not only does science not presently have an explanation, but it is not possible for science to ever have an answer. Now many natural phenomena that were once explained merely by God have since been explained through science. One could criticize me by saying that this is another example, and that one day it will be explained. However, as I understand the problem and the limits of science, it seems it is fundamentally outside the reach of science. Maybe that's a bit naive of me to think, and maybe you think it's no different from a "God of the Gaps" argument used hundreds of years ago by someone who couldn't explain how the sun worked, I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all correct, but it doesn't answer the question. What does any of it have to do with God?

God doesn't present an answer to the dilemma of why there is something rather than nothing. The existence or nonexistence of God is completely irrelevant to that dilemma.

The idea that God exists without cause may seem more palatable to you than the idea that the universe exists without cause, but this is hardly a good argument. You're basically saying that you believe in God because it's comfortable - I view that as a form of intellectual dishonesty.

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not. The variable of God's existence has no bearing on the question of why there is something rather than nothing - thus, introducing this variable into the consideration of that fundamental question is illogical.