Does God exist?

Reasons given for answering "Yes"
  • The Universe (space-time) was caused to exist

      god-exists-big-bang The Universe (all space-time) has a cause of its beginning to exist. Consider:

      • …The Universe “began to exist” (Craig).
      • …There was a first material event.
      This is relevant because the cause of all space-time must be able to exist independently of time, space, and matter. It must also have the power (ability) and the disposition (nature) to cause such a thing. This all sounds very suspiciously like God.1 By contrast, it is a uniquely awkward and surprising development for atheist cosmologists, because such a development “was not even remotely expected.”2

      But no,…
      • …causation is itself temporal (so you can't cause space-time without space-time).

      But so what if the Universe has a cause? [All Forthcoming]
      • …the cause is the Universe itself (causing itself).
      • …the cause is a rebounding previous Universe.
      • …the cause is nothing.
      • …the cause is an abstract object (e.g. an equation).
      • …the cause is a fluctuation from a background universe.
      • …the cause is a Chaotic-Inflation process (pre-space)
      • …“God did it” is not an explanation.
      • …God would need a cause, too.

      1. Arno Penzias (Astrophysicist [Nobel Prize]; co-discoverer of CMB): “I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century’s worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like … in order to achieve consistency with our observations we must … assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well. The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.” [“Creation Is Supported by All The Data So Far.” Cosmos, Bios, Theos. Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese (eds.). (Open Court, 1992), 78-83.].
        Robert Wilson (Astronomer [Nobel Prize]; co-discoverer of CMB): “Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis. [Interview with Fred Heeren, “Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God” (Day Star Publications, 2000) 157.]
        George Smoot (Physicist [2006 Nobel Prize]): “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing. … Until the late 1910’s humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.” [Wrinkles in Time (William Morrow and Company, 1993), 30.]
        Quentin Smith (Atheist professor of philosophy at Western Michigan): “The central idea of this cosmology, that the universe exploded into existence in a 'big bang' about 15 billion years ago or so, seemed tailor made to a theistic viewpoint. Big bang cosmology seemed to offer empirical evidence for the religious doctrine of creation ex nihilo. The theistic implications seemed so clear and exciting that even Pope Pius XII was led to comment that 'True science to an ever increasing degree discovers God as though God were waiting behind each door opened by science. (See the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 8 (1952), 143-146.)” [“A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence” in Faith and Philosophy Vol. 9. No. 2 (1992): 217]
      2. Lawrence Krauss & Robert Scherrer: “In 1908 the scientific consensus was that the universe was static and eternal. The beginning of the universe in a fiery big bang was not even remotely suspected.” [“The End of Cosmology?” Scientific American (March 2008)]
        Robert Jastrow (Agnostic cosmologist, director of NASA): “…the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” [14.] “For the [non-believing] scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” [God and the Astronomers, 2nd ed. (W.W. Norton & Company, 1992), 116.]
        Neil C. Manson (Philosopher of science, religion professor at Mississippi): “It was simply assumed that the Universe is eternal and infinite, and that otherwise there is nothing for scientists (or philosophers) to say about it. These assumptions (and the atheism with which they are consonant) were deeply entrenched, which explains the tremendous surprise and hostility with which the Big Bang model was greeted. [“Introduction” in Neil Manson (ed.) God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (Routledge, 2003), 3.]
        J.M. Wersinger (Physics professor at Auburn): “At first the scientific community was very reluctant to accept the birth of the universe. Not only did the Big Bang model seem to give in to the Judeo-Christian idea of a beginning of the world, but it also seemed to call for an act of supernatural causation… It took time, observational evidence, and careful verification of predictions made by the Big Bang model to convince the scientific community to accept the idea of a cosmic genesis. … the Big Bang is a very successful model that imposed itself on a reluctant scientific community.” [Genesis: The Origin of the Universe, Natural Forum (1996), 11, 9, 12.]
        C.F. von Weizsäcker: (Physicist, recalling a conversation he had in 1938 with Nobel Prize-winning physical chemist Walther Nerns): “He said, the view that there might be an age of the universe was not science. At first I did not understand him. He explained that the infinite duration of time was a basic element of all scientific thought, and to deny this would mean to betray the very foundations of science. I was quite surprised by this idea and I ventured the objection that it was scientific to form hypotheses according to the hints given by experience, and that the idea of an age of the universe was such a hypothesis. He retorted that we could not form a scientific hypothesis which contradicted the very foundations of science. He was just angry, and thus the discussion, which was continued in his private library, could not lead to any result.” [The Relevance of Science (Harper & Row, 1964) 151.]
        Peter of Cornwall (in AD 1200): “There are many people who do not believe that God exists, nor do they think that a human soul lives on after the death of the body. They consider that the universe has always been as it is now and is ruled by chance rather than by Providence."
        Frederick Burnham (Science historian): “These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.” [As quoted by Henry F. Schaefer III in Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? (Apollos Trust, 2003), 50.] Lawrence Krauss: “The Universe we lived in at the time Einstein developed his theory of general relativity was a static eternal universe. We're talking about origins at this meeting and in fact the conventional scientific wisdom at that time was that the universe had been around forever more or less the same and would be around forever more or less the same.” [Origins Symposium 2011, online]
  • The Universe is fine-tuned to permit life

      fine-tuning-godThe Universe/physics is fine-tuned for permitting life. That is to say, of all the known ways the universe could have been, few ways would ever allow any life to exist. Consider…

      • …the constants of physics are fine-tuned.
      • …the initial conditions of the universe are fine-tuned.
      • …the laws of physics are fine-tuned.

      This is a very awkward and shocking development for atheist cosmologists1 because it means for them that we got really lucky for no reason. If God exists, however, then the Universe’s ability to permit life is not nearly so surprising or improbable.2 Such a universe is the kind of thing God would plausibly choose to create.3

      But no, …
      • …changes just yield different life forms
      • …constant's can't be different (T.O.E.)
      • …life-friendly Universes are rare but probable[Forthcoming]
      • …one can't do probabilities with an infinite range[Forthcoming]
      • …new knowledge will eliminate fine-tuning
      • …over 99.9% of the universe is hostile to life.[Forthcoming]

      But so what if the Universe is fine-tuned (or life-permitting)? Plausibly…
      • …many universes exist or existed, and we won the universe lottery.4

      Remember…
      • …we would not be here unless the unlikely did occur.
      • …the Universe is equally fine-tuned to permit rocks, etc.5[See response]
      • …it is only fine-tuned to life as we know it.
      • …God would need a fine-tuner, too.
      • …“God did it” is not an explanation.[Forthcoming]

      1. Philip Ball (Physicist, 10+ years editor for Nature): “Our universe is so unlikely that we must be missing something… the incomprehensibility of our situation even drives Susskind's team to ponder whether an ‘unknown agent intervened in the evolution [of the Universe] for reasons of its own’…” [“Is Physics Watching Over Us?” Nature, Science Update, 2002.] (Ball here is referring to Dyson, F., Kleban, M. & Susskind, L. Disturbing implications of a cosmological constant. (2002).)
        Brad Lemley (Senior correspondent for The Washington Post and Discover Magazine): “The universe is unlikely. Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely.” [“Why Is There Life?” Discover (November 2002)]
        Steven Weinberg (Outspoken atheist, Nobel laureate in high energy physics): “…how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” [“Life in the Universe" Scientific American (Oct. 1994)”] (cited by Bruce Waltke)]
        William Lane Craig (Philosophy professor at Talbot): “Scientists originally thought that whatever the initial conditions of the universe were, eventually the universe would evolve the complex life forms we see today. But during the last forty years or so, scientists have been stunned by the discovery of how complex and sensitive a balance of initial conditions must be given in the Big Bang in order for the universe to permit the origin and evolution of intelligent life in the cosmos.” [“What is the Relation between Science and Religion” online at ReasonableFaith.org]
        Paul Davies (Agnostic turned deist, physics professor at Cambridge, etc.): “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see… even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'.… Taken together they provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. If we could play God, and select values for these natural quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. Some knobs would have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if life is to flourish in the universe” [“The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science”, in John Marks Templeton, Evidence of Purpose (Continuum, 1996) 46.]
        Charles Townes (Physics professor, Nobel Prize winner): “This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. … the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.” [UC Berkeley NewsCenter (June 17 2005). Online]
      2. Alexander Vilenkin (Physics professor at Tufts, Director of Institute of Cosmology): “These and many other examples show that our presence in the universe depends on a precarious balance between different tendencies--a balance that would be destroyed if the constants of nature were to deviate significantly from their present values. What are we to make of this…? Is it a sign of a Creator…?” [Many Worlds in One (Hill and Wang, 2007), 132.]
        Paul Davies (Agnostic turned deist, physics professor at Cambridge, etc.): “The delicate fine-tuning in the values of the constants, necessary so that the various different branches of physics can dovetail so felicitously, might be attributed to God. It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out.” [God and the New Physics (Simon & Schuster, 1983), 189.]
        Freeman Dyson (Mathematician, physicist, famed contributor to quantum mechanics & solid-state physics): “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.” [Disturbing the Universe (Harper & Row, 1979), 250.]
        John Polkinghorne (Cambridge particle physicist): “The laws of nature were just exactly finely-tuned to allow that to happen, it couldn’t happen in just any old world. That’s a very striking fact about the world, and again, you can ask yourself 'is that a happy accident, or is the sign of some divine purpose behind the very fruitful history of the universe, that’s turned a ball of energy into the home of saints and mathematicians'.” [Interview with Robert Wright: Online]
        Frank Tipler (Cosmologist, mathematical physics professor): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” [The Physics Of Immortality (Doubleday, 1994), Preface.]
        Fred Hoyle (Former atheist “greatly shaken” by fine-tuning; influential astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” [“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (1982): 20:16.]
        Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize in Physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” [Cosmos, Bios, and Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens, eds. Margenau and Varghese (Open Court, 1992), 83.]
        George Greenstein (Astronomy professor at Amherst): “It was not for some time that I was able to place my finger on the source of my discomfort. It arises, I understand now, because the contention that we owe our existence to a stupendous series of coincidences strikes a responsive chord. That contention is far too close for comfort to notions such as: We are the center of the universe. God loves mankind more than all other creatures. The cosmos is watching over us. The universe has a plan; we are essential to that plan.” [“The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos” (William Morrow & Co, 1988), 25-26.]
      3. [Forthcoming]
      4. [Forthcoming]. For now, to see a compelling and novel critique of the multiverse's utility as an explanation for fine-tuning, consider reading Collins's “The Fine-tuning of the Cosmos: A Fresh Look at its Implications”, available online.
      5. Some object that this argument presupposes a kind of “life chauvinism”. For now, just note that God is, by definition, the greatest possible being, and a person with values that are not far off from our own. With this in mind, rocks and other inanimate objects are not something God would have plausibly designed the Universe for, so the hypothesis is very ad hoc. (To use the technical language in probability theory, we mean here to say that the “prior probability” of the hypothesis is prohibitively low).
        One might compare it to the hypothesis of a God who wanted the cosmological constant fine-tuned to 1 part in 10120. (Call this the cc120God). While the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10120, and thus very strongly confirms the cc120God hypothesis, the cc120God hypothesis is unfathomably ad hoc. Is there any prior reason to take more seriously the hypothesis of God preferring a cosmological constant tuned to 1 in 10120 than one preferring 1 in 10100 or 1 in 1030? Since all these possible deities seem equally likely prior to looking at the evidence, their prior probability is (arguably) 1 divided by that number of competing alternatives. The prior probability of each then is unfathomably unlikely. Consequently, even great evidence won't be able to save any of these highly specific and contrived hypotheses.
  • The Universe is fine-tuned for discoverability

      science-discoverableThe Universe is fine-tuned for being discoverable[Forthcoming] (i.e., of all the known ways the universe could have been, and even among the subset which allows for lifeforms, few have initial conditions, laws, and physical constants which would ever allow those lifeforms to learn about it). This is a very awkward and shocking development for atheists 1 because it means for them* that we got really lucky for no reason. If God exists, however, then the Universe’s amenability to being discovered and known is not nearly so surprising or improbable.2 Such a universe is the kind of thing God would plausibly choose to create.

      1. Albert Einstein: “You may find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world to the degree that we may speak of such comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be in any way grasped through thought... The kind of order created, for example, by Newton's theory of gravity is of quite a different kind. Even if the axioms of the theory are posited by a human being, the success of such an enterprise presupposes an order in the objective world of a high degree, which one has no a priori right to expect. That is the miracle which grows increasingly persuasive with the increasing development of knowledge.” [1956, A Letter to Maurice Solovine]
        Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize winner, theoretical physicist): “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.” [The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences (1960), 14.]
        Paul Davies (Agnostic turned deist, physics professor at Cambridge, etc.): “A common reaction among physicists to remarkable discoveries… is a mixture of delight at the subtlety and elegance of nature, and of stupefaction: ‘I would never have thought of doing it that way.’ If nature is so ‘clever’ it can exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the physical universe? If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? … Uncovering the laws of physics resembles completing a crossword in a number of ways. In the case of the crossword, it would never occur to us to suppose that the words just happen to fall into a consistent interlocking pattern by accident.” [Superforce: The Search for the Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 235-36)]. Also: “It is impossible to be a scientist working at the frontier without being awed by the elegance, ingenuity, and harmony of the lawlike order in nature. In my attempts to popularize science, I am driven by the desire to share my own sense of excitement and awe with the wider community; I want to tell people the good news. The fact that we are able to do science, that we can comprehend the hidden laws of nature, I regard as a gift of immense significance.” [“Physics and the Mind of God”, Templeton Prize address: Online]
      2. Paul Davies (Agnostic turned deist, physics professor at Cambridge, etc.): “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” [“Physics and the Mind of God”, Templeton Prize address: Online]
        D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, T. Todd: “Human-engineered systems are characterized by stability, predictability, reliability, transparency, controllability, efficiency, and (ideally) optimality. These features are also prevalent throughout the natural systems that make up the cosmos. However, the level of engineering appears to be far above and beyond, or transcendent of, current human capabilities. Even so, there is a curious match between the comprehensibility of the universe and the ability of mankind to comprehend it. This unexplained matching is a prerequisite for any kind of reverse engineering activity to be even remotely successful. And yet, mankind seems to be drawn onward toward a potential wisdom, almost in tutorial fashion, by the puzzles of nature that are continually available for us to unravel. Indeed, the universe is so readily and profitably reverse engineered as to make a compelling argument that it was engineered in the first place, apparently with humanity in mind.” [“The Coherence of an Engineered World”, International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1)(2009): 47.]
        Albert Einstein: “I have found no better expression than ‘religious’ for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason.” [Letter to Maurice Solovine, (1 January 1951) [Einstein Archive 21-174]; published in Letters to Solovine (1993)]
        Robin Collins (Philosopher-physicist at Messiah College): “The heart of the theistic alternative is to explain the fact that our universe exhibits BSC by claiming that (i) a universe exhibiting BSC will realize both moral and aesthetic values to a greater degree than universes not exhibiting BSC and (ii) God would have some reason to bring about a universe structure to realize these values. … In the theistic explanation, the claim that God provides a non-ad-hoc connecting link between value and existence is based on a natural extrapolation from our own experience that once grasped, the goodness or beauty of a state of affairs gives us ― and presumably any conscious agent ― a reason to prefer that state of affairs. The idea is that part of grasping that a state of affairs has value ― whether moral or aesthetic ― is to "feel" the desirability of the state, and hence have some motivation to bring it about. … Whether one buys this sort of argument or not, I think that at minimum one has to admit that it is in no way arbitrary or ad-hoc to hold that a perfectly free, omniscient, and omnipotent being would have the desire to bring about states of goodness and beauty.” [The Fine Tuning for Discoverability DRAFT (2014), 18. Avaliable online.]
  • Cells, brains, eyes “look” intelligently designed

      dnaFeatures of living organisms appear as if they were intelligently designed, even if the appearance is only superficial. Consider…

      • …the cell and its inner-workings appear designed.
      This is relevant because if God did not exist, then the likelihood of this being true is very low. Simultaneously, if God does exist, then life's appearing intelligently designed is not nearly so unexpected because life actually being intelligently designed is not unexpected.

      But so what if life gives a superficial appearance of design? Plausibly…
      • … [life evolved in an unguided way that mimics the pattern of intelligent design].[Forthcoming]

  • We have mostly reliable cognitive faculties

      cognitive-facultiesOur cognitive faculties (perception, memory, reason, etc.) are such that they are generally reliable.1 (That is to say, they are more inclined to recommend to us true beliefs rather than false ones.) Consider that intuitions justify beliefs;…

      • …intuition justifies belief that physical laws are constant.
      • …intuition justifies belief that x happened in the past.
      • …intuition justifies belief that x exists outside my mind.
      • …intuition justifies belief that x is conscious.
      • …intuition justifies belief that x is objectively morally wrong.
      • …intuition justifies belief that x could've occurred.

      This is relevant because it is awkward and unexplained if atheism is true, whereas if theism is true, it is not nearly so unlikely or unexpected. After all, creating moral agents with generally reliable cognitive faculties able to interact with each other is the kind of thing a good God would plausibly choose to do.2

      But so what if our cognitive faculties are generally reliable? Plausibly…
      • reliable faculties were selected for by an unguided evolutionary process.[Forthcoming]

      1. There are additional faculties that one might add:
        Alvin Plantinga: “Further, there are introspection, by which I learn such things about myself as that I am appeared to a certain way, and believe this or that; induction, whereby (in a way that defies explicit statement) we come to expect the future to be like the past in certain respects, thereby being able to learn from experience; and Thomas Reid's sympathy, whereby we come to be aware of what other people are thinking, feeling, and believing. Still further, there is testimony or credulity, whereby we learn from others, by believing what they tell us. By sympathy I learn that you are telling me that your name is Archibald; for me to believe you, however, something further is required. (Thus by perception, I see that you are in such and such a bodily state; by sympathy, I learn that you are claiming that your name is Archibald; and by testimony, I believe you.)”[Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, 2000), 174.]
      2. [Forthcoming]
  • God-belief is instinctive for humans
  • Some actions are objectively morally wrong

      Some actions are objectively morally wrong (i.e., wrong despite what anybody believes). This is relevant because the existence of such specifically personal facts in the world is unlikely if the world is, at bottom, impersonal (particles and physics), and yet it is very much the kind of thing we would anticipate if a God exists who grounds the world and who could not fail to have been loving, honest, etc.

      But so what? Plausibly… [All Forthcoming]
      • …x's net consequences are bad.
      • …x is done for bad reasons.
      • …x wouldn't be done by an “ideal observer”.

  • Some “necessary being” exists
  • Genuine miracles have occurred

      resurrectionGenuine miracles have occurred within human history. Consider…
      • …Jesus was raised from the dead (resurrected).
      • …Ezekiel accurately prophesied Tyre's destruction.1

      This is relevant because it is highly unlikely that these miracles would occur unless God exists.

      1. With respect to Ezekiel's prophecy on Tyre, some critics reflexively respond with a standard “it was not a risky prophecy,” but this is naive (see link). For example, it can be said of few other cities in history that their enemies threw all her timbers, stones, and debris into the sea, making it a “bare rock”. To preempt another objection, no scholar nor critic in my readings seems to take seriously the possibility that the prophecy was written after the fact.
  • [More arguments]

      [Brackets] mean “forthcoming.”

  • Reasons given for answering "No"
  • God would opt for less suffering than we see
  • He'd opt for more to believe, for relationship sake
  • [Only the natural world of science exists]

      [Brackets] mean “forthcoming.”

  • [God's properties are incoherent or contradict]

      God's properties are incoherent, contradict, or entail contradictions For example…[All forthcoming]

      • …Some properties are incoherent all by themselves, like…
         • …Omnipotence (all-powerful) (e.g., …it means unliftable rocks can be lifted)!
         • …Omniscience (all-knowing)
         • …Omnibenevolence (all-good)
         • …Timelessness
         • …Spacelessness
         • …Immateriality
         • …Free will (libertarian freedom)
         • …Perfect rationality
         • …Eternality
      • …Some properties are incoherent in relation to other properties, like… [All Forthcoming]
         • …Being timeless and personal
         • …Being omniscient and libertarianly free
         • …Being omnipotent and omnibenevolent
         • …Being all-just and all-loving
      This is relevant because if God's properties are incoherent or impossible, then God is incoherent or impossible.

  • TOGGLE MENU