[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Notready is making a perfectly correct logical argument given his axioms. The issue here should really be, then, "is his axiom correct?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said. There are two fundamental presuppositions for man. The God of the Bible exists or He doesn't. No one has yet shown how the universe or anthing in it can make sense if He doesn't exist. If God is presupposed, the universe then makes sense. Obviously this is way over simplified, but that's the gist of it.

The argument was derived by a 20th century theologian well versed in Kantian idealism. He adopted the form of the transcendental argument Kant used, which can be simply stated as "What are the prerequisites for human thought to be possible", and asked "What are the conditions for the universe to have meaning?".

He thought he had found a silver bullet for apologetics, a demonstrably perfect and certain argument. I don't go that far, but I think it's the best of the theistic proofs.

The major flaw is I can't prove the universe has meaning. But I can point out the consequences for human thought and life if it doesn't. So given the universe has meaning, this can only be true if the God of the Bible exists.