I may have been a little hasty when I said this. Certainly wouldn’t want to be hasty. (I may have been reading the Treebeard section in The Two Towers recently.)
Something cannot come from nothing.
Something (the universe) exists.
Therefore, the universe came from “not nothing”.
However, I understand that for most people those three lines are just words. They don’t “see” the picture the words describe. It’s a pity, because many of these unseeing fools count themselves genuine intellectuals.
Koanic explains that the cause is probably hardware incompatibility:
Missing from Jim’s analysis is the void where the religious spirit
resides. It is a curious deficiency that seems to afflict aspies and
occipitals, albeit in different ways. The aspie is militantly atheist;
the occipital simply lacks the capacity to be religious in the same way
as neurotypicals. That is not to say that occipitals cannot be Christian
– look at Tex Arcane. But they will arrive there by very different
paths, and with different meanings, than a melon back such as myself.
My response to his post:
I was thinking this myself. I’ve tried to understand the ontological argument for the existence of God (your mathematical proof link above), but I’ve never been able to grok it. Whereas the cosmological argument is by far the strongest factor in my Christianity (http://viktorisaksen.wordpress…. I figured it out on my own when I was young (maybe 12?), and ever since I’ve had a reason to explain why it always “feels” like God is there, just far away somehow.
Your higher IQ is going to complicate things, but aside from that would you say that the cosmological argument is easy or difficult for you to grok?