[quote="Jmd96, post:1, topic:279055"]
If that's the case I think you may have been misunderstanding theism as a properly basic belief. From a New York Times article about Alvin Plantinga:
*Mr. Plantinga readily admits that he has no proof that God exists. But he also thinks that doesn’t matter. Belief in God, he argues, is what philosophers call a basic belief: It is no more in need of proof than the belief that the past exists, or that other people have minds, or that one plus one equals two. *
On the contrary, William Lane Craig argues that the Prime Mover must uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, powerful, and yes, personal. I'm prepared to elaborate on why these are necessary. I think I'd have trouble thoroughly defending the "personal" aspect, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to prove my point-- that a non-theistic worldview cannot tell me why something is right or wrong, it simply taks it by faith.
Any competent argument for God's existence must begin with a complete definition of God, else it is worthless. One must prove first that the properties themselves are possible, and move from there to a justification for the idea that an entity embodying these properties might exist, and from there to proof of existence.
Anything else is simply a relatively mindless exercise, taking one's favorite dogma out for a walk.
Unless Plantinga defines and justifies the attributes of the entity he calls :"God," his arguments are worthless.
Craig completely fails to justify, much less prove the properties he assigns to God. IMO his arguments and conclusions are of no value, except to mollify and reassure those who are already believers in the traditional God-concept.
The property of omnipotence cannot be proven, because to prove such a property it must be demonstrated. From the laws of relativistic physics it is clear that a single use of omnipotent power would destroy the universe.
And, as I'vw explained in detail in previous posts, an omniscient entity cannot think creatively. IMO a Creator who cannot think creatively, cannot create, meaning that he cannot be a Creator. An unthinking being who simply possesses knowledge is uninteresting in other respects as well-- we have enough mindless college perfessers already.