Saying something is self-evident doesn't work as evidence
People dont think based on evidence. If they did, thinking would be impossible.
That makes me think there is no substance to atheism then. All they do is shift burden of proof onto the alternative explanation and provide no explanation of their own besides "I don't know." Is that accurate?
Yes, the common answer I get from atheists is that they dont know. When I ask them about the conditions for existence, they cant seem to come up with a rational response as to what is a condition for something to exist in general. The first thing which ever existed can logically only have existence which is not conditional on any other thing. And the thing which is not conditional on any other thing is God. So in this sense, if things not conditional on any other thing can exist, then God can exist. And there is no explanation why first unconditional thing would exist and God (also unconditional thing) wouldnt. Further, when we define God as creator of logic who is himself above logic, we see that by mere definition, nothing could stop such God from creating himself out of nothing, as he is above logic and he can do that.
Atheism has no explanation of existence which excludes God, and that is a crucial point. If all explanations we can think of can logically include God, then in all of them, God is very possible. This is also true for random creation, which could logically create God out of nothing at random in the same way it created our universe out of nothing at random. This is true for eternal universe which does not rule out eternal God, but in fact says unconditional existence is possible, and as such, unconditional existence of God is possible.
So if atheist were to say that God doesnt exist, he would need to explain which condition prevents God from existing while at the same time enabling whole universe to exist.
And more importantly, what put such condition in place?
Atheism can only rule out God from existence if it assumes that there is a specific condition which prevents God from existing.
However, no such condition exists as theory. The idea that things can unconditionally exist enables God directly, and the idea that things cant unconditionally exist would make our own existence impossible, as our existence depends on something which governs existence, and something which governs existence cannot itself be dependent on existence of other things, as it governs them.
So we begin from a true dichotomy:
P1. Some things either can exist unconditionally or things cant exist unconditionally
P2. It is impossible to defend that things cant exist unconditionally
C. Some things can exist unconditionally
P1 is a true tautology, no 3rd option exists.
P2 is true because if all things were conditional, there would be no unconditional thing to enable all of them, and existence itself would be impossible with no possible starting point.
C. From P1 and P2, conclusion follows that some things indeed can exist unconditionally.
This unconditional existence cannot possibly exclude God, as excluding God would make it be conditional.
In this sense, any theory of existence includes God at starting point, because it is impossible to exclude God at starting point.
Also, it is not logically possible to explain why God wouldnt exist at starting point and something else would, as no conditions exist to create such difference.
Because of this, starting point must indeed include God.
