Explanation applies to contingent facts. God's existence would be a necessary fact and thus does not need an explanation.
Yes: I'm well aware of Swinburne's views, but he's not contradicting anything I said.
This is probably repeating some of the earlier objections to your OP but hopefully at least nuanced differently.You start the title of your thread with "There is at least one impossible fact"Very confusing. For something to be considered factual (to use the word's ordinary meaning) it is required to be possible, unless the something is itself merely a statement that something else is impossible (and there are very few of those statements which are provably correct).
Then you proceed with:"....the inescapable reality is that Something exists without a somehow. That is, something, whether it be God or the physical universe, ultimately has no natural, logical explanation for its existence - it just is. Something that is not merely unexplained as of yet, but something for which there is no explanation at all, not even in principle."Who said that is an inescapable reality?
that it ultimately has no natural logical explanation?
Because you don't have one? The premise that because most of us don't have a tested hypothesis for the somehow, does not result in a valid conclusion that the somehow doesn't exist.
next you say:"It seems to me that something that exists as a brute fact without any underlying physical principle, property, dynamic, or process to account for its existence is the very definition of supernatural".leaving aside the 'brute fact' debate, again, a faulty conclusion. Because you don't know of a physical principle, property, dynamic, or process to account for something's existence, doesn't mean there isn't one, nor that you can establish its existence as supernatural (although it could be).
finally:"At this point any failure or refusal to acknowledge the simple truth that there is at least one supernatural brute fact reeks and smacks of deliberate obtuseness and extreme intellectual dishonesty."Problem with 'simple truths' is that they look very similar to subjective opinions.When you can prove your 'one supernatural brute fact' then we naughty atheists might be more persuaded. At present, and somewhat predictably, you have no fact, but a question currently without an answer (natural or otherwise). We've had plenty of these over the course of human history, and they all eventually get one.
In the mean time, as always, we have theism to fill in the gaps.
Theists would say that God exists based on the necessity of God's existence.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause and this would mean that God doesn't need an explanation.
An atheist has harder time explaining the cause of the universe when it has a beginning.
Quote from: joppe on August 22, 2014, 10:06:17 amTheists would say that God exists based on the necessity of God's existence. That is completely incoherent, something cannot be the reason for its own existence.
If you think I'm wrong then I challenge you to provide a coherent explanation for something exists because it must and is the reason for its own existence - good luck!
Quote from: joppe on August 22, 2014, 10:06:17 amEverything that begins to exist has a cause and this would mean that God doesn't need an explanation. Everything needs an intelligible principle to account for the how and why of its existence. If something exists without some intelligible principle underlying it then it is just a supremely weird brute freaking fact. Now I posit that one supremely weird brute freaking fact must be the case because anything else just begs the question. And since at least one supremely weird brute freaking fact is real that means there are no rational grounds on which one can object to one supremely weird brute freaking fact over any of the other supremely weird brute freaking fact possibilities. This means that the Theist can no longer object to infinite regress or spontaneous emergence ex nihilo on grounds of absurdity or incoherency because what the Theist is positing is equally absurd and incoherent.
Quote from: joppe on August 22, 2014, 10:06:17 amAn atheist has harder time explaining the cause of the universe when it has a beginning.Both Theist and Atheist alike have an impossible time explaining the existence of something rather nothing - because it can't be done because it always comes back to some impossible absurdity or other.
I don't think you understand what it means that God exists necessarily. Please, read the subject. It doesn't meant that God creates Himself, it means that God always exists.
Again, many mathematicians believe that numbers exist necessarily. I don't believe that but they do. This doesn't mean that numbers caused themselves.
Again, you don't seem to understand what it means that God exists necessarily.
It doesn't come back to impossible absurdity at least on theism.
MUST we believe that Mysticism is like"some vast ocean, the empire of illusion" where adventurous thinkers go astray, or is it a state of direct intuition which may be claimed by right, as divinely imparted?The question presents itself to us with this alternative: either Mysticism contains a negation of thought worse than Scepticism, or it is the most perfect activity of the mind. If it be that Mysticism is only obstinate persistence to know the unknowable, we shall have to accept the first conclusion. The pursuit of the impossible perverts our faculties and makes them unfit for their natural use. But, should Mysticism prove to be an experience distinct from what we understand by the word "knowing," it would be worth our while to inquire if something new is introduced into the consciousness, and in what ways.Reason is in possession of too much light to be able to remain quite at ease in the region of clear ideas, but not enough to know first principles of actual knowledge. In this penumbra who can trace the exact limit of perceptions and say where the true disappears in the probable, where the probable vanishes in illusion?