God's God

[Mystic]

How do you know everything needs a "constant cause" to keep existing?

I don't know for certain. It seems true to me, so I can base an argument on that. It will then seem to me an eternal maintainer to the universe and himself, needs to exist. It would not prove it to someone who disagrees with the premise, but it can be evidence to me, when the premise seems true.

"It seems true to me" isn't a valid argument.

It's an axiom in the proof, it's not the argument.

Now, if you think "everything needs a constant cause", then both define your terms and demonstrate this.

It's defined already. A thing includes everything that exists.

It does NOT, however, follow that the sum of all existent things needs a constant cause (that would be the fallacy of composition).

No it's not on a universal argument. All atoms can't think, it doesn't follow what forms of an atom doesn't think. But do you believe if atoms can't cause themselves to exist, some how the sum of atoms are possibly causing themselves to exist?

That doesn't appear rational. In this case, since each thing in the universe cannot be constantly causing itself to exist, it would follow the universe is not constantly causing it either.

Do you think Allah 'caused himself' to come into being?

Nope.

Third, in quantum physics there are effects that appear to have no apparent causes (i.e. - vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, etc). Thus any experience of "uncaused causes" cannot act as evidence for your case.

Says you. To me they would be evidence of supernatural cause, just not concrete definitive evidence.

And no deity deduction can be made from them. At best, we could say that some causes of particles seem to come from unknown origins.

And it can seem like that origin is a supernatural creator. That can possibly seem more plausible that a 10th dimension or something like that.

Is your deity physical? If not, how do you know it's real?

I don't believe in a deity...so why don't you ask me what I believe before assuming so much.

If you don't, but rely on faith, why? Faith is not a reliable avenue for separating fact from fiction. It is gullibility dressed up.

I guess you don't believe in morals, praise, free-will, human rights, etc....

As with multiple times before, you cannot simply define your deity into existence by use of secondary characteristics (i.e. - what your alleged deity supposedly does). The "this is my God by definition" argument fails. Our local universe is demonstrated. Your deity is not. As before (and once again), anyone can define anything into being they want . It moves the discussion nowhere.

Strawman to what you quoted.

The Russell/Copleston debate now? Even if we agreed that there must be some necessary being (a being which contains within itself the reason of it's own existence), and I don't necessarily agree that there must be, but even if I did it does not follow that such a "thing" (if we can call it that) has to be anything different from the totality of existence itself (i.e. - the global universe - a part of which we are now experiencing).

The global universe could always be somewhat different, hence can never be ontologically necessary. Even if was ontologically necessary, it would not prove ontological necessary living being is not necessary.

Your first statement here hints at a kind of fallacious argument from incredulity (a burden shifting). "No one has proven me false yet. So I'll just keep believing my assumption until they do."

Well no, the point was, people have faith, and you haven't disproven that what they believe is special pleading at all. You simple re-assert it over and over again.

You haven't proven they can't know by faith. So the burden is on you because you are stating their faith is illogical.

I haven't coming out saying their faith is justified as an argument that you must accept.

I'm saying you haven't shown it's not true, therefore you haven't shown how they are committing special pleading.

If they know ultimate existence exists via faith (I don't claim to know), you haven't shown they don't. Just as they can't go up to you and tell you, their faith is proof to you, your faith that they don't know is not proof either that they are special pleading.

Creator constantly maintaining itself would not mean he had to ontological precede causing itself. He can constantly cause himself to exist and this maybe the very reason why we might know "everything needs to be constantly caused" (because it's the nature of existence and we can possibly be given knowledge of that by the Creator).