(November 23, 2016 at 2:55 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 21, 2016 at 9:39 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: Why would I read a book that is a restatement of Aquinas' fourth way with a bit of modern science thrown in to fool the gullible?

We know Aquinas has long been shown to be not even wrong.

Of course Aquinas arguments cannot be refuted.

I refuted them a couple of days ago. The first three go 1) everything must have property X, 2) there must therefore be a thing without property X, all three arguments refuting themselves. The fourth way is refuted by pointing out that Aquinas' "degrees of perfection" are a subjevtive value judgement, and that they don't need to lead to an ultimate perfection except through his assertion. And Darwin destroyed the argument from design over 150 years ago, through natural selection.

There all five ways refuted.

PS you should google not even wrong some day and see what it actually means.

(November 19, 2016 at 11:47 am)The Joker Wrote: If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose, then we obviously know God did it

Which god?

I collect so-called proofs put forward by theists and enjoy adapting them to show that God does not exist. In each and every case so far the 'proof' has made a far more convincing case than whatever the theist started off with. I try to keep as much of the original text as possible and do not alter it any more than I have to.


The First Way: Argument from Motion

• Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  
• Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
  Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
  
• Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
  
• Therefore nothing can move itself.
  
• Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
  
• The sequence of motion extends ad infinitum because things change over time, actual motion stops and can increase in potential motion. Motion is performed by energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
  
• Therefore there cannot be a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands would be God.
  
• Therefore God cannot exist.
  

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

• We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
  
• Nothing exists prior to itself.
  
• Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
  
• If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
  
• Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
  
• If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
  
• That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes)
  
• This shows that the concept of efficient cause is flawed and relies on equivocation. Instead matter and energy has just been rearranged in different forms.
  
• Therefore there cannot have been a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
  

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

• We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
  
• Assume that every being is a contingent being.
  
• For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
  
• Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
  
• Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
  
• Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
  
• Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
  
• We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
  
• Yet to argue that only one being is not contingent is special pleading.
  
• Therefore there cannot have been an initial being caused by something else. This all men speak of as God, which cannot exist.
  

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

• There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  
• Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
  
• The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
  
• A maximum is a limit of a particular value.
  
• Therefore something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection which we call God cannot exist because it would be limited by having a maximum.
  

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

• We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
  
• Most natural things lack knowledge.  
  
• But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
  
• But some natural bodies such as humans and animals, have intelligence and are directing other natural bodies that lack natural intelligence.
  
• This means that there cannot exist a single intelligent being, which we call God, that directs everything.
  
• Therefore if anything is directing natural bodies that lack intelligence, it is merely another being and not God.
  

(November 23, 2016 at 5:14 pm)The Joker Wrote: Who is stopping you? Go ahead, try to debunk each one if you can.

Feel free to try and debunk my five 'proofs' that God does not exist then.

(November 24, 2016 at 5:43 am)Mathilda Wrote: I collect so-called proofs put forward by theists and enjoy adapting them to show that God does not exist. In each and every case so far the 'proof' has made a far more convincing case than whatever the theist started off with. I try to keep as much of the original text as possible and do not alter it any more than I have to.


The First Way: Argument from Motion

• Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  
• Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
  Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
  
• Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
  
• Therefore nothing can move itself.
  
• Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
  
• The sequence of motion extends ad infinitum because things change over time, actual motion stops and can increase in potential motion. Motion is performed by energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
  
• Therefore there cannot be a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands would be God.
  
• Therefore God cannot exist.
  

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

• We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
  
• Nothing exists prior to itself.
  
• Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
  
• If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
  
• Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
  
• If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
  
• That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes)
  
• This shows that the concept of efficient cause is flawed and relies on equivocation. Instead matter and energy has just been rearranged in different forms.(How does it know to rearrange itself, someone most have moved it.)
  
• Therefore there cannot have been a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
  

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

• We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
  
• Assume that every being is a contingent being.
  
• For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
  
• Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
  
• Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
  
• Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings(The argument is flawed a contigent being does not need a cause becasue it is existence itself) into existence.
  
• Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
  
• We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
  
• Yet to argue that only one being is not contingent is special pleading.
  
• Therefore there cannot have been an initial being caused by something else. This all men speak of as God, which cannot exist.
  

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

• There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  
• Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
  
• The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
  
• A maximum is a limit of a particular value.
  
• Therefore something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection which we call God cannot exist because it would be limited by having a maximum.(How can God be limited by having a maximum? It makes no sense, arguement is flawed at fundamental aspects.)
  

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

• We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
  
• Most natural things lack knowledge.  
  
• But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
  
• But some natural bodies such as humans and animals, have intelligence and are directing other natural bodies that lack natural intelligence.
  
• This means that there cannot exist a single intelligent being, which we call God, that directs everything.
  
• Therefore if anything is directing natural bodies that lack intelligence, it is merely another being and not God.(Point is flawed because another "being" can be intelligent  and supperior to other beings e.g the angels but we call God the ultimate being so God is the best explanation.)
  

 
So Conclusion, St Thomas Aquinas Argument for God still remains Unrefuted.

The First Way: Argument from Motion

• Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  
• Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
  
• Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
  
• Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
  
• Therefore nothing can move itself.
  
• Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
  
• The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
  
• One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.
  
• Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observed today. Present measures of energy are immeasurably enormous, indicating a power source so great that "infinite" is the best word we have to describe it.
  
• The logical conclusion is that our supernatural Creator with infinite power created the universe. There is no energy source capable to originate what we observe today.
  
• Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God who is existence itself.
  

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

• We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
  
• Nothing exists prior to itself.
  
• Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
  
• If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
  
• Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
  
• If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
  
• That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
  
• Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
  
• Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
  

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

• We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
  
• Assume that every being is a contingent being.
  
• For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
  
• Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
  
• Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
  
• Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
  
• Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
  
• We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
  
• Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
  
• Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
  

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

• There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  
• Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
  
• The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
  
• Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
  

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

• We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
  
• Most natural things lack knowledge.  
  
• But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
  
• Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
  

http://www.icr.org

I have to say, re-stating the five ways as a response to a refutation does seem to be the way most theists go about it. But you forgot to warn us that we just don't understand them.

(November 24, 2016 at 9:10 am)Tonus Wrote: I have to say, re-stating the five ways as a response to a refutation does seem to be the way most theists go about it.  But you forgot to warn us that we just don't understand them.

So you lack intelligence then?

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 5:43 am)Mathilda Wrote: The First Way: Argument from Motion

• Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  
• Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
  Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
  
• Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
  
• Therefore nothing can move itself.
  
• Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
  
• The sequence of motion extends ad infinitum because things change over time, actual motion stops and can increase in potential motion. Motion is performed by energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
  
• Therefore there cannot be a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands would be God.
  
• Therefore God cannot exist.
  

I see the Joker hasn't countered this argument. Therefore God does not exist.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 5:43 am)Mathilda Wrote: The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

• We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
  
• Nothing exists prior to itself.
  
• Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
  
• If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
  
• Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
  
• If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
  
• That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes)
  
• This shows that the concept of efficient cause is flawed and relies on equivocation. Instead matter and energy has just been rearranged in different forms.*
  
• Therefore there cannot have been a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
  

(How does it know to rearrange itself, someone most have moved it.)

Matter rearranges itself to minimise the flow of free energy. This is the basis for all self organizing systems.

For example, if you're working at a desk stacked high with wads of paper and I come along with a leaf blower, the paper blows everywhere and finally settles down on the floor. The paper settles into a new stable state, free energy is minimise and entropy is maximised.

This would apply to any god as well, which would have to work under the same principles if it is part of the universe. Therefore your god cannot exist.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 5:43 am)Mathilda Wrote: The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

• We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
  
• Assume that every being is a contingent being.
  
• For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
  
• Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
  
• Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
  
• Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings* into existence.
  
• Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
  
• We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
  
• Yet to argue that only one being is not contingent is special pleading.
  
• Therefore there cannot have been an initial being caused by something else. This all men speak of as God, which cannot exist.
  

(The argument is flawed a contigent being does not need a cause becasue it is existence itself) into existence.

Which is my second to last point in the list. "to argue that only one being is not contingent is special pleading". Therefore the proof stands. Your god does not exist.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 5:43 am)Mathilda Wrote: The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

• There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  
• Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
  
• The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
  
• A maximum is a limit of a particular value.
  
• Therefore something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection which we call God cannot exist because it would be limited by having a maximum.(How can God be limited by having a maximum? It makes no sense, arguement is flawed at fundamental aspects.)
  

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

• We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
  
• Most natural things lack knowledge.  
  
• But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
  
• But some natural bodies such as humans and animals, have intelligence and are directing other natural bodies that lack natural intelligence.
  
• This means that there cannot exist a single intelligent being, which we call God, that directs everything.
  
• Therefore if anything is directing natural bodies that lack intelligence, it is merely another being and not God.*
  

* (Point is flawed because another "being" can be intelligent  and supperior to other beings e.g the angels we call God so God is the best explanation.)

You may argue that your god is superior to the angels, but those angels, like human beings, are still intelligent and have autonomy, or as you Christians call it, free will. They are not 100% directly controlled by your god. The Christian concept of free will means that your god, defined as a single intelligent being that directs everything, cannot exist because free will exists in the form of other intelligent beings.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: So Conclusion, St Thomas Aquinas Argument for God still remains Unrefuted.

So conclusion, you cannot refute my five arguments without refuting St Thoma Aquinas. My arguments remain unrefuted. By your standards of logic, your god does not exist.

You know?... I've been on this forum for a few years, now... and I think it' sthe first time I see all these put out like this.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote:  
So Conclusion, St Thomas Aquinas Argument for God still remains Unrefuted.

The First Way: Argument from Motion

• Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  
• Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
  
• Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
  
• Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
  
• Therefore nothing can move itself.
  
• Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
  
• The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
  
• One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.
  
• Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observed today. Present measures of energy are immeasurably enormous, indicating a power source so great that "infinite" is the best word we have to describe it.
  
• The logical conclusion is that our supernatural Creator with infinite power created the universe. There is no energy source capable to originate what we observe today.
  
• Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God who is existence itself.
  

I'm tempted to apply this to the quantum world, where no motion is the same as a temperature of zero-Kelvin.

I took out your bolding and left the bit I want to address - one question: why?
Why assume that something beyond nature created all the energy observed today?
What is the logical step taken here?
Can energy not have been always available?
Can't energy be created from the now famous quantum foam?
...
Who knows how many other possible processes can be thought of to bring about energy, without having to rely on something "beyond nature"...

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

• We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
  
• Nothing exists prior to itself.
  
• Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
  
• If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
  
• Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
  
• If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
  
• That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
  
• Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
  
• Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
  

Again, I bolded the bit I'm addressing.
Why?
Nothing you said before leads to this conclusion that there would be no things existing now, if one could trace back causes ad infinitum.
Here, you may argue with the second law of thermodynamics, but I'd point out the singularity nature of the Big Bang which may (for all we know) reset such law.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

• We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
  
• Assume that every being is a contingent being.
  
• For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
  
• Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
  
• Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
  
• Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
  
• Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
  
• We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
  
• Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
  
• Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
  

Again, my bold is what I'm addressing.
Why did you go from "being", which I assume to be a somewhat conscious entity, to "things", which I assume to be any sort of inanimate matter or energy?
[EDIT this part... I had missed the first line, for some reason]
Things, at their core, are not seen to come into and out of existence.
Remember Lavoisier? "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed."

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

• There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  
• Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
  
• The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
  
• Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
  

No. This is plain wrong.
The reference is arbitrary and usually placed at some neutral point, for simplicity.
"Good", furthermore, is an objective concept - that which is good for someone will not be good for others. Eg.: war - what is good for one side (winning) is not good for the other (because they lose).
One may argue for a "greater good", but that will still require some to be left at a not so good position.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

• We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
  
• Most natural things lack knowledge.  
  
• But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
  
• Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
  

Talk about reaching around for far-fetched comparisons...
I see no guidance, no forethought, no intelligence in the working of natural things. Natural things just work as they work... mindlessly...

I can even go further, the archer shoots the arrow, by signaling the arms to behave in a certain way. These signals are originating in the brain. The brain is a complex criss-crossing of neurological paths seemingly producing thoughts and orders to the body. The neurons are all very similar and simply conduct electrical signals, using very determined and natural processes.
So... natural processes define how the bowman thinks and how he decides to shoot the arrow. No intelligence required to shoot an arrow.... just some biochemical processes.

(November 24, 2016 at 9:24 am)Mathilda Wrote: I see the Joker hasn't countered this argument. Therefore God does not exist. (already did you see above and here it is)

Quote:The First Way: Argument from Motion

• Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  
• Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
  
• Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
  
• Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
  
• Therefore nothing can move itself.
  
• Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
  
• The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
  
• One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.
  
• Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observed today. Present measures of energy are immeasurably enormous, indicating a power source so great that "infinite" is the best word we have to describe it.
  
• The logical conclusion is that our supernatural Creator with infinite power created the universe. There is no energy source capable to originate what we observe today.
  
• Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God who is existence itself.
  

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: (How does it know to rearrange itself, someone most have moved it.)

Quote:Matter rearranges itself to minimise the flow of free energy. This is the basis for all self organizing systems.

For example, if you're working at a desk stacked high with wads of paper and I come along with a leaf blower, the paper blows everywhere and finally settles down on the floor. The paper settles into a new stable state, free energy is minimise and entropy is maximised.

This would apply to any god as well, which would have to work under the same principles if it is part of the universe. Therefore your god cannot exist.

All that energy cannot just exist on its own for that would be irrational to think energy exists on its own without a source and all matter needs a source, it must have an Matter and Energy source, that source is God from which all things come and it would irrational to think otherwise.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: (The argument is flawed a contigent being does not need a cause becasue it is existence itself) into existence.

You said, "Which is my second to last point in the list. "to argue that only one being is not contingent is special pleading". Therefore the proof stands. Your god does not exist."

Quote:I hear fairly often that God the first cause is special pleading.

People usually parody it something like this to demonstrate:

Everything has a cause except for my God.
The universe had a cause.
Therefore, God caused it.
They then proceed to say something like:

What caused God? And if God is eternal, why can't we just say that for the universe?

This is a caricature of the argument and indicates a poor understanding of the logic involved.

Let's look back at the original:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause (and then they take it from there to God by showing the logical necessity of the properties of such a cause; that's a different story).
Special pleading is when you ask for an exception to be made without justification. When there are exclusion criteria, it's not special pleading. Consider the following syllogism:

All vertebrates have spines.
I am a vertebrate.
Therefore, I have a spine.
(EDIT: Some have noted below that this is problematic because vertebrates are defined by having backbones. Swap it for any inductive pair and it still works.) Is the validity of this argument somehow affected by saying that there are other organisms that don't have spines? Is this special pleading? Of course not! We have defined the criterion for who has a spine. The fact that not everything fits into this criterion is no indication of special pleading for the things inside it.

Same with the universe. Premise 2 is not just a metaphysical intuition (it may be this as well); it needs to be justified with science if the argument is to be sound. That's why apologists like WLC use cosmology to defend premise 2. There is no special pleading involved because a criterion has been defined, and God does not meet that criterion. God is defined as eternal, and thus never began to exist. It's not that the universe cannot be eternal; it's that we use science to establish that it's not. (Whether the science actually supports this is a different matter; I'm not here to defend the soundness of the premises.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/..._pleading/ 

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: * (Point is flawed because another "being" can be intelligent  and supperior to other beings e.g the angels we call God so God is the best explanation.)

Quote:You may argue that your god is superior to the angels, but those angels, like human beings, are still intelligent and have autonomy, or as you Christians call it, free will. They are not 100% directly controlled by your god. The Christian concept of free will means that your god, defined as a single intelligent being that directs everything, cannot exist because free will exists in the form of other intelligent beings.

God does does control all things, but the angels obey, Whether angels have complete free will, limited free will, or all angels actions are predetermined, angels cannot perceive anything beyond this immediate moment, and angels cannot perceive active outside interference with their free will, and therefore the only logical way to act is as if they have free will.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: So Conclusion, St Thomas Aquinas Argument for God still remains Unrefuted.

So conclusion, you cannot refute my five arguments without refuting St Thoma Aquinas. My arguments remain unrefuted. By your standards of logic, your god does not exist.

So conclusion, God does exist.