(April 1, 2013 at 8:31 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Mir Infidel, God does not require a cause for his existence.

Yes, he does.

Argue it then. Why does God require a cause for his existence?

(April 1, 2013 at 8:31 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why an infinite regress? Why not only a regress until it reaches the conditions of the first cause?

---

(April 1, 2013 at 8:34 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Argue it then. Why does God require a cause for his existence?

(April 1, 2013 at 8:05 pm)jstrodel Wrote: 1.If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.

^this

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. God is self sufficient, and requires no more cause to exist than God's own existence


Why it is unreasonable to believe that God's existence is subject to a different understanding of causality than peoples?

(April 1, 2013 at 8:43 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why it is unreasonable to believe that God's existence is subject to a different understanding of causality than peoples?

Because nothing else gets the same special treatment.

(April 1, 2013 at 8:43 pm)jstrodel Wrote: 1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. God is self sufficient, and requires no more cause to exist than God's own existence


Why it is unreasonable to believe that God's existence is subject to a different understanding of causality than peoples?

Should I post the Sagan video again? You do realize that this is special pleading and circular logic, don't you? If I posit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has these exact same qualities of existing because he exists (because he exists because he exists because...) then does that make it real?

(April 1, 2013 at 8:43 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why it is unreasonable to believe that God's existence is subject to a different understanding of causality than peoples?

Because it is not factual, but rather based on religious faith in order to maintain that your god exists when all evidence points to the contrary.

From biologos:

Quote:The common sense assumption that everything must have a cause or a reason to be as it is also suffers from what is called the fallacy of composition. This fallacy comes about when we assume that properties of the parts apply to the whole. For example, just because every member of the human race has a mother, we cannot infer that the human race itself has a mother. Similarly, a collection of spherical things would not itself have to be spherical. In discussions about the origins of the universe, we would say that just because every individual part of the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the entire universe has a cause.

---

(April 1, 2013 at 8:46 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(April 1, 2013 at 8:43 pm)jstrodel Wrote: 1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. God is self sufficient, and requires no more cause to exist than God's own existence


Why it is unreasonable to believe that God's existence is subject to a different understanding of causality than peoples?

Should I post the Sagan video again? You do realize that this is special pleading and circular logic, don't you? If I posit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has these exact same qualities of existing because he exists (because he exists because he exists because...) then does that make it real?

How is it circular logic? God explains the problem of everything requiring a cause but avoiding a regression of causes. Where is it circular?

The argument is not intended to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, it is meant to show people with less prejudices and less of an attitude that in fact the concept of God fits in with a metaphysical order and solves metaphysical problems.

[quote='jstrodel' pid='424773' dateline='1364864013']
From biologos:

Quote:The common sense assumption that everything must have a cause or a reason to be as it is also suffers from what is called the fallacy of composition. This fallacy comes about when we assume that properties of the parts apply to the whole. For example, just because every member of the human race has a mother, we cannot infer that the human race itself has a mother. Similarly, a collection of spherical things would not itself have to be spherical. In discussions about the origins of the universe, we would say that just because every individual part of the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the entire universe has a cause.

---

That cause includes god.

Quote:That cause includes god.

The parts require a cause though, because it is obvious that physical objects require causes, while the whole may not.