Why do you not believe in God?

[Skepsis]

The argument is circular unless the set "Doesn't begin to exist" has more than a single meaningful entry. Otherwise, NBE is a set with only one subject- a set with a single subject, that subject being a God, is nothing more than a shroud for God.
Basically, the arguement is begging the question if there is a single entry in NBE.

[Mystic]

Morality is not separate from consciousness.
Therefore if morality is eternal, so is consciousness.

Again, this is an argument that is not circular.

[Skepsis]

Ok here is an argument.

What exists, could not pop out of nothing into existence.
Therefore if God exists, he could not have popped out of nothing into existence.

Do you agree this is not circular reasoning?

If God popped out of nothingness, then the universe could have. Ergo, God is useless.

Morality if began to exist would be a delusion.
Morality is not a delusion.
Therefore morality didn't begin to exist.

This an non-circular argument as well. You can dispute premise 1, premise 2, but you can't accept premise 1 and premise 2, then say premise 3 is not true.

Why would morality be a delusion is if began to exist?
Why isn't morality a delusion?

Morality is not separate from consciousness.
Therefore if morality is eternal, so is consciousness.

Again, this is an argument that is not circular.

Morality hasn't been proven to be eternal.

[Mystic]

I think we can all agree that the argument is sound, but then drawing the conclusion that the God of Christianity exists because the universe had a cause is illogical, unless someone has already proved that God can create universes. Time to move on?

It seems most people are asserting not only that it's not sound, that's not valid, and not only that it's not valid, it's circular reasoning.

I don't think the God of Christianity can be proven, but I think the following you can assume of the cause:

The cause doesn't have a beginning.
Infinite time for the an assumed material cause, would not allow it to change and be the cause, therefore it's better to assume it's timeless, although can have relationship to time once time is created.
A material non-magical entity, cannot make time to begin and cause all the laws with time to begin.
Therefore a magic super being had to make time and the laws with time to begin.

Now if we go by reality is simple/indivisible, we can say it has to be intelligent and powerful, but these only can be simple and not divisible when they are ultimate.

Goodness is form of will power, and Ultimate Power would contain it. It's part of "high intelligence" and therefore ultimate intelligence would contain it.

That, and signs of creation show moral goodness. (like family, love, morality in us...)

This is of course making use of the premise that reality is indivisible/simple..

[CliveStaples]

The argument is circular unless the set "Doesn't begin to exist" has more than a single meaningful entry. Otherwise, NBE is a set with only one subject- a set with a single subject, that subject being a God, is nothing more than a shroud for God.
Basically, the arguement is begging the question if there is a single entry in NBE.

...uh, what?

I'll repeat my objection to your line of thinking:

Let X = { a | a began to exist}
Let X' = { b | b is not in X}
Q(x) = x has a cause

(1) For all x in X, Q(x).
(2) y is in X.
(3) Therefore, Q(y).

You're saying that if the cause of y--let's call it z--is the only element in X', then the argument is guilty of begging the question.

Remember, begging the question is a fallacy wherein a premise is used again as the conclusion. So in order for this argument to beg the question, one of the premises must be "Q(y)", i.e., "The universe has a cause".

So let's suppose that, indeed, z is the only element in X'. But note that X' is never referenced in the KCA. Furthermore, neither premise (1) nor premise (2) include the assumption that the universe has a cause. So the argument can't be begging the question.

---

If God popped out of nothingness, then the universe could have. Ergo, God is useless.

Uh, what? How do you know that if God can do something, then the universe can too?

Morality if began to exist would be a delusion.
Morality is not a delusion.
Therefore morality didn't begin to exist.

This an non-circular argument as well. You can dispute premise 1, premise 2, but you can't accept premise 1 and premise 2, then say premise 3 is not true.

Why would morality be a delusion is if began to exist?
Why isn't morality a delusion?

You're just questioning whether his premises are actually true. That has nothing to do with whether the argument is circular, or valid in general.

Morality is not separate from consciousness.
Therefore if morality is eternal, so is consciousness.

Again, this is an argument that is not circular.

Morality hasn't been proven to be eternal.

Wow, that's completely irrelevant. Not only is it irrelevant to whether the argument is valid--i.e., if the premises are assumed true, the conclusion necessarily follows--but it's actually irrelevant to whether the argument is sound.

Even if morality is proven not to be eternal, it could be that 'morality is not separate from consciousness' and that therefore 'if morality is eternal, so is consciousness'.

Like, I'm not really in London right now. But "London is in England. If I am in London, I am in England" is still a sound argument.

[jerNYC]

Infinite time for the an assumed material cause, would not allow it to change and be the cause, therefore it's better to assume it's timeless, although can have relationship to time once time is created. A material non-magical entity, cannot make time to begin and cause all the laws with time to begin.
Therefore a magic super being had to make time and the laws with time to begin. Now if we go by reality is simple/indivisible, we can say it has to be intelligent and powerful, but these only can be simple and not divisible when they are ultimate.

I'm confused by your response. It seems like you're going into the argument already assuming that "cause" might potentially turn out to be some sort of god. To me, "cause" simply means a mechanical action. The argument merely tries to prove that the universe began with an action. It says nothing more than that, so it's illogical to assume that the action might be a god.

1. Everything that has a beginning has an initial cause
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore the universe has an initial cause

The argument is pretty simple and can easily be proved formally.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did you just use the term "magic super-being" in earnest Mystic...godamnit! Now what am I supposed to call your cause to make it sound more ridiculous?

[Mystic]

Did you just use the term "magic super-being" in earnest Mystic...godamnit! Now what am I supposed to call your cause to make it sound more ridiculous?

The soul if exists is magic.

[The Grand Nudger]

How do you know? Maybe it isn't magic at all, if it does exist. You haven't ruled that out have you?

[Mystic]

Infinite time for the an assumed material cause, would not allow it to change and be the cause, therefore it's better to assume it's timeless, although can have relationship to time once time is created. A material non-magical entity, cannot make time to begin and cause all the laws with time to begin.
Therefore a magic super being had to make time and the laws with time to begin. Now if we go by reality is simple/indivisible, we can say it has to be intelligent and powerful, but these only can be simple and not divisible when they are ultimate.

I'm confused by your response. It seems like you're going into the argument already assuming that "cause" might potentially turn out to be some sort of god. To me, "cause" simply means a mechanical action. The argument merely tries to prove that the universe began with an action. It says nothing more than that, so it's illogical to assume that the action might be a god.

1. Everything that has a beginning has an initial cause
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore the universe has an initial cause

The argument is pretty simple and can easily be proved formally.

Yeah I hear ya, but the universe/material causes/x/mechanical cause before change/motion, would be standing still for infinite time before if time didn't begin which would mean it can't really jump start the universe, but if time began, then something must have caused time and the laws that come with time, which a material non-magical cause cannot, therefore it makes sense a magical cause did, which has super powers, to cause time and to cause the laws that come with time, and it has to be timeless.