Sentience

[theVOID]

That is the same assertion. Complexity is not defined as a compounding of simple things over time, it is usually defined as a composite of interrelated parts. Can you prove that there are no composites that form spontaneously or have always existed? That is what you are required to do if you assert that definition of complexity.

Spontaneously isn't a problem as its still causal. If complexity has always existed, then it would not be complex, as things are only complex by reference to simpler forms. Sentience is more complex than non-sentience, thus as it is contingent it needs a cause. This is confirmed by all emperical observation and reality.

You're making up a definition of complexity to suit your argument. There is absolutely no necessity for some simpler thing to compare it to.

Complex:
1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.
2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.
3. so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with: a complex problem.

Some would argue that God is not complex, but for this argument I'll maintain that God is a being of multiple attributes that are interconnected. He has knowledge, perception, creativity, personality etc. These are interconnected parts, therefore he is complex.

Your argument attempts to prove that such a being cannot exist because he is sentient and sentience is complex, yet your definition of complex is made to suit. With the normal definition your argument does not work.

You still can't show that awareness is necessarily a causal sequence, all you can say is that we only know of awareness coming about through causal sequence. You still have the black swan fallacy, you've just dumped a layer of obfuscation upon it.A sequence refers to the change over a dimension (in this case time), not the aggregate of the change. You might want to rephrase this because at the moment I can only guess what you mean.

I mean that it is both a causal chain and an aggreagtion of that chain. Sentience is not an irreducible primary as it can be broken down into pre-existing concepts. Thus it depends on prior truths and is therefore coningent and therefore needs a cuase.

This hasn't resolved the black swan, your argument is still that awareness x is contingent upon causality therefore all awareness is contingent upon causality. You get to this via "Sentience is complex" and "awareness is causal". The "sentience is complex" idea relies on a wrong definition of complex, the "awareness is causal" relies on a black swan fallacy.

I'm not aware of any requirement in theism that he not be causal, William Lane Craig's theology makes God subject to time once he created it, so he goes from an acausal being to a causally influenced one.

But what does this mean?, how can an atemporal god be concious, act, think, plan, do, cause? A rough sketch is required to show how this god can do the things claimed if he is atemporal. Otherwise its special pleading for a 'magic man' who can escape contingency yet still be sentient and concious. PS I'm not qasking you to provide one, I don't think WLC has.

I don't have a clue, but saying it's not possible based on that is incredulity which is fallacious. You are fully justified in saying that any explanation that depends on an atemporal mind is a bad explanation because it is inconsistent with all background knowledge, but beyond that you're out of luck.

Your black swan has risen again. You can only maintain that assertion as it relates to physical beings, the definition of God as an uncaused sentience necessitates that the constraints on sentience in physical things do not apply. You again are implying that because our experience/understanding of sentience is x there cannot be sentience y.

So I didn't mention physical beings, just beings. Sentience is a quality of an extant being. Excluding a god from this is special pleading

No it's not. You are ruling out a God because one of his properties is sentience. Your argument for sentience being necessarily causal is fallacious. Sentience is contingent upon an extant being because a non extant being does not exist, so I don't know what you thought the point of bringing that up was... Also, You cannot use the conclusion of the argument to justify one of the premises, it's circular reasoning.

You should focus on justification for belief that a sentient being does not exist, rather than a statement of fact, it would work well in some form like:

1. All observed instances of sentience are part of a causal process
2. God is a sentience that is not part of a causal process
3. An acausal sentience is inconsistent with all background knowledge
4. Belief in a proposition that is inconsistent with background knowledge is unjustified, Therefore:
5. Belief in God is unjustified.
6. Belief that God does not exist is justified.