Natural Order and Science

[bennyboy]

Metaphysically, it is counterintuitive to assume that something can come into being out of nothing.

It is no more intuitive to believe that something exists without having been brought into existence.

Given that the universe has a beginning that means it must therefore have had a cause; it could not have popped into existence uncaused and the cause of the universe would have to have certain important properties.

Why would this be given for the universe, but not for God? Special pleading, no how matter large your text walls, is still just special pleading.

Nothing which is the result of causes can have its existence inherent in itself. There are no uncaused events and all caused events are contingent to just one necessary substance, upon which all contingent things depend. If something were inherently existent it would be permanently (that is, necessarily) existent.

Based on this I have developed these premises:

So you are basing your entire line of argument on the samve philosophical assumptions which it points to. This is begging the question. My counter is a conditional one: IF (IF!) anything can exist without being caused to exist, then it is more likely that that which we know to exist (the Universe) is that thing than that a humanoid magical being, for whom there is no proof or even good evidence.

1. Everything in the universe is a created being[quote]
That depends on your semantics of "creation."

[quote]
2. Universe is a created being

Not known.

3. Every created being is a contingent being

Fine

4. Universe is a contingent being

Not known.

5. If universe does not depend on God then whatever it depends upon is God

An equivocation. If you say "Whatever caused the universe is God," then if that whatever it is has neither consciousness nor will, then you are just calling nature God. You can call it the Loch Ness Monster if you want, but that is just semantics-- it's not a good argument for the existence of an actual Loch Ness Monster.