☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it"

[The Joker]

I see the Joker hasn't countered this argument. Therefore God does not exist. (already did you see above and here it is)

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.
  

(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.

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.

(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."

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/ 

* (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.

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.

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.