Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Edwardo Piet]

For starters, Neo, take this from Wikipedia:


I'm with this until the part I bolded. It just says all this stuff that makes sense logically and then falsely concludes "Therefore God".

What they mean is it takes a force that is not bound by the laws of physics or time to have started all this, hence the "this chain cannot be infinitely long." We call this force, this supreme being, "God". But if the word is your hang up, I suppose you can call it something else.

It doesn't take that though because the laws of physics themselves could be the first cause. You could say that those laws themselves are Godly and they are embedded in God just as much as you could say that God created them.

And yes, the first force is merely called "God" but doing that is no different to labeling the universe or anything else with the word "God". God has not been demonstrated, a first cause has been demonstrated, and that first cause need not be God.

The word is only my hangup because it seems utterly pointless to call something non-intelligent and without a mind "God." There's no reason to think that the first cause is anything like God and calling something that isn't like God "God" is the confusion here. I could say that my left food exists and call my left foot "God" but that would just be calling my left foot "God", it wouldn't actually have anything to do with God, nor would it mean that just because I call it "God" and it exists that it means that God itself really exists. Something that we can call God is not the same as an actual God because we can call anything God.