The absolute absurdity of God

[SteveII]

I don't think so. I outlined an argument that gets you to a list of attributes for a first cause. Additionally, we can look at other arguments that infer design, etc. that infer intelligence/purpose. Faith enters when you start to work out the specifics of a religion--in my case Christianity. Faith is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have some reason(s) to believe is true. It does not preclude that once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can become more certain something is true.

Thanks.  I see that you referenced an argument from contingency. I'll post it below along with a few questions and comments that I had about it.

A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters). Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. (A) We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.

This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.

Regarding point 1, it would seem reasonable to treat this as an axiom in order to advance the argument.

Regarding point 2, would it be more accurate to say that if one is already a practitioner of a religious faith, then 2 follows?  This premise asserts that the explanation is god without addressing other possible explanations and reasoning out why these alternative explanations fall short.  Also, is god actually an explanation? What were the actual processes involved and how can they be broken down and explained? Given that this is a logical/intellectual exercise, then IMO, more elaboration and clarification is needed in order for "god" to qualify as an explanation. 

That said, it appears that such a statement would be more intuitive and natural for a religious audience and perhaps this is the type of audience that this argument is meant to sway?

A syllogism summarizes the premises/conclusions line by line. There have been tens of thousands of pages written in (2) alone. So, why do I think (2) is true? If the universe has an explanation, what sort of characteristics would the ultimate (to stop an infinite regression) explanation have? It seems that a Principle of Sufficient Reason is an objective feature of reality. 

I have pointed out in what you marked (A) what I think some of the characteristics an ultimate first cause would have to have. The only thing that answers to that list is some sort of eternal God. You are free to offer other first cause candidates--but you will have to invent and/or agree to extravagant metaphysical claims to get to something. Most smart atheists agree to consider the universe a brute fact and admit no explanation will be forthcoming (like Sam Harris). 

This argument is not proof--being a inductive argument rather than a deductive argument. You can always say "well, the science just hasn't figured it out yet". However, it is interesting that this argument get's stronger every decade because the science supports it better than say 100 years ago. Same with the fine-tuning argument--it gets better the more we understand. Since it is not proof, it most likely is not going to change anyone's mind. It will be suspect for atheists wondering why they can't defeat it, because...you know...science has proven religion wrong. It will be comfortable confirmation to religious people who want to make sure their worldview is rational. 

Regarding point 5, is this ultimately just another way of saying that the explanation of the universe’s existence is unknown?

Regarding point A, to what degree are humans projecting their characteristics, imagination, and incomplete understanding of the universe onto a first cause?

No, I think the premises are all sound and have no real defeaters. God is the most parsimonious explanation for everything. Again, you are welcome to propose a list of your own of what characteristics a first cause must have.