The absolute absurdity of God

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

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.


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. (1)

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. (2)

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me.  I'd like to clarify that I'm asking questions and /or seeking clarification on the ideas/thoughts that you have posted here.  My intent is not to debate or to engage in other forms of win-lose competitions. 


That said, regarding (1), is it possible that the principle of sufficient reason (everything has a cause or reason) is just a result of the human mind attempting to make reality conform to its observations, perceptions, thought processes, etc.?  In the pursuit of objective truth, how often do humans end up projecting their own meaning onto that truth?  

Regarding (2), as previously mentioned, is it possible that the concept of a "first cause" is just the human mind projecting itself onto reality, rather than the human mind actually trying to objectively interpret reality as it is?