God's God

[median]

Well the universe is made out of small parts that aren't immensely powerful. We know an atom cannot be causing the whole universe to exist by it's sheer power for example. This is not special pleading.
You can assume these powers for the deity but you can't assume that for the global universe since it's made out of small parts that we know don't have supernatural power.

Can you read? For the third time, I dealt with this absurdity in the OP. No, you CANNOT assume your deity is anything - b/c once you do then I cannot assume anything about the global universe I want as well. We have demonstrable evidence of our local universe. We DO NOT have ANY demonstrable evidence of your alleged/supposed deity. You keep trying to play both sides of the fence. "I can assume whatever I want about the one specific deity I choose to believe in, but no one else can make their own assumption about what they want". Again, SPECIAL PLEADING. You are practicing hypocrisy - which is why I anticipated this, and dealt with it, in the OP. You cannot just ASSUME some secondary attributes about your invisible deity.

But if every small existence needed to be caused and maintained, and the universe is made out of small existence forming bigger existing things, it naturally follows that there needs to be an immense super power maintaining the universe.

"Small existence"?? Huh? Do you mean particles? No, it does NOT follow that there needs to be some "immense super power maintaining the universe" from the premise that "if every small existence [particle] needed to be caused...", [then all existence needed to be caused]. Does your God "exist"? Then it needs a cause! You are committing the fallacy of composition. Besides that, how do you know he's not "a small existence"? Just because each physical thing needs a cause, it does NOT follow that the sum total of all existing things needs a cause. Otherwise, then, your deity also needs a cause. And you cannot just arbitrarily define your deity into existence by making unsubstantiated, unsupported, claims about omniscience etc. Otherwise, we can do that to with the global universe.

Secondly, our local universe is demonstrable! Your deity is not. So you cannot (again) simply make assertions about "small parts that aren't immensely powerful" and then try to draw a comparison with your non-demonstrable said deity. That is a false comparison.

Third, "immense super power" does NOT, in any way, equal a God. Even if I agreed with your first premise (which I don't) it doesn't follow, whatever, that the "super power" is a deity.

It's not, because "Allah" is independent by definition, while everything else, is dependant by definition from the Islamic view point. That is the nature of less existence, which implies a need for an independent existence.

"The global universe is independent by definition. Therefore, no deity is necessary." YAY! Did you get that? WOW. I really have to repeat this multiple times don't I? For the fourth time now, this "by definition" argument fails. You cannot simply argue your deity into existence by making claims about secondary characteristics, and then in the same breath attempt to argue that the sum of all things needs an explanation of it's existence. If the sum of all existent things needs an explanation of its existence, then your God needs an explanation of its existence.

Simply making up things about some Allah deity, which you assumed from the outset, doesn't get you there.

Btw, you have no examples of anything "causing itself" to exist. That is incoherent.

It would naturally follow to the person that has the perspective every existence needs a perpetual cause.

LOL. This is like saying, "You would agree with me, if you agreed with me." We already know there's a disagreement dude. So this is a useless statement. But btw, "perpetual" requires time. Is your alleged deity bound to time? Again, even if we agreed that every physical thing has a "perpetual cause", it does NOT follow that the sum of all physical things has a cause.

Well you said given "God" exists, you would have to explain why other Gods didn't create him or no other Gods exist causing him to exist, and I explained why, given the BIG G exists, he would not need it.

Again, I showed why it's not special pleading in the case of God.

It doesn't matter if God is made up (which I believe he partially is) or not, I have shown why it's not special pleading to say he doesn't require a cause outside himself to constant exist or need an explanation outside himself as the necessary being, while maintaining possible existence or lesser type existence, needs a cause.

Wow. You have missed the point (again) entirely. Let me see if I can make this kindergarten simple. "I do too! I do too!" The arbitrary labeling/defining of your assumed being into existence ("Oh, it's eternal, etc") can be played on both sides. If you can say your alleged deity doesn't need an explanation for it's existence, then we can say that about the global universe. "The global universe needs no explanation of it's existence." See where it gets you when you try to play the "Because I said so" word games?

Via Occam's Razor we can shave off your alleged deity and simply stop at physical existence.

---

I post this again and await a response...

The first premise is "Everything that comes into being has a cause." Median's reply is that the physical universe qualifies as that which did not come into being, i.e. it has always been here. This shows he doesn't understand the cosmological argument.

The argument begins by saying that no efficient cause can cause itself. If something is caused, then it depends on something other than itself to begin. Anything that begins must have a cause. If the physical universe did not have a beginning then you have an infinite regress of causes and effects, one that is incapable of causing itself, (actual infinities do not exist). Therefore the whole of the causal chain depends on something independent of causal chain to begin. That something is an uncaused cause that is not part of the physical universe as we know it.

NOPE. You're quite mistaken. I understand the argument very well - as I used to use it all the time as an ex-apologist (Scaling the Secular City - J.P. Moreland, etc). The argument breaks down on multiple fronts (as Peter Millican points out in his debate with Bill Craig (see YouTube below). But for the purpose of this OP, are you attempting to claim that your deity Yahweh did not have a beginning (i.e. - arbitrarily giving your deity characteristics)? If that can be said, then so can be said about the global universe (the totality of existence). It needs no cause. But if you think it does, then we can just as easily ask for the explanation of the existence of your said deity (amidst the other deity 'Allah' here, and others).

Last, this idea that "actual infinities" do not exist is absurd. Is your deity not an ACTUAL being?? Is it "actually" infinite?? Bahahah! This is absurd, to say the least, and it commits the Special Pleading fallacy. If actual infinities cannot exist, then your "actual infinite" deity cannot exist.




[/quote]

Just to give you a heads up, I've already gone back and re-read Moreland/Craigs argument regarding actual infinities (where he, w/out knowing it, actually admits there is no God, lol). So I am anticipating one of at least two possible attempts at rebuttal - one of them having to do with trying to define your way into being right - but neither of which work in the end.