God's God

[Mystic]

Everything has to have a cause.......... except this thing over here.....I shall name it Bernard.
Now lets give Bernard some properties.
He is 'dress sense' every time you wear a bow tie you make Bernard cry.
He is the strange sensation that something is watching you when you are on the toilet.
He hides your keys when you need them, HE IS BERNARD.

The logical premise (which seems true to me) is that everything needs a constant cause.
If everything needs a constant cause, then either it's the cause of itself in it's current state or it has a cause from other than itself in it's current state.
A quark doesn't have the power to constantly cause itself to exist.
Same is true of atoms.
Same is true of human beings.
Therefore these things necessarily, if the premise is true, need to be constantly caused by something else.
Whatever is causing the universe right now obviously ontologically precedes it and is the first being, even if he doesn't precede it time wise.
This being must also be able to constantly cause itself to exist.

This can be simply deduced.

If you disagree with the premise "everything constantly needs a cause", that's fine, but it's not special pleading to see a human needs a cause outside self while a super being doesn't.

Moreover, from the premise "what begins to exist needs a cause", it's not special pleading to say that first cause must not have began to exist.

Now there is proof the universe time is finite. You can say there is no ontological before "time zero" or perhaps there can be logical reasons there needs to be ontological precedence, for example, by the fact all time is preceded by a moment of time, time zero to be an exception, makes more of a case of special pleading, that to say a timeless creator caused time to come into motion.

All this is not special pleading. If you disagree with the premises, that's something else, but it's not special pleading, because if the argument is sound, it necessarily leads to the conclusion.

Furthermore, the necessary being, if it is possible, and the axiom agreed by most logicians "what is possibly necessarily, is necessarily" would suggest a lot of things. First the necessary being can only have qualities that it must have in all possible worlds.

If you gave it shape, you can say, why not this shape over that shape. If was a cube for example, you can ask, why not a pyramid. Ontologically, the both are possible in different possible worlds. But the necessary being is what must be the case in all possible worlds.

Therefore it's properties are necessary type. You can see more details about this in the "Plantinga's ontological argument" thread.

Whether you agree with the premises or not, is a different matter.

And finally, no one has proven the supernatural sacred necessary being can't be a properly basic justified belief.

In this case, if the properties of that ultimate being in the faith minds of people, doesn't require a cause outside itself because it's eternal and independant and able to sustain itself's existence, then this is not special pleading. You can deny their faith, that's fine. But it's not a special pleading as to why this being doesn't need a god above it or can't even know there is no god beside it.

For example, if it was ultimate existence, it would logically know that all existence is encompassed by it and derived from it, and hence no ultimate existence can exist beside it, because they must be temporal and limited.