God's God

[median]

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.

You obviously aren't reading the responses. Wow. "Constant cause"? How do you know everything needs a "constant cause" to keep existing? "It seems true to me" isn't a valid argument. There are lots of things that "seem true" to lots of different people. We are engaged in rational discourse here. Now, if you think "everything needs a constant cause", then both define your terms and demonstrate this. It does NOT, however, follow that the sum of all existent things needs a constant cause (that would be the fallacy of composition).

Second, to say something is "the cause of itself" is absurd (irrational) and incoherent (not to mention something you haven't shown to be true or accurate). Do you think Allah 'caused himself' to come into being? If so, this is like saying he existed before he existed. Absurd.

Third, in quantum physics there are effects that appear to have no apparent causes (i.e. - vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, etc). Thus any experience of "uncaused causes" cannot act as evidence for your case. And no deity deduction can be made from them. At best, we could say that some causes of particles seem to come from unknown origins.

Is your deity physical? If not, how do you know it's real? If you don't, but rely on faith, why? Faith is not a reliable avenue for separating fact from fiction. It is gullibility dressed up.

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.

And around and around we go...

As with multiple times before, you cannot simply define your deity into existence by use of secondary characteristics (i.e. - what your alleged deity supposedly does). The "this is my God by definition" argument fails. Our local universe is demonstrated. Your deity is not. As before (and once again), anyone can define anything into being they want . It moves the discussion nowhere.

"Physical existence is eternal. It needs no explanation as to the cause of it's existence. We just are." If we wanted to, we could say this about humans too - and just dodge (as you are trying to do) every possible refutation from empirical investigation that arises. "Humans are eternal. We always were." This is, again, another attempt at the "because I say so" fallacy (which I anticipated in the OP). But you don't get to appeal to "my god is eternal by definition" and get away with it - b/c anyone can do that. So, stop attempting to define your deity into existence and start demonstrating how you know it is actually real - as we both agree the universe is real.

Btw, it IS still (contrary to your ad nauseum denial) Special Pleading. "Everything needs an explanation of its existence... except my deity."

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.

The Russell/Copleston debate now? Even if we agreed that there must be some necessary being (a being which contains within itself the reason of it's own existence), and I don't necessarily agree that there must be, but even if I did it does not follow that such a "thing" (if we can call it that) has to be anything different from the totality of existence itself (i.e. - the global universe - a part of which we are now experiencing).

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.

Your first statement here hints at a kind of fallacious argument from incredulity (a burden shifting). "No one has proven me false yet. So I'll just keep believing my assumption until they do." How absurd and hypocritical. Secondly, the if, if, if postulations are gratuitous and unnecessary. You haven't demonstrated any deity (with characteristics of "eternal" etc). So saying anything of the sort is pure speculation. But if you're not making the argument that existent things require an explanation for their existence, then you shouldn't have replied to the thread.

---

Nemo latina sciunt?

Non curo

---

God is ipsum esse subsistens, that is, Being per se. God doesn't need a cause of existence because he is "Existence".

Ah, the "patAto/PAtato" argument. I will answer as George Smith did years ago. If you're trying to define God as nature, why not just call it nature? If God is nothing more than "existence" then there is no use for that ideologically charged term to be used. Simply replace the term with what we already agree exists...NATURE. Done.

Last, since we humans are part of existence, then are you saying we are God?