God's God

[median]

I don't know for certain. It seems true to me, so I can base an argument on that. It will then seem to me an eternal maintainer to the universe and himself, needs to exist. It would not prove it to someone who disagrees with the premise, but it can be evidence to me, when the premise seems true.

Again, if everything needs a "constant cause" (separate from what "it" is) for existing, then the point stands. Your deity needs its own "constant cause" (separate from itself). What "seems to you" is exactly what is in question.

It's defined already. A thing includes everything that exists.

Huh? No sir. It is not "defined already". You haven't even come close to defining what "constant cause" means, neither have you demonstrated it's necessity.

No it's not on a universal argument. All atoms can't think, it doesn't follow what forms of an atom doesn't think. But do you believe if atoms can't cause themselves to exist, some how the sum of atoms are possibly causing themselves to exist?

That doesn't appear rational. In this case, since each thing in the universe cannot be constantly causing itself to exist, it would follow the universe is not constantly causing it either.

Is English your second language? You keep typing incoherent sentences, "it doesn't follow what forms of an atom doesn't think". HUH? Please type more carefully in English.

I just told you, earlier, that the idea of "causing themselves to exist" is incoherent. Do you not understand? What part of this is so difficult for you? Second, your last argument (regarding atoms and the universe) is, again, the fallacy of composition. Even if it were true (and it's not) that the atoms in the universe cannot be causing themselves to exist (whatever that means) it doesn't follow to the entire universe. You really need to brush up on your logical fallacies.

Do you think Allah 'caused himself' to come into being?

Nope.

Then we don't have to think the global universe caused itself to come into being either. It just is. DONE>

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.

Says you. To me they would be evidence of supernatural cause, just not concrete definitive evidence.

HA! The God of the gaps argument again. LOL. So any place science cannot determine something with certainty, you somehow feel justified in inserting "Allah did it" there?? Weak! This is the same argument attempted by your predecessors with lightening (Zeus did it!) or tsunamis (Poseidon did it!). WOW. Still in the broze age I see. So then you truly don't care whether your beliefs are actually true. You just want to lower your standard of evidence for what you already assumed to be true from the beginning (what your parents/elders told you) and keep believing b/c it made you feel comfortable.

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.

And it can seem like that origin is a supernatural creator. That can possibly seem more plausible that a 10th dimension or something like that.

This is where your absolute credulity rears its ugly head so clearly. A supernatural creator is "more plausible"?? Tell us, just exactly how did you come to determine this probability (as if that matters)? What data points have you collected? What statistical mathematics have you done to come to your conclusion that it is more plausible (or to warrant belief!) that your alleged deity is "more plausible" than particles arising from an undetermined place - when you have exactly one universe to examine?? WOW.

I don't believe in a deity...so why don't you ask me what I believe before assuming so much.

HA! Really? Those who don't believe in deities are called atheists dude. Get with the program. Are you an atheist? If so, why are you arguing for "supernatural causes"? Deity and "supernatural cause" are being used synonymously here. Get with it.

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.

I guess you don't believe in morals, praise, free-will, human rights, etc....

Red-herring, WRONG, and quite presumptuous of you. WOW. It does NOT follow that if one rejects the idea of faith that they also reject "morals, praise, free-will, human rights, etc" (as you claim). Could you get any more irrational?

The global universe could always be somewhat different, hence can never be ontologically necessary. Even if was ontologically necessary, it would not prove ontological necessary living being is not necessary.

Huh? Different equals not ontologically necessary? How so? This is more burden shifting. The burden is on you to demonstrate some "necessary living being" is required for our existence. Saying it is so doesn't make it so.

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='429154' dateline='1365466436']
Well no, the point was, people have faith, and you haven't disproven that what they believe is special pleading at all. You simple re-assert it over and over again.

NOPE. If someone makes the argument that their God's existence does not need an explanation (as was my point), then we can also make the argument that our existence does not require an explanation. We can obfuscate the same as you do upon questioning. If one makes the argument that all things need an explanation for their existence (as the video displays), then it follows that God (a thing) also needs an explanation for it's existence.

You haven't proven they can't know by faith. So the burden is on you because you are stating their faith is illogical.

Wow, now you're just a liar. Where?? Where did I say "their faith is illogical?? NOWHERE.

Second, you can't "know by faith". Faith is believing when you do not have good reason to. And it is not a pathway to truth. It is not reliable for deciphering what's true from what's false.

I haven't coming out saying their faith is justified as an argument that you must accept.
I'm saying you haven't shown it's not true, therefore you haven't shown how they are committing special pleading.

This is more burden shifting. I don't have to "show their faith is not true". That's not my job. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming a God (Allah) exists. So the burden is on you. Now, if you make the argument that all existent things need an explanation of their existence, then your God also needs an explanation of it's existence.

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='429154' dateline='1365466436']
If they know ultimate existence exists via faith (I don't claim to know), you haven't shown they don't. Just as they can't go up to you and tell you, their faith is proof to you, your faith that they don't know is not proof either that they are special pleading.

More burden shifting and faulty thinking. I do not have, nor do I need, faith "that they don't know". I reject faith. So your assertion fails. The burden of proof rests with he (you) who makes the claim regarding a God (Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, etc). The special pleading comes later, when you try to assert that all things need an explanation for their existence except your Allah.


[quote='MysticKnight' pid='429154' dateline='1365466436']
Creator constantly maintaining itself would not mean he had to ontological precede causing itself. He can constantly cause himself to exist and this maybe the very reason why we might know "everything needs to be constantly caused" (because it's the nature of existence and we can possibly be given knowledge of that by the Creator).

WOW. This is total magic hocus pocus. Assuming your "creator" doesn't make it true - just saying it is so doesn't make it so. And you haven't demonstrated any "Creator constantly maintaining itself". How gullible are you? Can you not just admit when you don't know things, instead of believing crap your parents told you?