God's God

[Lord Privy Seal]

But there is one big problem. What relationship binds each of these Plank units together? Each smallest finite unit of anything exists as a discrete entity for all others. They could be stacked in any random order.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Since you're talking about quantized time, "sequence" is part of what we mean by the concept. Even if we don't yet understand all the nuances yet, there is a demonstrable "arrow of time." You can't un-scramble an egg by stirring in the opposite direction. Entropy. Now, you can claim that a god has to step in and "cause" the scrambling of the egg to come after the egg is laid by the chicken because otherwise the sequence would be random. You just don't have any evidence that a random sequence is even possible, much less a default state that a god has to come in and "fix."

It would be like a film strip cut into single frames and taped back together in a different order.

Now that would require a god! You're stating implicitly here that in order to create the random sequence, somebody would have to come along, cut up the film strip, rearrange the frames, and tape them back together. The randomized film strip is evidence of external meddling. A normal temporal sequence on a film strip is an instance of the film working normally, without external intervention. By analogy, dis-arranged temporal sequences (e.g. somebody gets an egg out of the carton after they eat it, then they scramble it on their stove) would be evidence for divine intervention.

Or maybe only one actually exists. After all, what exactly is the past, except a memory in the present. And what is the future except a present unrealized potential. Each instant comes into being and perishes without cause since they depend on nothing outside themselves for their individual existence.

Just because a quantized instant of time is distinct from other such instants does not mean it is unconnected to the other instants temporally adjacent to it.

Now, causality, as we understand it means change between states. So if you say that change happens and that change conforms to order (unlike the random filmstrip), in which transcendent formal relationships exist across the smallest finite units.

You're presupposing that time could be (or perhaps inherently is) a random hash of unrelated quantum instances, and that a god has to come in and piece them together like a scholar reconstructing a fragmented Dead Sea Scroll. We have no reason to assume that non-existence and randomness are ontologically primary, thus requiring a god to show up and impose existence and order from "outside."

Even if we grant such premises, where does a god get its existence and order from? "He just has them. That's just how he works." That's special pleading. The core premise is that things like existence and order require "explanation" (because their opposites are the default state). Positing a "god" doesn't provide an explanation, it just kicks the can down the road.

In effect, the cosmological argument implies that the continuity of the universe depends on a causal agent that imposes such a form.

Only if you first assume that non-existence and chaos are the default state. We have no reason to make this assumption. All of the evidence we have indicates that energy/matter is conserved (neither created, nor destroyed), and behaves in accordance with its nature (a quark acts like a quark and not a kitten, etc.).

Who/what imposes continuity and order on the causal agent? "He just has them, because he's God. He's the Necessary Being!" Or in other words, you assume that non-existence and chaos are the default state until you get to your god, then you assume the opposite. We can just as easily assume (or at least grant the possibility of) the opposite (that existence and natural regularity are the default state) right here in known Universe, in which case Occam's Razor can dispose of the god as unecessary.

You theists are also missing median's point about "global universe." If we define what emerged from our Big Bang as "the Cosmos," and everything that is real (including whatever gods and goddesses might exist) as Universe (capital-U, no "the"), then the Kalam argument falls. The Kalam argument proposes something like this:

First Cause--->Cosmos

It is assumed that non-existence and chaos are the default in the Cosmos, but that existence and order are the default for the First Cause and whatever realm it calls home. The causal arrow indicates that the FC is exporting existence and order from where they exist inherently, into the realm of non-existence and chaos. However, what Median refers to as "global universe" and I refer to as "Universe" encompasses the whole system:

[First Cause--->Cosmos] = "Universe" (or "global universe" in Median's terminology)

Taken as a whole, existence and order are inherent properties of the system, and cannot be externally imposed because there is no "external" from whence such an imposition can come. Since it is possible for existence and order to be inherent, the whole reason for the Kalam argument disappears.

Either the physical universe is complete random chaos or it has an inherent order. Take your pick. Either could be true. What you will find however, is that such a transcendent inherent order has many attributes traditionally associated with a monotheistic god.

Some, perhaps, but not the ones the theists are most interested in. The equation "2+2=4" is eternal (valid throughout all possible instances of time), omnipresent (there is no conceivable place where it does not apply), and omnipotent (every 2, added to another 2, inevitably results in 4, and no force can make it otherwise). Does this make "2+2" Divine? Should we worship it? How do we know that the fundamental root of order and existence is not something similar--something that could be represented by an equation? We know equations exist, and (when valid) possess the required attributes.

A "monotheistic god" is most commonly represented as a type of thinking, language-using, social person who engages in status-seeking among humans ("Praise me! Worship me! Obey me! Or else!"). A monotheistic god by definition does not tolerate the worship of other gods and goddesses, demanding a monopoly on human attention and reverence.

The Kalam argument doesn't lead us to anywhere within light-years of such a thing. If anything, those attributes--which are the ones religious monotheists care the most about--are contradicted by the Kalam. For one thing, if there can be no such thing as an actual infinity, then the god cannot have an endless sequence of thoughts, intentions, emotions, etc. There must (by the logic of the Kalam) be a First Thought, a First Emotion, a First Intention, and so on. On the other hand, if the god was not always a thinking, feeling, talking person whose primary desire is to be the sole, undisputed King of the Humans, then he was not always "god" as defined and desired by monotheists, and something must have caused him.

And so we've returned to question posed by the OP.