Is it possible Rev doesn't understand he's making a presuppositional knowledge claim requiring a lot more steps than <something can't come from nothing> :. <God exists>?
It's a semantic game cosmological argument proponents like to play. Within that "simple" belief:
<God exists>
<Everything has a cause>
<Except God, because:>
<God is my specific religion's god with attributes A-Z>
Including:
<God is eternal>
<God is Omnipotent>
<God is Omniscient>
Is the belief being substituted for "we don't know if the universe was caused or what caused it," and because of cultural awareness of the concept of these beliefs, <God must have done it> seems like a "simple" explanation.
When in fact, it relies on a ton of unstated premises with zero support, that can be backdoored into any ontological argument by a special pleading clause like "begins to exist" without believers batting an eyelash. They already accept <God exists> so to them it's a "common sense" conclusion.
It's a semantic game cosmological argument proponents like to play. Within that "simple" belief:
<God exists>
<Everything has a cause>
<Except God, because:>
<God is my specific religion's god with attributes A-Z>
Including:
<God is eternal>
<God is Omnipotent>
<God is Omniscient>
Is the belief being substituted for "we don't know if the universe was caused or what caused it," and because of cultural awareness of the concept of these beliefs, <God must have done it> seems like a "simple" explanation.
When in fact, it relies on a ton of unstated premises with zero support, that can be backdoored into any ontological argument by a special pleading clause like "begins to exist" without believers batting an eyelash. They already accept <God exists> so to them it's a "common sense" conclusion.
