God's God

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is there evidence for this, or is it simply hypothetical?

You guys never tire of demanding physical evidence for non-physical things. (Hence my new signature line.) Not exactly logical is it? Is it hypothetical? Sure, in the sense that everything is hypothetical. The real question to you is this. What is the logical alternative? The idea that the physical universe has always existed requires an actual infinity. Are you prepared to argue for the existence of an actual infinity?

Also, if it is changeless, then it would be in the same state forever.

Maybe you are starting to understand afterall...or not.

So, why did the original(ish...as you say there is no time) state include a god? Why would a god always exist/exist in the first place? You seem to think that you can simply say there is no reason needed (special pleading), but if you do, then this does not exclude the possibility that said god is a deistic version of the Flying Spaghet

The cosmological argument provides justification for believing in a set of initial/necessary conditions required to support the existence of anything at all, including existence itself. After that, you examine the nature of those initial conditions. Some people identify the attributes of the necessary conditions as being the same as those of God. Anyway it is clear that you either do not understand the logical conclusions of your own thinking or you do not want to.

[median]

Our omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God has always been, there has never been a moment He did not exist. I'm sure you find this difficult to comprehend, so you'll just dismiss it. I'm not saying I or anyone could comprehend this, it's that I choose to believe what He says.

Please read the OP again. I anticipated, and dealt with, this response there. The "omnis" are arbitrary assertions which have not been demonstrated or justified (i.e. - an attempt to define your "God" - whatever that means - into existence). They are also mentions of secondary characteristics - which renders your idea of a "God" incoherent (as you admitted - in a round about way - in your response). They don't tell anyone anything about what your alleged deity actually is - or could even be. So just saying (as I anticipated) "he's eternal" doesn't get you there.

Anyone can attribute any characteristic they want, to anything (arbitrarily) they want. So what. That doesn't get you one iota closer to showing how your alleged deity doesn't need an explanation for it's existence, but somehow we do. The door swings both ways. Either you stop attempting to define your deity into existence (omni this...all that....etc), at which case you literally have nothing to work with, or you allow that everyone else can also define into existence anything they want (i.e. - the global universe is omniscient/eternal/whatever we want!). Big whoop.

[Cato]

You guys never tire of demanding physical evidence for non-physical things.

Your non-physical god cannot sustain you.

Try eating and drinking non-physical food and drink for a week. A month? A year? I guarantee that your fucking non-physical God will not sustain you. I guarantee it.

Welcome to the physical.

[Darkstar]

You guys never tire of demanding physical evidence for non-physical things. (Hence my new signature line.) Not exactly logical is it? Is it hypothetical? Sure, in the sense that everything is hypothetical.

Everything non-physical is hypothetical. Also, if said non-physical being interacted with the physical world, it would have to have physical effects, would it not?

The real question to you is this. What is the logical alternative?

Is this an argument from ignorance? The only logical alternative I can think of at the moment would be quantum fluctuations.

The idea that the physical universe has always existed requires an actual infinity. Are you prepared to argue for the existence of an actual infinity?

So god isn't an infinity somehow? What if I said that the universe exists outside the universe (i.e. everything surrounding the universe is not it, so the universe itself exists outside the universe) and that the things inside it had a beginning, but the universe itself did not. Obviously the universe has not always existed in its current form, but would it be impossible for it to have existed as disorganized matter at some prior time to the big bang? Could time itself have begun with the universe?

The cosmological argument provides justification for believing in a set of initial/necessary conditions required to support the existence of anything at all, including existence itself.

Other than god, apparently.

After that, you examine the nature of those initial conditions. Some people identify the attributes of the necessary conditions as being the same as those of God.

You could use god to explain anything, really. He meets the conditions for any phenomenon. The ancient greeks had Zeus for lightning and Poseidon for tidal waves, but the Jews thought "why not bunch it all together and say he's omnipotent?" How could a god exist at all, let alone uncaused? Wouldn't one think it to be more unusual for an uncaused omnipotent being to exist, rather than an uncaused conglomeration of random matter?

[median]

Not really. To me it seems if God eternally did exist, he would be constantly causing himself to exist.

A quark can't really be said to be causing itself to exist, from my perspective.

The reason is that it doesn't have immense power or super natural power to do that.

Again, this is attempting special pleading b/c we can apply "immense power" to anything we want (including the global universe). Second, lots of things in the universe have immense power (such as black holes). So what. You're just making up things (speculation) about the deity you already assumed exists (as a maneuver out of the fallacy) but we can do that with the global universe too. That is the point dude. Third, you haven't demonstrated that your alleged deity has "immense power" or "supernatural power". As I anticipated in the OP, you've ASSERTED it. But saying it is so, doesn't make it so.

I know Islamically, it is taught that God is Independant while everything else is dependant on him.

You don't have to agree with it, but it's not a case of special pleading.

There is a notable difference. I know I can't be constantly causing myself to exist. I know I can't be causing the universe to exist. Does that mean I know God can't be causing himself and the universe to exist? That is silly.

No, what's silly is your arbitrary assertion that your deity 'Allah' doesn't need an explanation of it's existence when in fact you demand an explanation of the existence of humans, the universe, the global universe etc. That IS in fact special pleading. You cannot define your deity into existence (claiming "it's eternal") w/out the other side's ability to do the same. Turn about is fair play. Does existence need an explanation for it's existence? Then your God does too.

Btw, you have no examples of anything "causing itself" to exist. That is incoherent.

It is said...

Exactly, it's the "It is said" part that is in question. You've bought into an "It is said" instead of practicing the same kind of skepticism you do in daily life (with a salesman at the door, etc).

God's existence is ultimate to the extent it cannot lack any life. If that is true, all life + life of God is not more than "life of God". This would be true, even if God create infinite universes with infinite souls. If this is true, then real existence would be derived from God's existence and be given to life by emitting him.

Therefore, if he exists, he necessarily encompasses all life out there, while all life must be derived from it's existence. If this is true, then everything must be created by him, and there cannot logically be two gods or three gods or five gods, in the sense that they are all ultimate or eternal.

This shows it would not be a case of special pleading to say God would not require a creator or that he can't know that.

These statements are meaningless. I have no idea WTF you're talking about. "Cannot lack any life"? This is more arbitrary defining of your deity into existence - which is absurd. WOW CREDULITY.

---

The first premise is "Everything that comes into being has a cause." Median's reply is that the physical universe qualifies as that which did not come into being, i.e. it has always been here. This shows he doesn't understand the cosmological argument.

The argument begins by saying that no efficient cause can cause itself. If something is caused, then it depends on something other than itself to begin. Anything that begins must have a cause. If the physical universe did not have a beginning then you have an infinite regress of causes and effects, one that is incapable of causing itself, (actual infinities do not exist). Therefore the whole of the causal chain depends on something independent of causal chain to begin. That something is an uncaused cause that is not part of the physical universe as we know it.

NOPE. You're quite mistaken. I understand the argument very well - as I used to use it all the time as an ex-apologist (Scaling the Secular City - J.P. Moreland, etc). The argument breaks down on multiple fonts (as Peter Millican points out in his debate with Bill Craig (see YouTube). But for the purpose of this OP, are you attempting to claim that your deity Yahweh did not have a beginning (i.e. - arbitrarily giving your deity characteristics)? If that can be said, then so can be said about the global universe (the totality of existence). It needs to cause. But if you think it does, then we can just as easily ask for the explanation of the existence of your said deity (amidst the other deity 'Allah' here).

Last, this idea that "actually infinities" do not exist is absurd. Is your deity not an ACTUAL being?? Is it "actually" infinite?? Bahahah! This is absurd.

[Mystic]

Again, this is attempting special pleading b/c we can apply "immense power" to anything we want (including the global universe).

Well the universe is made out of small parts that aren't immensely powerful. We know an atom cannot be causing the whole universe to exist by it's sheer power for example. This is not special pleading.

You're just making up things (speculation) about the deity you already assumed exists (as a maneuver out of the fallacy) but we can do that with the global universe too.

You can assume these powers for the deity but you can't assume that for the global universe since it's made out of small parts that we know don't have supernatural power.

Third, you haven't demonstrated that your alleged deity has "immense power" or "supernatural power". As I anticipated in the OP, you've ASSERTED it. But saying it is so, doesn't make it so.

But if every small existence needed to be caused and maintained, and the universe is made out of small existence forming bigger existing things, it naturally follows that there needs to be an immense super power maintaining the universe.

Again this is not special pleading.

No, what's silly is your arbitrary assertion that your deity 'Allah' doesn't need an explanation of it's existence when in fact you demand an explanation of the existence of humans, the universe, the global universe etc. That IS in fact special pleading.

It's not, because "Allah" is independent by definition, while everything else, is dependant by definition from the Islamic view point. That is the nature of less existence, which implies a need for an independent existence.

Does existence need an explanation for it's existence? Then your God does too.

This is just re-asserting the conclusion. So I won't bother.

Btw, you have no examples of anything "causing itself" to exist. That is incoherent.

It would naturally follow to the person that has the perspective every existence needs a perpetual cause.

These statements are meaningless. I have no idea WTF you're talking about. "Cannot lack any life"? This is more arbitrary defining of your deity into existence - which is absurd. WOW CREDULITY.

Well you said given "God" exists, you would have to explain why other Gods didn't create him or no other Gods exist causing him to exist, and I explained why, given the BIG G exists, he would not need it.

Again, I showed why it's not special pleading in the case of God.

It doesn't matter if God is made up (which I believe he partially is) or not, I have shown why it's not special pleading to say he doesn't require a cause outside himself to constant exist or need an explanation outside himself as the necessary being, while maintaining possible existence or lesser type existence, needs a cause.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The cosmological argument has relevence to more than just the beginning of the universe. The necessary being to which it refers pervades all points of reality.

So it actually starts with Zeno's paradox. Achilles races to catch a tortoise. The tortoise has a head start. In order to overtake the tortoise, Achilles must travel half the distance from the place he starts. Then he must travel half the distance between where he is and the tortoises new position. Then half of that. Then half of that. In theory, the distance between Achilles and the tortoise shrinks but he never ever quite overtakes it. But he does. Hence the paradox. Achilles and the tortoise serves as a metaphor for the infinite between two points. It can apply to any mathematical interval, including time, the distance between two events.

Now you consider effecient causality in light of Zeno's paradox. Start with one cause, C1, and its effect, E1. Between C1 and E1 lie is a finite interval of time, delta t. If delta t is infinitely divisible then the causal relationship remains incomplete, like this:

C1---> 0.25t ---> 0.325t --->... 0.5t ...0.625 <--- 0.75t <---E1

Or as Hume observed, an infinite series of ever smaller intermediate causes and effects between the C1 and E1, make it impossible for C1 to get to E1. In order to avoid this paradox, there must be a smallest possible finite unit. You can stack small finite units (of time, space, etc.) to fill a finite gap. In physics, you have a smallest possible unit of time, Plank time or tP.

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

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

[Tex]

If human beings must have some explanation for their existence (according to theists..."God"), then it follows that this "God" must also have an explanation for it's existence. How does God know he wasn't created? God can't know what he might not know (and his existence/nature cannot just be DEFINED into being), and therefore there might be a 'God above God'. But if a god's existence does not need explanation, then our existence does not need an explanation either. Therefore, God cannot rightly hold us in judgement for disbelieving in his existence - just as HE (supposedly) doesn't believe in any other God beside him!

Ad infinitum est ad absurdum.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, Zenos paradox, recognized as absurd the moment it was uttered (so the story goes) when another greek philosopher walked the distance and then some, demonstrating very simply why the argument was unsound - even if it were valid. Our modern understanding of physics (space-time not being separate from each other) annihilated the argument for it's own sake, demonstrating that it was both unsound and invalid.

[median]

Well the universe is made out of small parts that aren't immensely powerful. We know an atom cannot be causing the whole universe to exist by it's sheer power for example. This is not special pleading.
You can assume these powers for the deity but you can't assume that for the global universe since it's made out of small parts that we know don't have supernatural power.

Can you read? For the third time, I dealt with this absurdity in the OP. No, you CANNOT assume your deity is anything - b/c once you do then I cannot assume anything about the global universe I want as well. We have demonstrable evidence of our local universe. We DO NOT have ANY demonstrable evidence of your alleged/supposed deity. You keep trying to play both sides of the fence. "I can assume whatever I want about the one specific deity I choose to believe in, but no one else can make their own assumption about what they want". Again, SPECIAL PLEADING. You are practicing hypocrisy - which is why I anticipated this, and dealt with it, in the OP. You cannot just ASSUME some secondary attributes about your invisible deity.

But if every small existence needed to be caused and maintained, and the universe is made out of small existence forming bigger existing things, it naturally follows that there needs to be an immense super power maintaining the universe.

"Small existence"?? Huh? Do you mean particles? No, it does NOT follow that there needs to be some "immense super power maintaining the universe" from the premise that "if every small existence [particle] needed to be caused...", [then all existence needed to be caused]. Does your God "exist"? Then it needs a cause! You are committing the fallacy of composition. Besides that, how do you know he's not "a small existence"? Just because each physical thing needs a cause, it does NOT follow that the sum total of all existing things needs a cause. Otherwise, then, your deity also needs a cause. And you cannot just arbitrarily define your deity into existence by making unsubstantiated, unsupported, claims about omniscience etc. Otherwise, we can do that to with the global universe.

Secondly, our local universe is demonstrable! Your deity is not. So you cannot (again) simply make assertions about "small parts that aren't immensely powerful" and then try to draw a comparison with your non-demonstrable said deity. That is a false comparison.

Third, "immense super power" does NOT, in any way, equal a God. Even if I agreed with your first premise (which I don't) it doesn't follow, whatever, that the "super power" is a deity.

It's not, because "Allah" is independent by definition, while everything else, is dependant by definition from the Islamic view point. That is the nature of less existence, which implies a need for an independent existence.

"The global universe is independent by definition. Therefore, no deity is necessary." YAY! Did you get that? WOW. I really have to repeat this multiple times don't I? For the fourth time now, this "by definition" argument fails. You cannot simply argue your deity into existence by making claims about secondary characteristics, and then in the same breath attempt to argue that the sum of all things needs an explanation of it's existence. If the sum of all existent things needs an explanation of its existence, then your God needs an explanation of its existence.

Simply making up things about some Allah deity, which you assumed from the outset, doesn't get you there.

Btw, you have no examples of anything "causing itself" to exist. That is incoherent.

It would naturally follow to the person that has the perspective every existence needs a perpetual cause.

LOL. This is like saying, "You would agree with me, if you agreed with me." We already know there's a disagreement dude. So this is a useless statement. But btw, "perpetual" requires time. Is your alleged deity bound to time? Again, even if we agreed that every physical thing has a "perpetual cause", it does NOT follow that the sum of all physical things has a cause.

Well you said given "God" exists, you would have to explain why other Gods didn't create him or no other Gods exist causing him to exist, and I explained why, given the BIG G exists, he would not need it.

Again, I showed why it's not special pleading in the case of God.

It doesn't matter if God is made up (which I believe he partially is) or not, I have shown why it's not special pleading to say he doesn't require a cause outside himself to constant exist or need an explanation outside himself as the necessary being, while maintaining possible existence or lesser type existence, needs a cause.

Wow. You have missed the point (again) entirely. Let me see if I can make this kindergarten simple. "I do too! I do too!" The arbitrary labeling/defining of your assumed being into existence ("Oh, it's eternal, etc") can be played on both sides. If you can say your alleged deity doesn't need an explanation for it's existence, then we can say that about the global universe. "The global universe needs no explanation of it's existence." See where it gets you when you try to play the "Because I said so" word games?

Via Occam's Razor we can shave off your alleged deity and simply stop at physical existence.

---

I post this again and await a response...

The first premise is "Everything that comes into being has a cause." Median's reply is that the physical universe qualifies as that which did not come into being, i.e. it has always been here. This shows he doesn't understand the cosmological argument.

The argument begins by saying that no efficient cause can cause itself. If something is caused, then it depends on something other than itself to begin. Anything that begins must have a cause. If the physical universe did not have a beginning then you have an infinite regress of causes and effects, one that is incapable of causing itself, (actual infinities do not exist). Therefore the whole of the causal chain depends on something independent of causal chain to begin. That something is an uncaused cause that is not part of the physical universe as we know it.

NOPE. You're quite mistaken. I understand the argument very well - as I used to use it all the time as an ex-apologist (Scaling the Secular City - J.P. Moreland, etc). The argument breaks down on multiple fronts (as Peter Millican points out in his debate with Bill Craig (see YouTube below). But for the purpose of this OP, are you attempting to claim that your deity Yahweh did not have a beginning (i.e. - arbitrarily giving your deity characteristics)? If that can be said, then so can be said about the global universe (the totality of existence). It needs no cause. But if you think it does, then we can just as easily ask for the explanation of the existence of your said deity (amidst the other deity 'Allah' here, and others).

Last, this idea that "actual infinities" do not exist is absurd. Is your deity not an ACTUAL being?? Is it "actually" infinite?? Bahahah! This is absurd, to say the least, and it commits the Special Pleading fallacy. If actual infinities cannot exist, then your "actual infinite" deity cannot exist.




[/quote]

Just to give you a heads up, I've already gone back and re-read Moreland/Craigs argument regarding actual infinities (where he, w/out knowing it, actually admits there is no God, lol). So I am anticipating one of at least two possible attempts at rebuttal - one of them having to do with trying to define your way into being right - but neither of which work in the end.