What is wrong with this premise?

[Pizza]

He is just trying to cheat his way out of infinite regression.

In philosophical terms, I would define God exactly that way: "The quantity, entity or principle which resolves all paradox." Therefore, EVEN IF statements about such a God are nonsenical, it doesn't matter, because such a God is the remedy to the nonsense.

Frankly, there's some case to be made, since the universe is a big fuckfest of paradox and mystery. But I don't see why the case should be made for a specifically CONSCIOUS quantity.

Because of tradition and wishful thinking, apologists are quick to jump from uncaused cause or whatever to the son, the father, and the holy ghost.

[Dystopia]

Heywood, prove me that everything needs a cause.

[Pizza]

Heywood, prove me that everything needs a cause.

Here's a WLC propaganda video to just get the bullshit ball rolling. I love the non-sequitur at the end just asserting without argument that a god is the spaceless, timeless, "immaterial," uncaused cause.

[dennyg]

Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.

What is wrong with the above premise?

Only problem I can see is this question that will never be answered: If the universe, or some previous universe (or God for that matter), has always existed, how does something have no beginning?
There seemingly has to be a start to everything but what was before that? How does "nothing" suddenly produce everything?
Again there will never be an answer. It just bugs me

[robvalue]

Well, we are used to things having a start, but that doesn't mean it automatically applies to something we understand so little about such as the universe. Although it's a bit hard to wrap the brain around, I see no problem with an infinite past. And each universal state is a result of the previous one, acted upon by the universe's laws. No creator required, that's just how things are, for whatever reason. I find the idea that if you go back into the past far enough you get to the "beginning of time" to be less believable.

Of course, this is only one possible model and hasn't been demonstrated to be most likely true to my knowledge.

The problem with the "god" explanation is that it's not an explanation at all. God does exactly the thing that is usually complained about in his absence, he makes everything out of nothing. We have no details about how he did this, so we've just replaced "I don't know" with "god did it" and we're none the wiser. Especially as we now have to answer a load of extra questions about god, such as where did it come from, what exactly is it, how come it can make stuff out of nowhere... etc. We have no answers, because it's just a concept in our heads, and that doesn't mean it actually maps to reality in any way. The rational thing is to say, in my opinion, is that no one yet knows what happened, rather than filling the gap with an invented scenario.

[robvalue]

Here's an analogy.

10 mathematicians have a very complex equation, and they are trying to determine its solution; or whether indeed it can be solved at all. 9 of them are working really hard at it, but at the end of the first day, they still haven't cracked it. The 10th mathematician instead says the answer is 5.7, because at least that's an answer.

The next day, the 9 mathematicians continue to work hard, still don't get an answer. The 10th one does no work, because he already has an answer, 5.7 and he stick to it. He sees no point changing his answer, because the other 9 don't even have any answer.

Weeks pass...

Scenario (a)

Finally there is a breakthrough, the 9 mathematicians crack the equation and find that the answer is 92. The 10th one had been wrong all along, and had got no closer to the real answer.

Scenario (b)

After years of study, the 9 mathematicians eventually die without finding the answer to the equation, but their work is available for future generations. The 10th one sticks to his answer of 5.7, and passes this on to his children. They stick to this answer also, do don't do any work in trying to solve the equation.

[Heywood]

I don't hold the position that reality came first and then God. Both have always existed. God is simply a necessary condition of an eternal reality that has also always been emergent complex, just as the inverse square law is a necessary condition of any space which has 3 dimensions.

No. If the framework in which God is supposed to have created the universe is eternal, then there's no need for God, since something which is not God has the capability of existing uncreated.

I take the position that in any universe like ours, finite and emergent complex, there will exist finite intellect. I further take the position that in any reality which is eternal and emergent complex, there will exist eternal intellect.

I find the notion that intellect can exist outside of reality to be nonsensical just as the notion of an inverse square law outside of 3 dimensional space is also nonsensical. If there is 3 dimensional space, there will be an inverse square law. If there is an eternal and emergent complex reality, there will be eternal intellect.

I don't believe in God because I need God. I believe in God because God is something that ought to exist. Most people who believe in aliens do for the same reason. Aliens are something that ought to exist in this universe so they believe in them. Do you believe extra terrestrial aliens exist? Do you believe extra terrestrial aliens exist because you need them to exist or because you think they ought to exist?

[bennyboy]

I take the position that in any universe like ours, finite and emergent complex, there will exist finite intellect. I further take the position that in any reality which is eternal and emergent complex, there will exist eternal intellect.

Show that such a reality is more than an idea.

I find the notion that intellect can exist outside of reality to be nonsensical just as the notion of an inverse square law outside of 3 dimensional space is also nonsensical. If there is 3 dimensional space, there will be an inverse square law. If there is an eternal and emergent complex reality, there will be eternal intellect.

That's a lot of assertions, and not a lot of proof or evidence.

I don't believe in God because I need God. I believe in God because God is something that ought to exist. Most people who believe in aliens do for the same reason. Aliens are something that ought to exist in this universe so they believe in them. Do you believe extra terrestrial aliens exist? Do you believe extra terrestrial aliens exist because you need them to exist or because you think they ought to exist?

This is a non sequitur. We might believe that aliens exist, because the circumstances in which humans evolved are known or believed to exist elsewhere in the universe. It is exactly because we do NOT believe that Earth is favored by God, or that life was created by God, that it is plausible that aliens exist.

We do not know that the circumstances, whatever they might be, in which a God would seem probably exist. There is no parallel here at all. So far, the only place we know God exists is in the human imagination, as an idea.

[Heywood]

We do not know that the circumstances, whatever they might be, in which a God would seem probably exist. There is no parallel here at all. So far, the only place we know God exists is in the human imagination, as an idea.

So far the only place we know extra terrestrial aliens exist is in the human imagination, as an idea. So it is exactly parallel. Aliens ought to exist in a finite emergent complex universe as large as ours. Eternal, infinite intellect ought to exist in a reality which is eternal, infinite and eternally emergent complex.

Granted, my conclusion is based on some assumption I can't prove.
1. Reality is eternal.
2. Reality is eternally emergent complex.
3. There is no upper bound on intellect, ability, or knowledge.

However given these assumptions it seems to me that God ought to exist.

[Pizza]

"Granted, my conclusion is based on some assumption I can't prove."
At least you're honest about that.