God As Grounding Cause

[Anomalocaris]

Datc, nice attempt, much better argument than from most theists I've seen here.

So it actually rises to the level merely being no argument at all?

[ignoramus]

Why can't all of reality have popped into existence for no reason at all? Or does "no reason" itself qualify as a cause?

Pretty sure you mean "no reason" (we know of).

If magic was a possible thing in our universe, then sure, a malfunctioning wand could poof a unicorn with 3 horns into existence for no real reason.
The only way God (as described by the bible) can exist is if magic can exist.

Which then begs the question, why do we then even need to use logic to justify God's reason's for doing anything at all?
Maybe God gives kids cancer because tomatoes are red

A totally batshit claim for those without indoctrination.

[Fake Messiah]

Why say anything when Aron Ra already explained it so good

[robvalue]

Why can't all of reality have popped into existence for no reason at all? Or does "no reason" itself qualify as a cause?

Pretty sure you mean "no reason" (we know of).

If magic was a possible thing in our universe, then sure, a malfunctioning wand could poof a unicorn with 3 horns into existence for no real reason.
The only way God (as described by the bible) can exist is if magic can exist.

Which then begs the question, why do we then even need to use logic to justify God's reason's for doing anything at all?
Maybe God gives kids cancer because tomatoes are red

A totally batshit claim for those without indoctrination.

I was thinking of a scenario where it just happens. Reality starts to exist, and the only reason/cause is the fact that it's happening.

Of course, we have absolutely no reason to think that this was actually the case. But my point is that such a scenario cannot be excluded simply because it doesn't gel with how the theist imagines things working, just in order to leave us with a specific cause. (They also can't exclude everything having always existed in some form, with no initial point.)

If this scenario isn't being excluded, then "God" could be absolutely nothing at all. I've heard some people actually take this stance: a kind of compatabalist deism. I find that to be a pointless tautology, but whatever makes them happy I guess.

[ignoramus]

I gave up ages ago Rob, when I realized that binary thought is so ingrained into theists thinking, that they're absolutely not even aware of it.
In their minds, God can be a logical scientific explanation wherever there's any gaps in our knowledge.

Their logic consists of:

If this, then it must be God
If not God, then prove why not?

[robvalue]

They also don't realize that they are often asking the wrong questions, because certain conclusions are loaded in already:

"Who created the universe?"

There's at least 3 conclusions loaded into that simple question.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Some people simply cannot help but give vent to their loquacity by extraneous bombastic circumlocution. Hate when that happens...\

Boru

[vulcanlogician]

They also don't realize that they are often asking the wrong questions, because certain conclusions are loaded in already:

"Who created the universe?"

There's at least 3 conclusions loaded into that simple question.

1. the universe is created

2. the creator must be a "who"... a being... rather than a phenomenon

3. What's the third baked-in conclusion?

[SaStrike]

Datc, nice attempt, much better argument than from most theists I've seen here.

I respect that he admits that we can learn nothing about this cause. Trying to call the cause "God" is a shifty play though (I'm not sure if he's doing this or not) as it tries to sneak in sentience and grandeur without justification.

I'll add to my questions:

Why can't there be ten eternal things, with one/all of them causing everything else?

I don't agree with what he posted. I just think he is at least can be reasoned with. Also there are some jumps in reasoning that aren't explained. For example:

Dresser ← Carpenter ← X ← F 

Here he assumes all things are created or change in a radial or linear matter. It unfortunately isn't that simple as things could be cyclic or looping, as we note with the rain cycle.  There is just too much to consider, it can be concluded we are very very far away from discovering if or how the universe was created or started or whatever term is preferred. (We might just be chasing after nothing until extinction though lol).

[robvalue]

They also don't realize that they are often asking the wrong questions, because certain conclusions are loaded in already:

"Who created the universe?"

There's at least 3 conclusions loaded into that simple question.

1. the universe is created

2. the creator must be a "who"... a being... rather than a phenomenon

3. What's the third baked-in conclusion?

Baked-in, I like that

I was splitting up the first conclusion into steps, just to point out how many possibilities have been excluded:

1a. The universe hasn't always existed

1b. The universe (as we know it) isn't a remnant of some other universe

1c. The universe didn't just start for no reason

1d. The universe was created

There is also the implicit assumption that something else exists outside "our universe", or else all theological attempts fall flat.

---

I respect that he admits that we can learn nothing about this cause. Trying to call the cause "God" is a shifty play though (I'm not sure if he's doing this or not) as it tries to sneak in sentience and grandeur without justification.

I'll add to my questions:

Why can't there be ten eternal things, with one/all of them causing everything else?

I don't agree with what he posted. I just think he is at least can be reasoned with. Also there are some jumps in reasoning that aren't explained. For example:

Dresser ← Carpenter ← X ← F 

Here he assumes all things are created or change in a radial or linear matter. It unfortunately isn't that simple as things could be cyclic or looping, as we note with the rain cycle.  There is just too much to consider, it can be concluded we are very very far away from discovering if or how the universe was created or started or whatever term is preferred. (We might just be chasing after nothing until extinction though lol).

Correct, and it's also a conflation of the beginning of literal existence and the taking of particular forms that we assign significance to (like a dresser).

I hope he does come back to discuss with us, but I have the feeling this was a hit and run.