Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Achilles6129]

That's not the definition of God.

I'm not sure how you could possibly define a being who's subject to something or someone else as "God." Care to explain?

 

[Achilles6129]

No, by definition, the Divine Flame is also outside the universe. It requires no source of fuel or ignition and radiates eternally.

So is the Divine Flame. So the natural requirements of flames within the universe do not apply to the Divine Flame.

Then we're just playing a meaningless game of semantics. If you want to redefine "God" as the "Divine Flame" then go ahead.

So our understanding of causality, which is our derived from our experience within the universe, need not apply in the absence of the universe, which undermines your argument altogether.

It applies to how the universe came into being.

The interesting thing about the cosmological argument is that while, on the one hand, it appeals to certain intuitions derived from within the universe, it also demands exceptions to those intuitions so as to accommodate the arguer's preconceived theological commitments (captured in 4). The arguer cherry-picks the intuitions that do and do not apply in order to reach a predetermined theological conclusion.

Hardly. Explain how an explanation other than "God" in 4 is more likely?

Interestingly, accepting 1-3 doesn't necessarily implicate a theological conclusion. All it does is indicate that the origin of the universe remains mysterious and is in need of explanation.

Accepting 1-3 does implicate a theological conclusion because of the strong indication (as I noted earlier) that, due to the nature of this universe, a great deal of intelligence was necessary to create it. Obviously, inanimate objects don't exhibit intelligence.

 

[TillICollapse]

God is by definition the Supreme Being, someone who is subject to no-one and nothing.

All you did was repeat yourself and re-assert it. What I'm interested in mostly isn't the "Supreme Being" aspect you keep asserting, rather it's the "subject to no-one and nothing." Why ?

In the case of your example, God would be subject to the universe itself since he was created by the universe. In that case, the universe would actually be God.

There are some who equate the universe with "God". Regardless, I still don't see what rationale you are using that "God" would be subject to the universe ? What aspect would God be subject to, for example, which could not be overcome which would no longer render such a being "God" ? This is what I don't get ... if you're going to posit a God who has all these properties which are outside the scope of what you're using to conclude things by anyways, why not go with properties that are at least within the scope ? Why couldn't this being evolve, learn, and gain their "superpowers" that way ?

By definition, God is uncreated, because his being created by anyone or anything would mean he's subject to someone or something.

Again ... why ? We create things all the time we become subject to in various ways. Are we not still responsible for their creation ?

All I see your definitions are doing, is attempting to take solutions and answers, and placing them outside the scope of the problem and the questions in order to claim they are legitimate. It's misdirection, special pleading, and doesn't answer anything. It's the equivalent of:

"Don't look to the problem, look outside the problem and beyond … into contradiction. That's where you find the solution. It makes sense if you don't think about it."

What you are describing is perhaps a type of "God" ... a God from the Machine. A plot device that doesn't involve belief, rather the suspension of it. It's not an answer.

Yep. They certainly couldn't be defined as "god" - they would be subject to whatever created them - in this case, the universe.

I would say so. I would certainly wonder why you would find that more compelling than the idea that God is outside of the universe and created the universe. Unless, that is, you're biased against that idea from the start.

So based on this, I'm assuming you don't believe Jesus was God then, yes ? This is another thing I don't get: the very rationale behind this type of argument, often denies the very Christ=God the one making the argument will often claim to believe.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I see. And what convinces you of this idea?

The observation that everything in the universe follows a natural order and nothing (that I'm aware of) ever defies that order.

 

[Achilles6129]

All you did was repeat yourself and re-assert it. What I'm interested in mostly isn't the "Supreme Being" aspect you keep asserting, rather it's the "subject to no-one and nothing." Why ?

Because if God is subject to something or someone, then he can't be the Supreme Being.

There are some who equate the universe with "God".

There are some who equate stone idols with "God." The question is not what someone equates "God" to, but rather what God is and whether or not they're correct.

Regardless, I still don't see what rationale you are using that "God" would be subject to the universe ?

Because the universe would have created "God," in your example.

What aspect would God be subject to, for example, which could not be overcome which would no longer render such a being "God" ? This is what I don't get ... if you're going to posit a God who has all these properties which are outside the scope of what you're using to conclude things by anyways, why not go with properties that are at least within the scope ? Why couldn't this being evolve, learn, and gain their "superpowers" that way ? Again ... why ? We create things all the time we become subject to in various ways. Are we not still responsible for their creation ?

What you're describing sounds like the gods the ancient Greeks believed in. They believed in "gods" who were created by other gods and then warred amongst themselves, usurped powers, etc. That just simply doesn't fit into the definition of "God" that we're talking about. Here's the God we're referring to:

1) He's uncreated
2) He's the Supreme Being and subject to no-one and nothing outside of himself
3) He created all that there is

In regards to your statement, I suppose there wouldn't be a reason why such a god (or gods) couldn't exist. It just wouldn't fit the Biblical definition of God, which is what this discussion is about.

What you are describing is perhaps a type of "God" ... a God from the Machine. A plot device that doesn't involve belief, rather the suspension of it. It's not an answer.

No, what I'm describing is God as usually defined by theology. What you're describing sounds like something the ancient pagans adhered to.

So based on this, I'm assuming you don't believe Jesus was God then, yes ? This is another thing I don't get: the very rationale behind this type of argument, often denies the very Christ=God the one making the argument will often claim to believe.

Christ is God entered into the universe, in fleshly form. When Christ entered in fleshly form into the universe, he laid aside some of his divine qualities, like perfect knowledge, for example.

 

[Achilles6129]

The observation that everything in the universe follows a natural order and nothing (that I'm aware of) ever defies that order.

So you believe that something inanimate created the universe then?

 

[Davian]

..., due to the nature of this universe, a great deal of intelligence was necessary to create it.
...

How do you know this? What options were available to your hypothetical deity at the instantiation of the cosmos?

 

[Achilles6129]

How do you know this?

Because the laws of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe seem to imply a great deal of intelligence.

What options were available to your hypothetical deity at the instantiation of the cosmos?

I would imagine an infinite (or near infinite) number of possible worlds.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So you believe that something inanimate created the universe then?

Yes. Inanimate, natural forces have been shaping the universe since the Big Bang. I see no reason to assume this couldn't have been true before the Big Bang.

 

[Davian]

Because the laws of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe seem to imply a great deal of intelligence.

So you have switched from intelligence was "necessary" to "seem to imply".

Sounds like an admission that you do not know.

I would imagine an infinite (or near infinite) number of possible worlds.

Wild speculation. Perhaps what we have was the only option.

You are building a house of cards on wild speculation, and trying to prop your religion up with it. It looks pretty shaky from here.

 

[TillICollapse]

Because if God is subject to something or someone, then he can't be the Supreme Being.

Let me try this. Are you familiar with the movie "Idiocracy" ? Short version: in the future, people are essentially idiots and unable to reason things through properly. There is one guy who is near dim by today's standards, who due to a cryogenic type of experiment, gets suspended in time and released into this future where he ironically becomes the most intelligent human in existence. The US government (run by morons) looks to him for advice. One such area, is on agriculture. Their crops won't grow, and they can't figure out why. In their future, they don't drink water, they drink a Mountain Dew like substance called Brawndo, which they believe is healthy for them, "Because it has electrolytes !" even though they don't know what electrolytes even are. They just know it has them, and they are good, because of the marketing of Brawndo that has stuck in their minds. They put Brawndo on the crops, and they don't grow, even though one of the slogans for Brawndo is "It's what plants crave !". They actually use water ... in the toilet. So to them, water is what they eliminate into. The idea of water on crops is gross. Here is a discussion they are having with the smartest guy in the world, who is trying to give them the idea to put water on the crops. Can you tell me what type of reasoning they are using ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1fKzw05Q5A

There are some who equate stone idols with "God." The question is not what someone equates "God" to, but rather what God is and whether or not they're correct.

So what's the best way to determine who is correct in your opinion ? What way could we collectively begin to determine who is actually correct or incorrect ?

Because the universe would have created "God," in your example.

Again ... so ? If you're already attributing special powers and properties to one version of "God", why not attribute other special powers and properties ? Why do you favor one over the other ? I've asked you the equivalent of this question several times now, which you haven't directly answered. Why do YOU personally favor one scenario where your concept of God has all these special properties which you can't prove, but not another one with similar properties you also cannot prove ?

What you're describing sounds like the gods the ancient Greeks believed in. They believed in "gods" who were created by other gods and then warred amongst themselves, usurped powers, etc. That just simply doesn't fit into the definition of "God" that we're talking about. Here's the God we're referring to:

1) He's uncreated
2) He's the Supreme Being and subject to no-one and nothing outside of himself
3) He created all that there is

Again, what you're describing sounds more like a deus ex machina. A convenient plot device that doesn't have to make any sense, it just solves the problem for the story and requires the suspension of belief by those in the audience. It's a device used when the writer often effectively writes themselves into a corner. I could easily say your own expectations of what you NEED "God" to be for yourself personally are biasing you and cornering your own self, to where you have to appeal to special pleading and contradictions in order to find a solution you hope is there. IOW, you've gotten into a corner you didn't reason yourself into, so you're appealing to un-reason to get yourself out.

In regards to your statement, I suppose there wouldn't be a reason why such a god (or gods) couldn't exist. It just wouldn't fit the Biblical definition of God, which is what this discussion is about.

Okay the Biblical definition. Arguably the believers Rorschach test. Looking straight at Genesis 1, Elohim creates the heavens and the earth. Looking at just that one example and nothing else ... where does this say that heavens and earth=entire universe or answer any such questions as to where Elohim came from, or whether or not Elohim was even singular ? Taking the perspective that Gen 1:1 is an overview of what is getting ready to happen in the next few verses, moving to Gen 1:2, we see "stuff" already existing before the first thing (light) is made in some fashion by Elohim. The stuff already in existence is darkness, waters, Ruach of Elohim, perhaps even a formless and void earth. IOW ... I don't see where Gen 1 shows uncaused causes, or uncreated creations, nothing outside of Elohim, etc. If one wants to try and take it as though there is truth in it, it raises lots of questions obviously ... there is no consensus even amongst believers as to what the creation accounts are describing. So appealing to "This is what is Biblical" is vague.

Christ is God entered into the universe, in fleshly form. When Christ entered in fleshly form into the universe, he laid aside some of his divine qualities, like perfect knowledge, for example.

Was Christ subject to anything in the universe ? Was Christ born of a human female ? Do you believe the miracles Christ performed actually happened in reality, or were they illusions which actually took place in another universe ? Did Christ bleed and die ? So on the one hand, you claim God has to be all these things ... and that anything less wouldn't be God. Yet it's okay with Jesus. Why does God a pass as it concerns other possible origin stories, and Jesus get a pass concerning the very qualities you keep asserting that God has to have ?By your own attributions here ... some of the divine qualities were laid aside. How does that work ? Does that mean God is no longer God during those times according to you, or is it yet another exception ?

 

[Achilles6129]

Yes. Inanimate, natural forces have been shaping the universe since the Big Bang.

I don't accept that at all. I think that's an entirely speculative assertion.

I see no reason to assume this couldn't have been true before the Big Bang.

Explain how an inanimate force or object could give rise to something with the complexity of the universe. It's something that doesn't happen in reality and which we have no good reason to assume would happen with the universe. For example, cars don't make themselves, they require intelligence in order to design, and so on.

 

[Achilles6129]

So you have switched from intelligence was "necessary" to "seem to imply".

Sounds like an admission that you do not know.

Necessary certainly from a theistic point of view. By saying "seem to imply" I was being generous.

When we take a basic example, like a car or airplane, we find that these things just don't make themselves through "natural forces." Indeed, "natural forces" tend to cause things to fall apart (hence why cars/airplanes need maintenance). Why should the universe be any different? Just like a car/airplane demonstrate a creative intelligence, something like the universe also demonstrates a vast amount of intelligence.

Wild speculation. Perhaps what we have was the only option.

If God exists then he certainly could have formed different universes than our own. The idea that "what we have was the only option" is atheistic in nature.

 

[Achilles6129]

Let me try this. Are you familiar with the movie "Idiocracy" ?

No, and I'm not going to watch your video. If you need to make a point then do it with words.

So what's the best way to determine who is correct in your opinion ? What way could we collectively begin to determine who is actually correct or incorrect ?

Through evidence.

Again ... so ? If you're already attributing special powers and properties to one version of "God", why not attribute other special powers and properties ? Why do you favor one over the other ? I've asked you the equivalent of this question several times now, which you haven't directly answered. Why do YOU personally favor one scenario where your concept of God has all these special properties which you can't prove, but not another one with similar properties you also cannot prove ?

I directly answered it in my last post, but apparently you didn't notice. I said there's no reason why other "gods" couldn't exist, but they would have nothing to do with the God (or the definition of God) that we're talking about. They're simply irrelevant for our purposes, and a major distraction.

Again, what you're describing sounds more like a deus ex machina. A convenient plot device that doesn't have to make any sense, it just solves the problem for the story and requires the suspension of belief by those in the audience.

Nonsense. I just gave you the basic definition of God that nearly all theists believe in. I also gave you the Biblical definition of God. You're running around in circles.

Okay the Biblical definition. Arguably the believers Rorschach test. Looking straight at Genesis 1, Elohim creates the heavens and the earth. Looking at just that one example and nothing else ... where does this say that heavens and earth=entire universe

By saying "heavens and earth" the writer is conveying the fact that God created all that there is, hence, the universe.

or answer any such questions as to where Elohim came from,

That's the point. God is uncreated.

or whether or not Elohim was even singular ?

"Elohim" isn't singular, and God is presented as more than one person (i.e, the trinity) in Genesis and elsewhere in Scripture. God is one in nature, however.

Taking the perspective that Gen 1:1 is an overview of what is getting ready to happen in the next few verses, moving to Gen 1:2, we see "stuff" already existing before the first thing (light) is made in some fashion by Elohim. The stuff already in existence is darkness, waters, Ruach of Elohim, perhaps even a formless and void earth. IOW ... I don't see where Gen 1 shows uncaused causes, or uncreated creations, nothing outside of Elohim, etc.

The things mentioned in Gen. 1:2 and subsequent are covered in Gen. 1:1.

Was Christ subject to anything in the universe ?

Since he was in human form he didn't have his full divine attributes. This is, again, basic NT theology. However, the fact that Christ was resurrected, ascended up above the starry heaven, etc., shows that God is not subject to anything, correct.

So on the one hand, you claim God has to be all these things ... and that anything less wouldn't be God. Yet it's okay with Jesus.

Last time I'm going to address this: Christ laid aside his full divine attributes when he took on the form of a human being. At that time, God (his Father) still possessed those full attributes, though Christ did not.

 

[Davian]

Necessary certainly from a theistic point of view.

How is anything necessary from a theistic point of view? Can you not always fall back to the "my god moves in mysterious ways"?

By saying "seem to imply" I was being generous.

It was actually all you have. You don't know that the creation of the cosmos required intelligence, do you? Just speculation.

When we take a basic example, like a car or airplane, we find that these things just don't make themselves through "natural forces." Indeed, "natural forces" tend to cause things to fall apart (hence why cars/airplanes need maintenance). Why should the universe be any different? Just like a car/airplane demonstrate a creative intelligence, something like the universe also demonstrates a vast amount of intelligence.

How did you determine and measure that? What units did you use?

If God exists

Define "God", so we can examine that question.

then he certainly could have formed different universes than our own.

Wild speculation. You do not know, do you?

The idea that "what we have was the only option" is atheistic in nature.

Not at all. Atheism is a theistic position on the subject of deities, not cosmology or astrophysics.

I don't see why you would want to use wild speculation as basis for establishing the existence of anything.

Unless that is all you have.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For starters, you can't actually know whether or not "virtual particles" come from nothing without any real cause. Maybe you're seeing some other phenomenon and you think they're "coming from nothing" when they're really not. Regardless, even if you've found one example of something that does come into existence from nothing, it wouldn't really matter, because everything else in our universe that begins to exist does have a cause. In other words, 99.9999999999% of our universe has a cause, and .00000000001% of it doesn't. Why would that make my line of reasoning unlikely?



Not really. You'd just replace "everything" with 99.9999999999% of things. It doesn't really make the argument less likely.



Did the universe begin to exist, or not? Did time have a beginning?



Since we're in time, and have always been in time, how exactly are we supposed to know what it's like to be "outside of time"? The idea of being outside of time isn't meaningless at all. Perhaps we can't understand it, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid explanation.

"Why would that make my line of reasoning unlikely?"

I don't really need to explain this to you, do I? You understand why your argument fails... the first premise is wrong for at least two reasons...maybe more if I gave it some real thought. If your first premise is false, and the rest of your argument rests upon that premise, then the entire argument is wrong. Remember your first premise was this...

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Well...now you know that not everything that begins to exist has a cause. There are at least some things which begin to exist without any discernable cause. To account for this new information, we could change your first premise to something like this...

1. Most things that begin to exist have a cause.

Or even...

1. Nearly everything that begins to exist has a cause.

If we changed your first premise to one of these so that we can call it true, does the rest of the argument hold up? Of course not... because now the first premise allows for the universe to be one of those very few things that began to exist without a cause. You would need to prove that the universe is one of those things that begins to exist and has a cause... but your argument doesn't do that.

To illustrate the logical flaw in your first premise (because I'm not sure you understood it when I explained that the universe is a set and the "rules of its members don't necessarily apply to it) take a look at this statement you made a few pages back...

"Your understanding of how things work in this universe (sequences of thoughts and so on) doesn't necessarily apply beyond this universe!"

Your first premise is based upon the way things appear to work inside the universe. Well, the universe is not inside itself, is it? So the rules that appear to govern the way things work inside the universe don't necessarily apply to the universe itself. If you want to describe how universes work...you'd need more than one and be outside them. So again, we've got two reasons why that first premise fails and therefore so does the rest of the argument.

"Did the universe begin to exist, or not? Did time have a beginning?"

Those are both good questions... and I don't know the answer to either of them. There was quite a bit of noise this year about some evidence that perhaps the universe has always existed in some form or another. I don't think anyone can say that theory is proven, but it certainly appears to be a genuine possibility. Maybe you heard about this? If not, I'll be happy to provide a link or two.

"The idea of being outside of time isn't meaningless at all. Perhaps we can't understand it..."

What exactly do you think the term "meaningless" means? When I asked you to tell me what it means to be outside of time... you told me you don't know what it means. How can you know then that something can exist "outside of time"? You don't even know what it means. All you've provided for an explanation is that it's not the same as existing in time. That doesn't give any meaning to the concept though... you need to explain what it is if you want to be able to use it as an explanation for anything. Think of it this way....

Suppose I told you that while I was out walking today I saw a grumkin. You ask me what a grumkin is, and I tell you it's not a cat. Does that help you understand what a grumkin is? Of course not, everything that isn't a cat... isn't a cat. If I had a million years and enough brainpower, I could literally list everything in the universe and tell you a grumkin isn't any of those things...and you'd still be no closer to understanding what it is. The word grumkin would mean nothing to you, it has no explanation, no explanatory power.

That's all you have with this idea of existing "outside of time". It's hollow, meaningless, and doesn't explain a thing.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't accept that at all. I think that's an entirely speculative assertion.

I'm sure you do.

Tell me, what other phenomena or aspects of the universe do you attribute to the supernatural? Are hurricanes or tornados supernatural events, or are they natural occurrences governed by natural laws?
If something as dynamic and complex as a storm can arise out of the basic properties of matter and energy, then it's a pretty safe bet we can get quite a bit of complexity out of nature just doing what it does. And we can apply this logic to other parts of the universe. Planets don't just magically appear, they need to form, over time. Animals didn't just magically appear, they had to form, over time. Galaxies don't just magically appear, they need to form, over time.

The Universe didn't just magically appear, it had to form, over time and is still in that process to this day, as far as we can tell.

Explain how an inanimate force or object could give rise to something with the complexity of the universe.

If I could explain that, I think I'd win a Nobel Prize.

It's something that doesn't happen in reality and which we have no good reason to assume would happen with the universe.

How much time have you spent outside of the universe, that you can say with certainty that there aren't universes bursting into existence at all times? Maybe it's a rare event, but the fact that it did happen means it definitely could happen, and if it can happen once, it can certainly happen again. After all, there's isn't just one person on one planet with one moon, going around one star, in one single galaxy in this one universe....

For example, cars don't make themselves, they require intelligence in order to design, and so on.

Right. And cars are not anything like a universe so, your analogy doesn't work. You would need to compare the universe to, well, another universe to make an adequate comparison.

 

[TillICollapse]

No, and I'm not going to watch your video. If you need to make a point then do it with words.

I'll actually copy/paste a transcript of the video then, because my "point" is intrinsic to you going through the example with me so I can try and understand your thought process. You said "do it in words" so here it is:

Here's the copy/paste:

Joe (Smartest Guy in the World): For the last time, I'm pretty sure... what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff.
Guy 1: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.
Gal: So wait a minute. What you're saying... is that you want us to put water on the crops.
Joe: Yes.
Gal: Water. Like out the toilet?
Joe: Well, I mean, it doesn't have to be out of the toilet, but, yeah, that's the idea.
Guy 1: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.
Joe: Okay, look. The plants aren't growing, so I'm pretty sure that the Brawndo's not working. Now, I'm no botanist, but I do know that if you put water on plants, they grow.
Guy 2: Well, I've never seen no plants grow out of no toilet.
Guy 1: Hey, that's good. You sure you ain't
the smartest guy in the world?
Joe: You wanna solve this problem. So why don't we just try it, okay, and not worry about what plants crave?
Gal: Brawndo's got what plants crave.
Guy 2: Yeah, it's got electrolytes.
Joe: What are electrolytes? Do you even know?
Guy 1: It's what they use to make Brawndo.
Joe: Yeah, but why do they use them to make Brawndo?
Guy 3: 'Cause Brawndo's got electrolytes.
[ Narrator] After several hours, Joe finally gave up on logic and reason... and simply told the cabinet that he could talk to plants... and that they wanted water. He made believers out of everyone.

So in this example, Joe (who is the smartest guy in the world), keeps hitting up against several problems with talking to these individuals. They believe "Brawndo has what plants crave, it's got electrolytes !" although they don't understand why they believe this, or what it even means. When pressed and asked, "Why ?" they keep asserting what they believe to be fact, because they can do nothing more than that: they can't explain what electrolytes actually are, why they are in Brawndo, why they believe plants crave them, etc. Eventually, Joe gives up on appealing to their sense of reason, and just tells them "magic" stuff, and they go along with that. So ... where do you think their reasoning fails ? What type of reasoning are they using ?

I think it's a decent parallel to your own argument, and I will point out why once I see what your own thoughts are on this example up above, if you actually take the time to give your thoughts. I'm getting the feeling you may not.

Through evidence.

So what evidence is there of anything you are claiming is necessary, and how did you examine this evidence ?

I directly answered it in my last post, but apparently you didn't notice. I said there's no reason why other "gods" couldn't exist, but they would have nothing to do with the God (or the definition of God) that we're talking about. They're simply irrelevant for our purposes, and a major distraction.

Nonsense. I just gave you the basic definition of God that nearly all theists believe in. I also gave you the Biblical definition of God. You're running around in circles.

By saying "heavens and earth" the writer is conveying the fact that God created all that there is, hence, the universe.

That's the point. God is uncreated.

"Elohim" isn't singular, and God is presented as more than one person (i.e, the trinity) in Genesis and elsewhere in Scripture. God is one in nature, however.

The things mentioned in Gen. 1:2 and subsequent are covered in Gen. 1:1.

Since he was in human form he didn't have his full divine attributes. This is, again, basic NT theology. However, the fact that Christ was resurrected, ascended up above the starry heaven, etc., shows that God is not subject to anything, correct.

Last time I'm going to address this: Christ laid aside his full divine attributes when he took on the form of a human being. At that time, God (his Father) still possessed those full attributes, though Christ did not.

I keep trying to question you somewhat within the framework of your concepts, by addressing your concepts and reasons for choosing them ... as opposed to examining your premises themselves. Others are pointing out the flaws in your premises, so I tried to avoid that and go another route. However, what I see above is largely just continued assertion without any real explanation. Assertion built upon assertion built upon assertion. "The Ultimate One is necessary, because he is. He's ultimate because to be anything less, would make him not ultimate. Ultimate means, he is light comprised of darkness, presence made of absence, and real outside of reality. To be anything less, would make him not the Ultimate One. So by definition, those are his attributes. Again, to be anything less, would make him not the Ultimate One. Even when he lacks those attributes. As I've said." It's just assertions built upon special pleading, changing goalposts, circular reasoning, and arguments from ignorance utilizing unfalsifiable concepts which often contradict one another anyways. Even appealing to scripture, it's still one interpretation of many.

So at this point, I'll probably try to avoid the other circles of your arguments, and focus on the reasoning you are using ... which would involve your participation in the movie-scene exercise. If you don't participate, I may let it go and drop it and jump back in at other points, not sure yet.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then we're just playing a meaningless game of semantics. If you want to redefine "God" as the "Divine Flame" then go ahead.

No, because 'God' is typically conceived of as a person. The Divine Flame is not. It's a flame. It has no consciousness, no personality, no intentions. It doesn't demand your worship, won't listen to your prayers, and is indifferent to humanity.

It applies to how the universe came into being.

Not necessarily. To quote you: "Your understanding of how things work in this universe (sequences of thoughts and so on) doesn't necessarily apply beyond this universe!"

Hardly. Explain how an explanation other than "God" in 4 is more likely?

I already gave you another explanation: the Divine Flame. Explain how your explanation is more likely than mine. I could conjure up more explanations if you like? As I recall, Ana invoked the great Universe-Making Machine.

Accepting 1-3 does implicate a theological conclusion because of the strong indication (as I noted earlier) that, due to the nature of this universe, a great deal of intelligence was necessary to create it. Obviously, inanimate objects don't exhibit intelligence.

You haven't established this claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Why would that make my line of reasoning unlikely?"

I don't really need to explain this to you, do I? You understand why your argument fails... the first premise is wrong for at least two reasons...maybe more if I gave it some real thought. If your first premise is false, and the rest of your argument rests upon that premise, then the entire argument is wrong. Remember your first premise was this...

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Well...now you know that not everything that begins to exist has a cause. There are at least some things which begin to exist without any discernable cause. To account for this new information, we could change your first premise to something like this...

1. Most things that begin to exist have a cause.

Or even...

1. Nearly everything that begins to exist has a cause.

If we changed your first premise to one of these so that we can call it true, does the rest of the argument hold up? Of course not... because now the first premise allows for the universe to be one of those very few things that began to exist without a cause. You would need to prove that the universe is one of those things that begins to exist and has a cause... but your argument doesn't do that.

To illustrate the logical flaw in your first premise (because I'm not sure you understood it when I explained that the universe is a set and the "rules of its members don't necessarily apply to it) take a look at this statement you made a few pages back...

"Your understanding of how things work in this universe (sequences of thoughts and so on) doesn't necessarily apply beyond this universe!"

Your first premise is based upon the way things appear to work inside the universe. Well, the universe is not inside itself, is it? So the rules that appear to govern the way things work inside the universe don't necessarily apply to the universe itself. If you want to describe how universes work...you'd need more than one and be outside them. So again, we've got two reasons why that first premise fails and therefore so does the rest of the argument.

A further problem is that he is not applying the "rules of the universe" consistently anyway. As far as we know, creatio ex nihilo is not a "rule of the universe," yet it's the doctrine he is committed to.