An argument for God

[Rhyfelwyr]

I was looking into some of the cosmological arguments for a creator, and after doing some thinking I thought I had come up with a case to show how these arguments not only make the case for a creator, but more specifically for the Abrahamic concept of God. However after doing more reading, I realized that people had already followed this same logic and presented it in the form of the Kalam cosmological argument. I'll present this argument below, but I'll describe it the way I imagined it and not the way it has been popularized by figures like William Lane Craig (however the first 3 points I copy from the standard cosmological argument where I started out from):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. Therefore the existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a self-existent creator who created the universe.*
5. Since time, space and all natural laws are properties of the universe, this creator must transcend these properties and any temporal limitations.
6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.
7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.
8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

I maybe haven't quite followed the protocol for setting out philosophical arguments, but I'm just a layman trying to express my thoughts. I guess by extending the cosmological argument like this, the hope is to shut down arguments by atheists about how this creator could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or other silly things. The idea is to deduce the qualities of God in relation to the universe by virtue of the nature of their relationship.

Thoughts?

* Although it could be said that a universe might be created by an existing universe which was not self-existent, ultimately we will have to get back to who created the first universe.

[Greyblades]

This would be interesting if the well hadn't been long poisoned by Totalrelism. Sorry.

[Fragony]

First thought: what is wrong with not understanding anything about everything.

[Papewaio]

First thought: what is wrong with not understanding anything about everything.

Pubs make a fine trade in providing refreshments that reduce ones ability to understand and their patrons are happy.

[Beskar]

- So, who created the creator?
-Where is it in your argument that simply doesn't shut down but actively encourages arguments such as the Spaghetti Monster?
There is also possibility that the MPB (Massively Powerful Being) may not be the 'Abrahamic concept of God', which alternatives such as Cthulhu, A.I-mastermind or pretty much anything being open.
- You are also removing the actual concept of a 'Personal God' which is central to the Christian faith. Where does your argument suggest this is the case?

There is no actual argument for anything other than "We do not know", and this is most valid position to take and we can theorise alternatives till 'kingdom come'. There is also the problem that the statistical odds are in hugely in favour of it not being be a deity worshipped on earth, which makes current religion/faith a rather pointless concept. So yes, even if there a Massively Powerful Being, it doesn't mean it sent a son to die for our sins either, which kind of makes the who debate point 'moot' since the religious usage of this argument is trying to suggest that 'Something created everything, therefore the bible is true' is I think with fair reflection, you will clearly see that it would be nonsense to suggest this.

There is the very strong case of Linear-Time being a fallacy, that there is something infact 'eternal' that is currently and completely beyond our sphere of comprehension exists, but putting forward "That's God!" is what causes people face-palm and not approach the subject. The whole point of the 'Spaghetti Monster' is to actually show that the argument has an equal validity to the statement: 'That is God', which is so people who use that argument know how 'non-believers' feel every time they mention it.

tl;dr version -
There is no argument for 'God' and unfortunately, the replies will not get any better from this point.

[Rhyfelwyr]

- So, who created the creator?

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
...
4. Therefore the existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a self-existent creator who created the universe.

-Where is it in your argument that simply doesn't shut down but actively encourages arguments such as the Spaghetti Monster?
There is also possibility that the MPB (Massively Powerful Being) may not be the 'Abrahamic concept of God', which alternatives such as Cthulhu, A.I-mastermind or pretty much anything being open.

6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.
7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.

So as you can see Cthulhu clearly does not fit this bill. As for the possibility of an AI mastermind, I refer you to the * of point 4:

* Although it could be said that a universe might be created by an existing universe which was not self-existent, ultimately we will have to get back to who created the first universe.

- You are also removing the actual concept of a 'Personal God' which is central to the Christian faith. Where does your argument suggest this is the case?

The nature of God's qualities (omnipotence, omnipresence etc) necessitate that he must be a single, indivisible and intelligent being, because naturally such qualities cannot be shared by multiple beings without causing contradictions (eg you can't have two all-powerful beings). Still, whether or not this being could be said to be a person in the sense of temporal beings is another question.

There is no actual argument for anything other than "We do not know", and this is most valid position to take and we can theorise alternatives till 'kingdom come'. There is also the problem that the statistical odds are in hugely in favour of it not being be a deity worshipped on earth, which makes current religion/faith a rather pointless concept.

Um... no. There is the argument that I quite clearly laid out in this thread. It is logically coherent and falsifiable. I have clearly stated a positive case for something, so now it is up to you to prove it false.

Also, your claim that we are unlikely to be worshipping the correct God is loaded with dubious presuppositions, but more importantly for this thread, it is also irrelevant to my argument.

So yes, even if there a Massively Powerful Being, it doesn't mean it sent a son to die for our sins either, which kind of makes the who debate point 'moot' since the religious usage of this argument is trying to suggest that 'Something created everything, therefore the bible is true' is I think with fair reflection, you will clearly see that it would be nonsense to suggest this.

Irrelevant, as I am arguing for the Abrahamic concept of God, not the particulars of Christian theology. If you were to grant that an all-powerful God exists I would be happy with that for just now.

There is the very strong case of Linear-Time being a fallacy, that there is something infact 'eternal' that is currently and completely beyond our sphere of comprehension exists, but putting forward "That's God!" is what causes people face-palm and not approach the subject. The whole point of the 'Spaghetti Monster' is to actually show that the argument has an equal validity to the statement: 'That is God', which is so people who use that argument know how 'non-believers' feel every time they mention it.

Nope, since like I said the point of my argument is to deduce the qualities of the creator by virtue of its relationship to the universe which it creaed. Once again:

5. Since time, space and all natural laws are properties of the universe, this creator must transcend these properties and any temporal limitations.
6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.
7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.
8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

Just like Cthulhu earlier, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not display these qualities. Only an Abrahamic God does.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with you up to and including #4.

Any attempt to define the nature of that creator -- or even to hypothesize that creator-force's nature as cognitive -- can only be an act of faith. As Tiaexz noted, it is an unknowable.

If, as I do, you believe in the divinity of Jeshua of Nazareth, Christos, then you have an explanation (at least in parable form) explaining things. The acceptance of that is an act of faith. I personally think that steps 5-7 are correct as you outline them above.

In terms of argumentation, however, steps 5-7 really only serve to argue that conceptualization about a creator that take any more 'limited' a scope in their explanation would very likely fall short. Steps 5-7 are a logical extrapolation based on a limited comprehension of an inherently unconfirmable subject.

[Greyblades]

Just like Cthulhu earlier, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not display these qualities. Only an Abrahamic God does.

Taking into consideration that cthulu and the FSM only have a set form because humans assume they do the same way that christains assume god has the form of a bearded human, please explain how you came to this conclusion?

Actually, you might as well consider any imperfections cthulu and FSM has in your eyes to fit the abrahamic mold are due to those assumptions.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Taking into consideration that cthulu and the FSM only have a set form because humans assume they do the same way that christains assume god has the form of a bearded human, please explain how you came to this conclusion?

Actually, you might as well consider any imperfections cthulu and FSM has in your eyes to fit the abrahamic mold are due to those assumptions.

I am not of the belief that God is a bearded man who lives in the sky. I believe God to be formless and all-present as I said in my argument. And although what I am about to say is tangential to this discussion, the Bible does not teach that God is a bearded man who lives in the sky. Sometimes Christians take a bit of artistic license on the subject, but I am opposed to this because it leads to atheists making the sort of misconceptions you have brought up.

Now if followers of Cthulu or the FSM were to tell me that they believed as I do that God is essentially immaterial and transcendent of the material universe, but that he may choose to take on the particular forms of a giant underworld monster or a floating pile of spaghetti, I would ask them to provide evidence of this physical manifestation. And in the absence of any evidence, I won't believe it.

I agree with you up to and including #4.

If, as I do, you believe in the divinity of Jeshua of Nazareth, Christos, then you have an explanation (at least in parable form) explaining things. The acceptance of that is an act of faith. I personally think that steps 5-7 are correct as you outline them above.

I'm at the stage where its nice to see that somebody agrees with me on something!

Any attempt to define the nature of that creator -- or even to hypothesize that creator-force's nature as cognitive -- can only be an act of faith. As Tiaexz noted, it is an unknowable.

If (I'll try to debate this 'if' below) we can deduce that the creator has traits like omnipotence and omniscience, don't they require a sort of intelligence?

In terms of argumentation, however, steps 5-7 really only serve to argue that conceptualization about a creator that take any more 'limited' a scope in their explanation would very likely fall short. Steps 5-7 are a logical extrapolation based on a limited comprehension of an inherently unconfirmable subject.

But if you say that points 5-7 successfully rule out the possibility of a more "limited" or minor creator (or at least show it to be highly unlikely), then what possibility remains other than the absolute terms which I used? After all, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are absolutes - by their very nature they cannot be greater, and you say that the argument proves such a creator cannot be less. Must not the conclusion then be the one which I stated - that the creator is, in relation to the universe, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent?

[Ronin]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. Therefore the existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a self-existent creator who created the universe.*
5. Since time, space and all natural laws are properties of the universe, this creator must transcend these properties and any temporal limitations.
6. In relation to the universe, this creator must therefore be timeless, formless, all-present and all-powerful.
7. Such a figure would therefore be said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial.
8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

I maybe haven't quite followed the protocol for setting out philosophical arguments, but I'm just a layman trying to express my thoughts. I guess by extending the cosmological argument like this, the hope is to shut down arguments by atheists about how this creator could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster or other silly things. The idea is to deduce the qualities of God in relation to the universe by virtue of the nature of their relationship.

Thoughts?

* Although it could be said that a universe might be created by an existing universe which was not self-existent, ultimately we will have to get back to who created the first universe.

1 - ok
2 - the universe began to exist "in it's current form", we have proof of this - we call this the big bang....there is no way to know what was before...maybe it always existed, maybe it is just the natural state of things that the universe exists and it always did. so I don´t agree. and there is no need to make stuff up if we don´t know it.
3- comes from 2 - don´t really agree.
4- uhm....no. Objection! leading the witn....uhm..the argument.
5- are they properties of the universe itself? or just constraints that everything must follow?? anyway, I don´t get the "must", and it's starting to look like you're trying to start cherrypicking "facts" to fit into a "logical" solution you like.
6- again, cherrypicking, the "timeless" part is a cop out, pulled out of nowhere in an attempt to not have to deal with the logic question "if everything needs a maker then who made god"?
7- it might also need to be a giant pink kangaroo with blue polkadots that likes to play bridge.....if you're going to make stuff up go wild man!
8- it is the concept of many gods.....it's the basic concept of a godlike mythological figure.

[Sigurd]

This is merely an attempt to address the notion that infinite regress is impossible. Is it?
The First Cause is a contradiction to the argument of "everything has a cause". You designed the argument with "everything that begins". But everything that is, whether material or immaterial begs a beginning? If you allow for something to be uncaused, why choose God? Why can't the universe be the uncaused non-contingent being?
At least we know that it exists.

In addition to the Aquinas argument, you must also show:

1. The First cause is either personal or mechanical.
2. The First cause is not mechanical.
3. Therefore, the first cause must be personal

(Universe vs. God)