An argument for God

[Rhyfelwyr]

A couple of questions, beginning with omniscience:
If he already knows whether you go to heaven or not, how is it your fault if you do not?
And if you do have an actual choice in the matter, how can he know in advance? What exactly does timeless mean in this regard?

How can a timeless god turn from killing almost all of humanity except Noah to supporting just one people to loving the entire world? If he is timeless, should he not have the same opinion/traits etc. over our entire timeline as he would be the same at the beginning and the end of it given that it would not apply to / affect him?

Interesting questions, but not relevant to my argument here. This thread is not about what the Bible says, or the moral questions surrounding free will and determinism.

Why can god be self-existent and the universe cannot?

I have not said that the universe cannot be self-existent, I am simply going with the scientific consensus which says that it is not, and that it had a creation from which it began.

If the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, then why are the planets perfectly shaped like meatballs?

FSM doesn't have corporal form, it is an illustration so our feeble minds can conceptualise his essence. Whilst 'God' the 'father' is pretty clear in 'his' words, it seems the 'abrahamic god' follows the rules of binary gender. Clearly, 'he' cannot be what you proclaim. Considering the pantheon he originally came from as well... it is an area best not really going into.

The Bible does not say that God is a "he" in the sense of having a physical male form. There are different ways of understanding its usage of gender in relation to God. I would like to point out once again that this is irrelevant to my argument as I am arguing for those core attributes as described in point 7 (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial), and not every particular thing that the Bible or the Koran says about to God.

I can visualise the concept of a MPB (Massively Powerful Being), as such creatures are beyond our grasp of knowledge, or things so powerful, they can change the fabric and reality of things we know them, but these things do not need to have the attributes listed in 5-7 to do that job.

A Massively Powerful Being is a whole different matter from an Infinitely Powerful Being. Any MPB which is part of the material universe will thus be subject to its laws, and therefore I don't see how it can replace the role of my creator.

In short, 1-3 has some plausibility which there can be broad agreement, but it depends on what level/scope you are using, are we talking this universe? There are various multi-universe theories and ones which rely on dimensions outside our narrow lay concept.
4 - 7. There doesn't need to be a sentient creator. This doesn't need to be the case. Doesn't actually need to be present, or necessary powerful, timeless or formless. etc
8. It is not.

Regarding multiverse theory, I have already addressed this in my OP and in another response to you. Once again, while a universe might be created by an existing universe which was not self-created, we are still left with the question of who or what created the first material universe.

As for your critique of points 4-7, you have completely failed to address my argument, so what can I say? The arguments themselves explained how the creator would necessarily be all-powerful etc, to which you have effectively said "no, I disagree", without explaining why.

The issue is, you haven't actually given us an 'Option 1' as such because of the 8th point. You have given us 'Option 2 -lite' and use it as a means to justify your preference for 'Option 2'.

Personally, I am of opinion of 'Option 0', the steps before which haven't really been covered.

The 8th point reads:

8. This is the Abrahamic concept of God.

I said the Abrahamic concept of God, as in having the attributes attributed to a creator God according to that school of theistic thought.

I did not say that the argument proved the God of the Bible to be true. I accept that my argument cannot prove this, and until you accept this as well, we are not going to have a meaningful dialogue.