An argument for God

[Rhyfelwyr]

You cannot prove point 1 with point 4 and point 4 with point 1 if both of these depend on eachother and both contain a statement that hinges on the respective other statement being true. That amounts to circular reasoning.

I never offered those two points as proof of each other.

You seem to be saying that everything inside our universe needs a cause, but the creator is outside and therefore does not need to have a cause. But none of that explains why the universe itself needs to have a cause, maybe the universe is self-existent and only changes its form now and then

As I said to you earlier, it is not necessarily the case that the universe cannot be self-existent; but that with out current scientific understanding, we know that it is not.

If old ideas like the steady-state theory turned out to be true, then my argument would be totally blown out of the water. But steady-state theory was proven wrong, and with it the idea that the universe was eternal and self-existent was demolished. We know that the material universe began to exist. We know that the material universe adheres to the laws of cause and effect. Therefore, something must have caused it to exist.

as others have said, it could also be a sub- universe of a universe that is timeless and has other rules.

The very idea of our universe being a 'sub-universe' within a greater universe implies a sort of material order within that greater universe similar to our own. As I have said, the self-existent creator must totally transcend all these natural laws.

Might want to call that other universe god or creator, but that still wouldn't make it intelligent. In fact, if our universe has such distinct and different rules, how can you apply the concept of intelligence, which only works and was borne inside our universe, to something outside our universe?

God's intelligence is something totally incomprehensible to us, intelligence is just the best word that we lowly humans can use to describe it. God's intelligence is totally different from the mechanical workings of, say, a human or AI brain.

[Husar]

I never offered those two points as proof of each other.

Yes, I misread that earlier.

As I said to you earlier, it is not necessarily the case that the universe cannot be self-existent; but that with out current scientific understanding, we know that it is not.

If old ideas like the steady-state theory turned out to be true, then my argument would be totally blown out of the water. But steady-state theory was proven wrong, and with it the idea that the universe was eternal and self-existent was demolished. We know that the material universe began to exist. We know that the material universe adheres to the laws of cause and effect. Therefore, something must have caused it to exist.

There is still the problem that if everything that begins to exist within our universe needs to have a cause, this cannot apply to the universe itself, since the universe did not begin to exist within itself and the rules of the universe do not apply to the singularity that turned into the universe. There is also nothing within our universe that begins to exist, so I'm not even sure where you draw the conclusion from that everything that begins to exist, must have a cause. Maybe you can name an instance of something that begins to exist.

The very idea of our universe being a 'sub-universe' within a greater universe implies a sort of material order within that greater universe similar to our own. As I have said, the self-existent creator must totally transcend all these natural laws.

Why can that parent universe not transcend our natural laws itself? A god who transcends our natural laws would essentially be our parent universe himself, since if there is neiother time nor space, the only thing within which he could create a universe is himself, if he is the only "thing" that exists beyond our universe.

God's intelligence is something totally incomprehensible to us, intelligence is just the best word that we lowly humans can use to describe it. God's intelligence is totally different from the mechanical workings of, say, a human or AI brain.

And what then tells us that it is "intelligent" and not purely random?