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.

[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?

[Greyblades]

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.

Curse my lack of the word "some".

Regardless, Ryf, I find myself confused on one point, Are you:
1. arguing the mere existance of a being that is timeless, formless, all-present, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial? Or:
2. are you arguing that the timeless, formless, all-present etc being in 1. is specifically actual jewish/christian god that spoke to abraham, moses, job etc and (by extention of my assumption that you are christian) came down to earth in the form of jesus?

Because to my understanding the FSM and Cthulu are responses to the second argument, mainly one that asks why is it more likely that it is the specific god of abraham running the universe instead of some alien flying spagetti monster/elder god/[insert idea here] that just happens to do the same job.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Regardless, Ryf, I find myself confused on one point, Are you:
1. arguing the mere existance of a being that is timeless, formless, all-present, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial? Or:
2. are you arguing that the timeless, formless, all-present etc being in 1. is specifically actual jewish/christian god that spoke to abraham, moses, job etc and (by extention of my assumption that you are christian) came down to earth in the form of jesus?

I happen to believe Option 2, but my argument in this thread is purely concerned with Option 1.

Because to my understanding the FSM and Cthulu are responses to the second argument, mainly one that asks why is it more likely that it is the specific god of abraham running the universe instead of some alien flying spagetti monster/elder god/[insert idea here] that just happens to do the same job.

EDIT: Just re-read this. As I said above if they are talking about Option 2, its not directly relevant to my argument here.

[Husar]

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?

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

[Beskar]

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.

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.

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.

I happen to believe Option 2, but my argument in this thread is purely concerned with Option 1.

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.

[Brenus]

When all believers will agree on the species, name(s), the gender(s), the number and the creation story(ies) and how to worship the god(s)/goddess(es). When you all guys agree on this, your point might be discuss.

All what we do is looking at the story for the Judeo-Christian made-up story from a book written by bronze-age tribe(s) to justify their conquest of others. Sometimes Muslims are accepted.

God(s) exit(s) because men/women created him/her/them, and, when nobody do, well, he/she/they die as thousand gods did before this one (which is 3, err, perhaps).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rhy's argument is internally consistent but not as compelling as he thinks.

However, Tiarexz's argument is just terrible, operates under multiple fallacies and fails to address the argument in Rhy's OP.

FOR SHAME!

*Stomps off*

[Tuuvi]

Rhy's argument is internally consistent but not as compelling as he thinks.

However, Tiarexz's argument is just terrible, operates under multiple fallacies and fails to address the argument in Rhy's OP.

FOR SHAME!

*Stomps off*

Would you care to explain what's wrong with Tiaexz's argument? I'm not smart enough to figure it out myself.

[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)

[Fragony]

However, Tiarexz's argument is just terrible

Helpfull possibly, how the hell do you make perfect meatballs. They always fall apart, and my cats somehow always manage to steal what's left of them, they are pocket ninjas getting it.

[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.

[Husar]

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.

Then you could at least explain what being timeless means and how a timeless being can create something over a period of time when the being itself is not subject to any form of time. Can a timeless being change the past and the future? Does a timeless being having direct "access" to all points in our time mean that all points in time exist simultaneously on a meta level that we cannot grasp?

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.

IIRC it is more a consensus on when it began to expand, which does not mean that it did not exist at all before.
I could be wrong, but I do not think there is a scientific consensus that something can just appear out of nothing.

[Beskar]

Would you care to explain what's wrong with Tiaexz's argument? I'm not smart enough to figure it out myself.

Being honest, I am not sure either.

Since my argument is "We do not know" and that we simply do not have enough information on the points, trying to place additions on those said-points makes no sense to me. since the said definitions are too narrow. It is akin to suggesting a drop of water is representative of the ocean.

---

On a side-note: "Operating outside laws, order and existence, etc" makes this 'God'/Creator supernatural, which basically means there is no logical reasoning behind the occurrence and doesn't operate within the natural order.

But by the virtue of doing an action, there is a cause and effect, which is explained by logic and therefore has a natural order to how it operates.

Therefore, the said creator cannot be supernatural but is part of the natural order.

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.

The Universe isn't the 'end-all'. There are the likes of Stephen Hawking suggesting this is a pocket-universe within another Universe which follows a different set of physics to our own. This is why I said "at which point" in regards to your first point.

As for "What is the first Universe" to your later comment, I said it is possible that there isn't infact a start. There is also the point that 'Time' is merely the breakdown of order within our Universe via entropy. This may not affect anything greater, or be part of the said greater system.

Can a timeless being change the past and the future? Does a timeless being having direct "access" to all points in our time mean that all points in time exist simultaneously on a meta level that we cannot grasp?

If you take this a step-further, it would lead to a very sadistic 'creator', which is basically using Planet Earth for its amusement in 'The Sims: Real Life Edition' except it actually knows all the outcomes already and allows people to suffer needlessly for giggles.

[Fragony]

Since my argument is "We do not know" and that we simply do not have enough information on the points, trying to place additions on those said-points makes no sense to me. since the said definitions are too narrow. It is akin to suggesting a drop of water is representative of the ocean.

Do you mind if I borrow that one, that's a beauty

[Beskar]

Do you mind if I borrow that one, that's a beauty

Sure.

But yes, nothing is as simple as it seems. I think this .gif summarises my thoughts in many ways, you cannot simply work from a flawed assumption. Your assumption might look right look right to you, but it is not the reality before you. It is our duty to try to decipher the truth by keeping a mind open to the great many possibilities and not simply pigeonhole ourselves with a fixed viewpoint.

[Fragony]

I don't see any god to be part of possibilities, I just know that I am too stupid to understand these things.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Being honest, I am not sure either.

As PVC said, you haven't understood my argument, and because of that pretty much all my replies to you have involved me quoting my OP where I had already dealt with the counter-arguments you raised. You've also spent half your time fighting strawmen because for some reason you presume my argument goes beyond the bounds of what I said it did.

Since my argument is "We do not know" and that we simply do not have enough information on the points, trying to place additions on those said-points makes no sense to me. since the said definitions are too narrow. It is akin to suggesting a drop of water is representative of the ocean.

I have used simple logical reasoning, which, I presume you will agree, is axiomatic to any sort of philosophical/metaphysical/scientific discussion. You have to pin-point the "where" and the "why" when you feel there are gaps or errors in my argument. A general "we do not know" is useless and dismissive.

On a side-note: "Operating outside laws, order and existence, etc" makes this 'God'/Creator supernatural, which basically means there is no logical reasoning behind the occurrence and doesn't operate within the natural order.

But by the virtue of doing an action, there is a cause and effect, which is explained by logic and therefore has a natural order to how it operates.

Therefore, the said creator cannot be supernatural but is part of the natural order.

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.

If the creator created the natural order, how on earth can he be subject to it? The act of engaging with the created order does not mean the creator suddenly becomes subject to it.

The Universe isn't the 'end-all'. There are the likes of Stephen Hawking suggesting this is a pocket-universe within another Universe which follows a different set of physics to our own. This is why I said "at which point" in regards to your first point.

As for "What is the first Universe" to your later comment, I said it is possible that there isn't infact a start. There is also the point that 'Time' is merely the breakdown of order within our Universe via entropy. This may not affect anything greater, or be part of the said greater system.

Wait... so do you now agree with my point 4 - that the creation of our universe shows it must have had a self-existent creator? And are you saying this creator would be an original self-existing universe, or a sub-universe of such a self-existing universe? On the one hand, you say there might not be a "start" and that time and order do not apply outside our universe, but on the other your appeal to the multiverse theory and some implied ordering in which our "pocket-universe" is a sub-creation of this greater universe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The problem I see with your argument Rhy is that premise 2 is not proven. It is possible that the universe has always been and always will. Maybe our universe is a part of a pair of universes that popped into existence, ours being matter, another being composed of the anti-matter we don't observe and both of these universes are within a much larger multi-universe.

[Ironside]

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.

...All those points also applies to anyone making a computer simulation.

I would say that anyone claiming to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent in their own simulation are using definitions that most people aren't. I mean, technically, I'm omniscient and omnipresent about youtube since I can see any public youtube video, yet it's impossible for me to see all videos on youtube, since much more is produced than it's possible to see (every minute there's 100 hours of new uploadings).

It's also possible to create a simulation where being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial in any form would require you to break the simulation. So 6, 7 and 8 does not follow from 5, since they would have to be true for the creator of a computer simulation as well.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ironside, the "simulation"-theory I find quite interesting...

Rhyf, two questions:

1. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immaterial, he shouldn't change... Right? Yet, the old and the new testament clearly show that this version of a god seems to be changing. Am I wrong?

2. Also, why would a omnipotent god need to rest on the 7th day? Specially if he even is immaterial? This also argues against this version of a god as being what science is looking for as answer to "the eternal question".

Also:

Genesis 32:22-32New International Version (NIV)

Jacob Wrestles With God
22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”

“Jacob,” he answered.

28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”

But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.

30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,[b] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

So god couldn't even wrestle down a man, but needed to cheat? I guess that hip breaking move was something deemed as not befitting wrestling. But Jacob STILL held on to him...





I understand that everything can be takes in whatever way anyone want, more or less. The Jacob story might just hold some moral lesson.

But IF the Abrahamic religions are correct:

A) God really has done a absolutely RUBBISH work of explaining to us humans what he wants from us.

B) Not even the people who agree with the basic premise of the Abrahamic god, can agree on any specifics.





Nah, I still can only see the Abrahamic religions as man-made... To much point to it being so, to little show any real reason as to why it would be "the real deal".


You are of course entitled to your own opinion...

However, the ONLY thing you have brought forward here is covered by the "God of the gaps" argument... Just because we don't KNOW what caused certain things, gives us no reason to believe it was your specific idea of a godlike being who did it.




So meh

[Paltmull]

Ah, the good old Kalam argument! I'm an atheist, but I must confess that due to some sort of intellectual masochism I really enjoy watching William Lane Craig's debates and become incredibly frustrated by how he always seems to win. He is really a great debater.

Anyway, what does it even mean for something to be immaterial? For me, it's hard to grasp why 'immaterial' wouldn't simply be synonymous with 'nonexistent'.

[HopAlongBunny]

Dress it up anyway you want, it is still a faith based argument.
Cosmology may sound outlandish to some, but at least it is comprehensible and adheres to what we do know.
We don't need to reach for a "God" to explain how we (might) have got here; as always the "why" eludes us, perhaps because there is no "why".