Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Caused God?

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 2:04:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God, by definition, does not need a cause. I will gladly argue the KCA, but "What Caused God?" is not an adequate counterargument.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 2:34:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
God, by definition, does not need a cause. I will gladly argue the KCA, but "What Caused God?" is not an adequate counterargument.



I have a great video for explaining why God exists.

There are several problems with the video. Just because God could not have a cause does not mean he does not need a cause. Any being of high intelligence and power is complex and is an example of specified complexity.

Being eternal is not a sufficient explanation of an organism that has specified complexity because all instances of specified complexity need a mechanism geared for creating this specified complexity. So all things that contain specified complexity had to have a cause.

Since God by definition could not have been caused, yet he needs to be caused to exist, therefore God, or at least Craig's conception of God, cannot exist.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 3:24:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:34:39 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
God, by definition, does not need a cause. I will gladly argue the KCA, but "What Caused God?" is not an adequate counterargument.



I have a great video for explaining why God exists.



There are several problems with the video. Just because God could not have a cause does not mean he does not need a cause. Any being of high intelligence and power is complex and is an example of specified complexity.

Being eternal is not a sufficient explanation of an organism that has specified complexity because all instances of specified complexity need a mechanism geared for creating this specified complexity. So all things that contain specified complexity had to have a cause.

Since God by definition could not have been caused, yet he needs to be caused to exist, therefore God, or at least Craig's conception of God, cannot exist.

You're applying an observation of the natural world, specified complexity, to God, the ultimate creator. God is above and independent of, laws of the natural world, thus God doesn't need to be created.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:27:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 3:24:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:34:39 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
God, by definition, does not need a cause. I will gladly argue the KCA, but "What Caused God?" is not an adequate counterargument.



I have a great video for explaining why God exists.



There are several problems with the video. Just because God could not have a cause does not mean he does not need a cause. Any being of high intelligence and power is complex and is an example of specified complexity.

Being eternal is not a sufficient explanation of an organism that has specified complexity because all instances of specified complexity need a mechanism geared for creating this specified complexity. So all things that contain specified complexity had to have a cause.

Since God by definition could not have been caused, yet he needs to be caused to exist, therefore God, or at least Craig's conception of God, cannot exist.

You're applying an observation of the natural world, specified complexity, to God, the ultimate creator. God is above and independent of, laws of the natural world, thus God doesn't need to be created.

A complex being requires some mechanism for bringing it about. It cannot come about without such a mechanism. This is not a rule of the natural world, it is a rule of logic.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:47:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No rules apply to God.

Thus God must exist.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:51:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What caused the uncaused cause? Who designed the designer? What necessitated the necessary being?

Come at me you religious tards.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:27:19 PM, Dan4reason wrote:

A complex being requires some mechanism for bringing it about. It cannot come about without such a mechanism. This is not a rule of the natural world, it is a rule of logic.

God did not "come about", He has always existed.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:10:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:51:45 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
What caused the uncaused cause? Who designed the designer? What necessitated the necessary being?

Come at me you religious tards.

Made this joke already
http://www.debate.org...

Get out.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:25:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 5:10:14 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:51:45 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
What caused the uncaused cause? Who designed the designer? What necessitated the necessary being?

Come at me you religious tards.

Made this joke already
http://www.debate.org...

Get out.

Ey, it's slightly updated.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:28:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:34:39 PM, Dan4reason wrote:


This is the most hilarious video poking fun at christianity I think I've ever seen.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:37:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 5:03:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:27:19 PM, Dan4reason wrote:

A complex being requires some mechanism for bringing it about. It cannot come about without such a mechanism. This is not a rule of the natural world, it is a rule of logic.

God did not "come about", He has always existed.

This causation rule applies to complex beings. Complex beings must have come about because of their complexity. Since God by Craig's definition is eternal, then his God cannot exist since all complex beings require a cause.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point. If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

The universe began at a finite moment (the big bang). God is timeless.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 8:56:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point.

If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

God's complexity means that he must have a beginning. This means that God is not timeless.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 8:57:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 8:44:58 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's turtles all the way down.

Damn, I was thinking just that but you beat me to it =/
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 9:28:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 5:37:17 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 5:03:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:27:19 PM, Dan4reason wrote:

A complex being requires some mechanism for bringing it about. It cannot come about without such a mechanism. This is not a rule of the natural world, it is a rule of logic.

God did not "come about", He has always existed.

This causation rule applies to complex beings. Complex beings must have come about because of their complexity. Since God by Craig's definition is eternal, then his God cannot exist since all complex beings require a cause.

The discussion is about a transcendent reality which is postulated to be prior to the existence of nature. When nature does not exist yet, principles can"t exist either, so it is incoherent to say whether that transcendent reality is simple or complex. It is illogical to try to apply the causation rule to a necessarily prior transcendent reality.

The God postulate is that consciousness can exist without physical structure, its virtue lies in the theoretical elegance and simplicity of just two principles, necessity and value.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 9:34:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:34:39 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
God, by definition, does not need a cause. I will gladly argue the KCA, but "What Caused God?" is not an adequate counterargument.



I have a great video for explaining why God exists.



There are several problems with the video. Just because God could not have a cause does not mean he does not need a cause. Any being of high intelligence and power is complex and is an example of specified complexity.

Being eternal is not a sufficient explanation of an organism that has specified complexity because all instances of specified complexity need a mechanism geared for creating this specified complexity. So all things that contain specified complexity had to have a cause.

Since God by definition could not have been caused, yet he needs to be caused to exist, therefore God, or at least Craig's conception of God, cannot exist.

Your entire post here is a strawman argument. Look up "divine simplicity" on William Lane Craig's website, which he defends. It has also been defended by many theologians, going back at least to Thomas Aquinas. God is not complex, he is simple (because he has no physical parts, and he has no potentialities -- he is all actuality).
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 9:46:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 9:34:03 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:34:39 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
God, by definition, does not need a cause. I will gladly argue the KCA, but "What Caused God?" is not an adequate counterargument.



I have a great video for explaining why God exists.



There are several problems with the video. Just because God could not have a cause does not mean he does not need a cause. Any being of high intelligence and power is complex and is an example of specified complexity.

Being eternal is not a sufficient explanation of an organism that has specified complexity because all instances of specified complexity need a mechanism geared for creating this specified complexity. So all things that contain specified complexity had to have a cause.

Since God by definition could not have been caused, yet he needs to be caused to exist, therefore God, or at least Craig's conception of God, cannot exist.

Your entire post here is a strawman argument. Look up "divine simplicity" on William Lane Craig's website, which he defends. It has also been defended by many theologians, going back at least to Thomas Aquinas. God is not complex, he is simple (because he has no physical parts, and he has no potentialities -- he is all actuality).

Actually, I should amend this. After looking it up myself on Craig's website, it seems that Craig doesn't actually defend it. He says the doctrine "has value," but that it is philosophically unacceptable. So I don't know how Craig would respond to that charge. However, divine simplicity has been supported by many Christian philosophers and theologians. I think Aquinas would be a good place to go to understand it.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:19:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 8:56:43 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point.



If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

God's complexity means that he must have a beginning. This means that God is not timeless.

Not at all. Nothing about his complexity suggests that. By definition, God does not have a cause. An entity that has always existed does not have a cause.
smilee
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:42:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 8:56:43 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point.



If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

God's complexity means that he must have a beginning. This means that God is not timeless.

Just because something is complex, does not always imply that it must have a beginning. Natural laws do not necessarily apply to God.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:48:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 9:28:15 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/10/2013 5:37:17 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 5:03:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:27:19 PM, Dan4reason wrote:

A complex being requires some mechanism for bringing it about. It cannot come about without such a mechanism. This is not a rule of the natural world, it is a rule of logic.

God did not "come about", He has always existed.

This causation rule applies to complex beings. Complex beings must have come about because of their complexity. Since God by Craig's definition is eternal, then his God cannot exist since all complex beings require a cause.

The discussion is about a transcendent reality which is postulated to be prior to the existence of nature. When nature does not exist yet, principles can"t exist either, so it is incoherent to say whether that transcendent reality is simple or complex. It is illogical to try to apply the causation rule to a necessarily prior transcendent reality.

The God postulate is that consciousness can exist without physical structure, its virtue lies in the theoretical elegance and simplicity of just two principles, necessity and value.

What you seem to be assuming is that simplicity and complexity are confined to nature. How do you know that? What exactly is your definition of nature anyway?

Also, just because something has no physical structure does not mean it has no structure at all.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:02:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 9:34:03 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:34:39 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
God, by definition, does not need a cause. I will gladly argue the KCA, but "What Caused God?" is not an adequate counterargument.



I have a great video for explaining why God exists.



There are several problems with the video. Just because God could not have a cause does not mean he does not need a cause. Any being of high intelligence and power is complex and is an example of specified complexity.

Being eternal is not a sufficient explanation of an organism that has specified complexity because all instances of specified complexity need a mechanism geared for creating this specified complexity. So all things that contain specified complexity had to have a cause.

Since God by definition could not have been caused, yet he needs to be caused to exist, therefore God, or at least Craig's conception of God, cannot exist.

Your entire post here is a strawman argument. Look up "divine simplicity" on William Lane Craig's website, which he defends. It has also been defended by many theologians, going back at least to Thomas Aquinas. God is not complex, he is simple (because he has no physical parts, and he has no potentialities -- he is all actuality).

This argument assumes that because one has no physical parts, therefore one has no parts. You seem to be assuming that having parts is something only matter can have.

In fact we know that space-time can be bent in interesting ways. For example, black holes, and wormholes. So even space-time can display primitive levels of complexity. Electric fields can display primitive complexity with different electrical fields and different kinds of electrical currents. The point I am making here is that complexity and having parts is not confined to matter.

God would need non-matter parts to be able to be omnipotent. For example, how would God be able to create the universe out of nothing? Doing something like that requires a series of specific events that spawn a universe. For God to be able to do this he needs to be able to directly produce specific events that spawn a universe. He needs parts to be able to do this kind of complex manipulation.

One idea is that God has one big part that can do everything. While this is potentially true, it makes little sense since God has a large range of various abilities. It is more likely that there are many parts at his disposal.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:07:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:19:03 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:56:43 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point.



If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

God's complexity means that he must have a beginning. This means that God is not timeless.


Not at all. Nothing about his complexity suggests that. By definition, God does not have a cause. An entity that has always existed does not have a cause.

If something demonstrates specified complexity, then a specified process is needed to generate that complexity. Complex system don't just exist without some mechanism for creating them.

For example what if we found a indestructible watch in space? This hints at the idea that some specified process created that watch which is most likely a designer. It is silly to think that this watch just existed forever, or came about by a random shuffling of atoms.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:08:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:42:40 PM, smilee wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:56:43 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point.



If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

God's complexity means that he must have a beginning. This means that God is not timeless.

Just because something is complex, does not always imply that it must have a beginning. Natural laws do not necessarily apply to God.

This is not a natural law, this is a law of logic. Plus, what exactly is your definition of nature?
smilee
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:42:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:08:11 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:42:40 PM, smilee wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:56:43 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point.



If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

God's complexity means that he must have a beginning. This means that God is not timeless.

Just because something is complex, does not always imply that it must have a beginning. Natural laws do not necessarily apply to God.

This is not a natural law, this is a law of logic. Plus, what exactly is your definition of nature?

I define natural laws by the laws that we (humans) abide by. As in, anything that exists has to have a cause. But whether or not it is natural or logic, God is not limited by time and all other restrictions that confine us because He is the creator of those things.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:49:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:42:05 AM, smilee wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:08:11 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:42:40 PM, smilee wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:56:43 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point.



If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

God's complexity means that he must have a beginning. This means that God is not timeless.

Just because something is complex, does not always imply that it must have a beginning. Natural laws do not necessarily apply to God.

This is not a natural law, this is a law of logic. Plus, what exactly is your definition of nature?



I define natural laws by the laws that we (humans) abide by. As in, anything that exists has to have a cause. But whether or not it is natural or logic, God is not limited by time and all other restrictions that confine us because He is the creator of those things.

I assume you must be convinced, then, by even the elementary version of the cosmological argument (in regards to concluding the existence of a deity without resorting to special pleading):

(1) Everything that exists had a cause.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) The universe had a cause.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:57:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:49:36 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:42:05 AM, smilee wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:08:11 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:42:40 PM, smilee wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:56:43 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point.



If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

God's complexity means that he must have a beginning. This means that God is not timeless.

Just because something is complex, does not always imply that it must have a beginning. Natural laws do not necessarily apply to God.

This is not a natural law, this is a law of logic. Plus, what exactly is your definition of nature?



I define natural laws by the laws that we (humans) abide by. As in, anything that exists has to have a cause. But whether or not it is natural or logic, God is not limited by time and all other restrictions that confine us because He is the creator of those things.

I assume you must be convinced, then, by even the elementary version of the cosmological argument (in regards to concluding the existence of a deity without resorting to special pleading):

(1) Everything that exists had a cause.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) The universe had a cause.

No matter what you propose as the cause, that cause must be outside the universe, and by definition it would then be considered a supernatural entity. So how is it special pleading to postulate God as that supernatural entity??
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:00:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
God, by definition, does not need a cause. I will gladly argue the KCA, but "What Caused God?" is not an adequate counterargument.

This is getting a little boring. Theists are recycling the same arguments over again...

So, you define god in a way that you don't have to account for anything that could disprove its existence and give it attributes such that it must exist.

I'd be very interested to hear a theist try to prove the existence of god as per the standard definition.

Meriam Webster's defines god as "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe."

Dictionary.com defines god as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe"

Google defines it as "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority"

Oxford dictionary agrees with google and Meriam Webster and further adds "an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god."

So, in summary, god is something that supposedly rules the universe and also created it. The big bang is not god because the big bang does not rule the universe. It is also a phenomena, not a being.

So, prove that a ruler of the universe exists and that its creator is a being.

I am getting really tired of theists defining god as essentially a logical tautology that is required to exist and giving a couple of logical "inferences" which prove the initial assumption.
smilee
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:00:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:57:06 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:49:36 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:42:05 AM, smilee wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:08:11 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:42:40 PM, smilee wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:56:43 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/10/2013 8:44:30 PM, BigRat wrote:
In order for something to need a cause, it had to not exist at some point.



If a being is beyond time or has always existed, there is no cause necessary.

God's complexity means that he must have a beginning. This means that God is not timeless.

Just because something is complex, does not always imply that it must have a beginning. Natural laws do not necessarily apply to God.

This is not a natural law, this is a law of logic. Plus, what exactly is your definition of nature?



I define natural laws by the laws that we (humans) abide by. As in, anything that exists has to have a cause. But whether or not it is natural or logic, God is not limited by time and all other restrictions that confine us because He is the creator of those things.

I assume you must be convinced, then, by even the elementary version of the cosmological argument (in regards to concluding the existence of a deity without resorting to special pleading):

(1) Everything that exists had a cause.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) The universe had a cause.

No matter what you propose as the cause, that cause must be outside the universe, and by definition it would then be considered a supernatural entity. So how is it special pleading to postulate God as that supernatural entity??

That is true. I believe that everything in the universe has a cause. Are you alluding that everything does not have a cause?

Logically, if everything has a cause, then we know that everything originated from a supernatural entity as medicc0506 stated very well. This brings us back to the original topic, "What caused God?". Which has been discussed previously.

However, if there is no cause for existence, as many non Christians believe, then everything will have happened by chance.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 6:03:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 1:00:21 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:04:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
God, by definition, does not need a cause. I will gladly argue the KCA, but "What Caused God?" is not an adequate counterargument.

This is getting a little boring. Theists are recycling the same arguments over again...

So, you define god in a way that you don't have to account for anything that could disprove its existence and give it attributes such that it must exist.

I'd be very interested to hear a theist try to prove the existence of god as per the standard definition.

Meriam Webster's defines god as "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe."

Dictionary.com defines god as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe"

Google defines it as "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority"

Oxford dictionary agrees with google and Meriam Webster and further adds "an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god."

So, in summary, god is something that supposedly rules the universe and also created it. The big bang is not god because the big bang does not rule the universe. It is also a phenomena, not a being.

So, prove that a ruler of the universe exists and that its creator is a being.

I am getting really tired of theists defining god as essentially a logical tautology that is required to exist and giving a couple of logical "inferences" which prove the initial assumption.

What we are saying is that the existence of an eternal, intelligent, and all-powerful Being is logically necessary for the existence of the universe. You may be tired of this, but that does not make it any less true.