By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WolfpackN64 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Hence the contradiction I stated to begin with.  You start with a premise that everything caused and then end with a being that started it all and yet is somehow not part of everything to being with.  So again..."everything" requires a cause...oh, except God.  If God is not part of "everything" don't say "everything".

Again, no contradiction. But I think that's a language mistake. When I sais "everything is caused", I mean it in the sense of cause and effect, as in moved (and potentially brought in to being).

How did you establish the uncaused thing is a "being".  As opposed to say quantum particles which do arise with seemingly no cause.  

How did you rule out the possibility of multiple uncaused things?  Granted you only need one to start off a chain, but if one could exist, it stands to reason that more than one can exist.  Things are either possible or impossible.  Not possible but just once.  

How did you come to the conclusion that this necessary being is God?  You used a capital G so I'm assuming you mean Yahweh Jehovah or whatever you call the Judeo-Christian god.  And this god has tons of characteristics that are entirely unnecessary, and perhaps unlikely, for a first cause.  So how did you get there?

How does a being exist without being caused?  Saying it's necessary doesn't solve this problem.  There has to be some kind of explanation for its existence for it to be justified.  If you are saying its possible, then you have to establish some kind of mechanism or process, and why it could only apply to one thing at one time?

So, yeah.  The argument is completely flawed head to toe.