I was discussing something in another thread and was struck with this thought, and I'd like to see what other people think of it. Arriving at a precise and logically useful definition of God is extremely difficult, but a worthy endeavor. So I pose this definition of God to you:
Whereas the Universe is defined as the entirety of knowable existance,
God is everything that exists that is not the Universe.
How well does this definition hold up to logical scrutiny and how useful might it be in a logical discussion?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Whereas the Universe is defined as the entirety of knowable existance,
God is everything that exists that is not the Universe.
If we know about God, how is he not knowable? I would say that virtually all beliefs, even atheistic, disagree with your definition, so it is utterly useless. Much is unknown about God, but I would say that most people realize that saying that something is completely unknowable and embodies everything unknowable is naive.
EDIT: my own borad definition is the just, supreme being that is the source of all substance and thought in reality as we know it.
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
As an atheist, my definition is largely similar to PlatedOrnithopter's, just in the subjunctive mood. That is, at least, my definition of the vaguely Judeo-Christian God of most monotheistic faiths. (And yes, I do categorize the God of modern Christianity as "vaguely Judeo-Christian.") I entertain the philosophical possibility of other types of God, who are not necessarily just, supreme, or the source of all or any substance and thought in reality as we know it. Odin, for example, is only debatably just, hardly supreme in the same sense as YHWH*, and had help from his brothers in creating the universe, of which he was not even the source - only the shaper.
So, as I see a God like this as at least as much a possibility as the Judeo-Christian Creator, I suppose it would have to be encompassed by my definition. As would every other worshipable being mankind has come up with. How does this sound: An entity, similar enough to humans to have a psyche, who acts on human life and existence in a scientifically inexplicable and at best subtle fashion.
*:
He dies at the end.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think it's really possible to define God in a way that could satisfy many different groups of people, even just in the abstract. Of course, you might be able to find a definition that is equally unstaisfactory to everyone.
I, for example, could not be satisfied with any definition of God that did not at least include the fact that He created the universe, and whose existence is not dependant on it. Thus, we would end up arguing over the meaning of the word universe.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
I, for example, could not be satisfied with any definition of God that did not at least include the fact that He created the universe, and whose existence is not dependant on it. Thus, we would end up arguing over the meaning of the word universe.
We do? I rather expected us to argue over the meaning of the word God.
Out of curiosity, why is creation so important? Is a distant watchmaker-God better to you than one who looks out for us in every way we learned in Sunday school, but didn't happen to initiate it all?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, of course the argument over the word God would be the whole point; I was just pointing out that the definition could never really be satisfactory because even the words we use to define the word would have debatable meanings.
As to your other question, creation is of ultimate import. If God did not create the universe, and is separate from it, then the promises made to mankind in the Bible mean very little. If God is all-powerful only within the context of the universe, then he's merely a being who's mastered a lot of physics, no matter how benevolent he is. How can such a being guarantee an afterlife or anything else the Bible promises?
I do recognize that we aren't strictly speaking of the Abrahamic God, here, but any god without this necessary attribute would be mutually exclusive with the God I believe in.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
They yust found th last page of the bible, it reads: everything else in this book is lie.
it is very naive to asume that there is a God, lot's of culture's have different gods, some even have more than one, and they all believe that their gods are the real ones and the other peoples gods are not real.
Thus i find it save to conclude that there is no real God.
but i think if one should describe the meaning of the word God, it would be somehing in the sentence of : allmighty, eternal,all knowing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to SpiderBoy4 @ High-Light Studio's for the awesome banner
“I once had an entire race killed just to listen to the rattling of their dried bones as I waded through them.” —Volrath
They yust found th last page of the bible, it reads: everything else in this book is lie.
Huh? Why would you say this? To inflame?
Quote from Volrath »
it is very naive to asume that there is a God, lot's of culture's have different gods, some even have more than one, and they all believe that their gods are the real ones and the other peoples gods are not real.
Thus i find it save to conclude that there is no real God.
You're playing Clue, and decide to end the game early. Everyone gets one chance to make a prediction. Each player thinks a different character committed the murder: one accuses Mr. Green, another believes it's Colonel Mustard, etc. "Thus, I find it safe to conclude that there are no character cards inside the envelope." Right?
Now, it real life, it's possible that there's no one 'in the envelope.' But such a claim does not logically follow from disputes about who's 'in it.'
Interesting. Would it be fair to say that, in the opinion of those posting here, that no definition of God is acceptable unless it incorporates personal beliefs?
PlatedOrnithopter: the existence of God as anything more than a concept is unknowable. We don't "know about God", we have a belief/idea/concept about God. To "know" is to have certainty, and to have certainty is to have proof.
My intention is not to pose a definition which all people and all belief systems could accept as complete. My purpose is to 1.) remove all the attributes of God that people and belief systems do disagree on and be left with a minimum of one attribute that they all can agree on; and 2.) to arrive at a definition which, due to mutual agreement independant of belief, can be used as a starting point of any discussion regarding the nature of God.
Perhaps, then, I should restate my premise. Rather than posing my above statement as a definition, what if it were simply an attribute? Looking at it that way, that my original "definition" is not a definition but rather one of many possible attributes of God.... is that attribute acceptable regardless of personal belief, does it hold up to logical scrutiny, and does it have value as a universally acceptable foundation for a discussion about God?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Perhaps, then, I should restate my premise. Rather than posing my above statement as a definition, what if it were simply an attribute? Looking at it that way, that my original "definition" is not a definition but rather one of many possible attributes of God.... is that attribute acceptable regardless of personal belief, does it hold up to logical scrutiny, and does it have value as a universally acceptable foundation for a discussion about God?
Supreme
In charge of something.
Source
Everything we are familiar with, in some way, came from it.
Powerful
Can do more than humans.
Mysterious
Is mostly invisible to humans, humans can't grasp it completely.
Revealed
Is sometimes made visible to humans (through miracles, divine providence, etc.), gives "hints" of its qualities.
Spiritual
Made of something different or more than mere physical components, if any physical components at all.
To "know" is to have certainty, and to have certainty is to have proof.
Not true. I know all sorts of stuff that I could never prove. I've witnessed thousands of actions of other people which I could not prove took place, even though I know for sure that they happened. I know my opinions and thoughts on all sorts of subjects, but I could never prove that I believed them or thought them. I know the personal sensations that come from God and confirm that he is real, but I cannot prove that either.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
I know the personal sensations that come from God and confirm that he is real, but I cannot prove that either.
Oh no! You broke the first rule of Christian apologism: Don't explain god in terms of personal feeling or sensation; it draws in the psychoanalysts, hippie spiritualists,"don't trust your senses" 1984 groupies and the "god-gene" crowd like a flailing whale attracts sharks!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
The definition of God pretty much depends on which belief system you adhere to.
The Abrahamic religions are generally credited with the omniscient and omnipotent (and in christianity, omnibenevolent) description. However, this doesn't cover everyone.
It also fails, at least superficially, to hold up to logical scrutiny. "Can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it" and its variations are examples. The existence of evil, omiscience+omnibenevolence=/=free will, etc.
lots of cultures have different gods... and they all believe their gods are the real ones... thus I find it save to conclude that there is no real god
person A: "My God is real."
person B: "No, mine is."
person C to Z: "No, mine is.".
you: "Since you disagree, therefore there is no God."
Oh no! You broke the first rule of Christian apologism: Don't explain god in terms of personal feeling or sensation; it draws in the psychoanalysts, hippie spiritualists,"don't trust your senses" 1984 groupies and the "god-gene" crowd like a flailing whale attracts sharks!
Christian apology is only useful to define the truth and reasonability of Christianity. The only way to prove the truth of Christianity is through personal experience. The psychoanalysts and all the rest of them have proven that beyond question.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Whereas the Universe is defined as the entirety of knowable existance,
God is everything that exists that is not the Universe.
Substitutinh definition 1 into definition 2, we get
God is everything that exists that is not [the entirety of knowable existence]
So, God is something unknowable which exists
God + universe = all things which exist, knowable or not
NOT(God + Universe) = all things which don't exist
Interesting, interesting.
If you define God as unknowable (which may be a paradox itself), then this is useless in a logical discussion. You cannot introduce God because you cannot speak of Him beyond this definition. He is unknowable.
@BenGreen: By that most recent account, you are a Panentheist. You believe that everything is in God. This contrasts with Pantheism, which is to say that God is in each and every thing.
Just so you know.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
If you define God as unknowable (which may be a paradox itself), then this is useless in a logical discussion. You cannot introduce God because you cannot speak of Him beyond this definition. He is unknowable.
So you feel that no valid argument can be derived from this premise?
If this is true, is there such a thing as a useful definition of God? Doesn't anything beyond the attributes I list amount to nothing more than personal belief?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
So you feel that no valid argument can be derived from this premise?
If this is true, is there such a thing as a useful definition of God? Doesn't anything beyond the attributes I list amount to nothing more than personal belief?
I was just expressing doubt. You asked for what might be wrong with this definition and I attempted to indicate what I thought might be something you don't want.
I feel that it would be difficult to ever speak of God using the premise because you have begun with the assumption that He is unknowable.
Being unknowable, you cannot speak of Him with any certainty, or validity.
If you cannot be valid or certain when speaking of the central subject matter, your discussion cannot progress very much.
You could define God usefully in a context where He is not the central issue. For example, I recently wrote an essay about moral values, and I was arguing that they are subjective.
I defined God's possible properties and explained how my thesis applied in each and every one of those possible configurations of God.
But if you have to speak of God, then you must end with a definition of Him, not begin with one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Whereas the Universe is defined as the entirety of knowable existance,
God is everything that exists that is not the Universe.
So, you mean God is the entirety of unknowable existence?
This definition of god doesn't seem to tell you very much about god, and I don't see how you can come to any useful conclusions about god from it. You don't know and, by definition, can't know, if this God is omnipotent, good, the creator, etc. or anything that would normally be called God.
In fact, you can't even know if this God even exists, because it may very well be that all existence is knowable - e.g. the universe is everything. After all, on what basis can you say what the entirety of unknowable existence is? It could very well be nothing.
Quote from Kraj »
My intention is not to pose a definition which all people and all belief systems could accept as complete. My purpose is to 1.) remove all the attributes of God that people and belief systems do disagree on and be left with a minimum of one attribute that they all can agree on; and 2.) to arrive at a definition which, due to mutual agreement independant of belief, can be used as a starting point of any discussion regarding the nature of God.
But your starting point is also the ending point. God's other attributes and even existence are all unknowable. The end.
There are many, many theists who would not agree with that one attribute (maybe even a majority, I dunno).
Perhaps, then, I should restate my premise. Rather than posing my above statement as a definition, what if it were simply an attribute?
That attribute makes proposing any other attributes a pointless exercise.
Quote from BenGreen »
I believe that God is a synonym for reality.
I find this definition of God to be trivial. What exactly is the point of it?
There are some other definitions of God that I find are more useful and result in much stronger arguments concerning God's existence and nature.
Anselm's ontological argument - The being than which nothing greater can be conceived... or the greatest conceivable being. However you wanna word it.
Argument from causation - The uncaused first cause.
Argument from contingency - The necessary being on which all contingent beings depend.
Teleological argument - The (usually assumed to be intelligent) designer of the universe
Traditional omnimax God - an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (all good) being
However, as an atheist, obviously I am not convinced by any of them. And I personally wouldn't necessarily call all of them god. For example, even if I was convinced that there was an uncaused first cause, I see no reason to call it god.
No, my idea is not a useful one. No further logical conclusions can be drawn from it. This excersize has, however, confirmed that there is no attribute of God that can be universally agreed upon and there is no such thing as a logic argument about God that doesn't start with a mutually agreed-upon, but arbitrary, definition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
1. Cause and Effect exists
2. The universe is an effect
> there must be an uncaused cause
And the uncaused cause is what we call 'god.'
That is a kinda clunky formulation of the argument from causation.
This is a formal version of Aquinas's argument from causation:
1. There are things that have causes.
2. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
4. Thus, there must be a first uncaused cause.
5. The uncaused first cause is God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
The main objections to the arguments involve premise 3. But it is also remarked that the argument does not prove that there is a single first cause, or a single uncaused cause.
As I mentioned above, it also seems rather arbitrary to call that God. Maybe some other proof can demonstrate that this uncaused first cause has the properties traditionally associated with God, but this proof alone doesn't really cut it.
To wit, there is no formal proof that everything has a cause except the first uncaused cause.
Well, do note that it's not my argument, as I'm an atheist. I'm merely repeating the argument.
Your objection is the same as the one I mentioned above, that it doesn't prove that there's only one uncaused cause. It could be that there are a multitude of uncaused causes throughout time. You can also restate premise 1 as "All things that we have observed, have been observed to have causes", although that doesn't totally escape that objection. It would be implying that through induction we can show that it is probable that almost all things have causes.
However, that there must be at least one first uncaused cause (there could be several simultaneous first causes, after all) doesn't rely on all other things having causes, but on premise 3, that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
I do not think that premise 3 has been proven, ergo the conclusion hasn't been proven.
Whereas the Universe is defined as the entirety of knowable existance,
God is everything that exists that is not the Universe.
How well does this definition hold up to logical scrutiny and how useful might it be in a logical discussion?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
If we know about God, how is he not knowable? I would say that virtually all beliefs, even atheistic, disagree with your definition, so it is utterly useless. Much is unknown about God, but I would say that most people realize that saying that something is completely unknowable and embodies everything unknowable is naive.
EDIT: my own borad definition is the just, supreme being that is the source of all substance and thought in reality as we know it.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
So, as I see a God like this as at least as much a possibility as the Judeo-Christian Creator, I suppose it would have to be encompassed by my definition. As would every other worshipable being mankind has come up with. How does this sound: An entity, similar enough to humans to have a psyche, who acts on human life and existence in a scientifically inexplicable and at best subtle fashion.
*:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I, for example, could not be satisfied with any definition of God that did not at least include the fact that He created the universe, and whose existence is not dependant on it. Thus, we would end up arguing over the meaning of the word universe.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
We do? I rather expected us to argue over the meaning of the word God.
Out of curiosity, why is creation so important? Is a distant watchmaker-God better to you than one who looks out for us in every way we learned in Sunday school, but didn't happen to initiate it all?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As to your other question, creation is of ultimate import. If God did not create the universe, and is separate from it, then the promises made to mankind in the Bible mean very little. If God is all-powerful only within the context of the universe, then he's merely a being who's mastered a lot of physics, no matter how benevolent he is. How can such a being guarantee an afterlife or anything else the Bible promises?
I do recognize that we aren't strictly speaking of the Abrahamic God, here, but any god without this necessary attribute would be mutually exclusive with the God I believe in.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
it is very naive to asume that there is a God, lot's of culture's have different gods, some even have more than one, and they all believe that their gods are the real ones and the other peoples gods are not real.
Thus i find it save to conclude that there is no real God.
but i think if one should describe the meaning of the word God, it would be somehing in the sentence of : allmighty, eternal,all knowing.
“I once had an entire race killed just to listen to the rattling of their dried bones as I waded through them.”
—Volrath
Huh? Why would you say this? To inflame?
You're playing Clue, and decide to end the game early. Everyone gets one chance to make a prediction. Each player thinks a different character committed the murder: one accuses Mr. Green, another believes it's Colonel Mustard, etc. "Thus, I find it safe to conclude that there are no character cards inside the envelope." Right?
Now, it real life, it's possible that there's no one 'in the envelope.' But such a claim does not logically follow from disputes about who's 'in it.'
PlatedOrnithopter: the existence of God as anything more than a concept is unknowable. We don't "know about God", we have a belief/idea/concept about God. To "know" is to have certainty, and to have certainty is to have proof.
My intention is not to pose a definition which all people and all belief systems could accept as complete. My purpose is to 1.) remove all the attributes of God that people and belief systems do disagree on and be left with a minimum of one attribute that they all can agree on; and 2.) to arrive at a definition which, due to mutual agreement independant of belief, can be used as a starting point of any discussion regarding the nature of God.
Perhaps, then, I should restate my premise. Rather than posing my above statement as a definition, what if it were simply an attribute? Looking at it that way, that my original "definition" is not a definition but rather one of many possible attributes of God.... is that attribute acceptable regardless of personal belief, does it hold up to logical scrutiny, and does it have value as a universally acceptable foundation for a discussion about God?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Supreme
In charge of something.
Source
Everything we are familiar with, in some way, came from it.
Powerful
Can do more than humans.
Mysterious
Is mostly invisible to humans, humans can't grasp it completely.
Revealed
Is sometimes made visible to humans (through miracles, divine providence, etc.), gives "hints" of its qualities.
Spiritual
Made of something different or more than mere physical components, if any physical components at all.
Not true. I know all sorts of stuff that I could never prove. I've witnessed thousands of actions of other people which I could not prove took place, even though I know for sure that they happened. I know my opinions and thoughts on all sorts of subjects, but I could never prove that I believed them or thought them. I know the personal sensations that come from God and confirm that he is real, but I cannot prove that either.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Oh no! You broke the first rule of Christian apologism: Don't explain god in terms of personal feeling or sensation; it draws in the psychoanalysts, hippie spiritualists,"don't trust your senses" 1984 groupies and the "god-gene" crowd like a flailing whale attracts sharks!
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
The Abrahamic religions are generally credited with the omniscient and omnipotent (and in christianity, omnibenevolent) description. However, this doesn't cover everyone.
It also fails, at least superficially, to hold up to logical scrutiny. "Can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it" and its variations are examples. The existence of evil, omiscience+omnibenevolence=/=free will, etc.
person A: "My God is real."
person B: "No, mine is."
person C to Z: "No, mine is.".
you: "Since you disagree, therefore there is no God."
...ok.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Christian apology is only useful to define the truth and reasonability of Christianity. The only way to prove the truth of Christianity is through personal experience. The psychoanalysts and all the rest of them have proven that beyond question.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Substitutinh definition 1 into definition 2, we get
God is everything that exists that is not [the entirety of knowable existence]
So, God is something unknowable which exists
God + universe = all things which exist, knowable or not
NOT(God + Universe) = all things which don't exist
Interesting, interesting.
If you define God as unknowable (which may be a paradox itself), then this is useless in a logical discussion. You cannot introduce God because you cannot speak of Him beyond this definition. He is unknowable.
@BenGreen: By that most recent account, you are a Panentheist. You believe that everything is in God. This contrasts with Pantheism, which is to say that God is in each and every thing.
Just so you know.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
So you feel that no valid argument can be derived from this premise?
If this is true, is there such a thing as a useful definition of God? Doesn't anything beyond the attributes I list amount to nothing more than personal belief?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I was just expressing doubt. You asked for what might be wrong with this definition and I attempted to indicate what I thought might be something you don't want.
I feel that it would be difficult to ever speak of God using the premise because you have begun with the assumption that He is unknowable.
Being unknowable, you cannot speak of Him with any certainty, or validity.
If you cannot be valid or certain when speaking of the central subject matter, your discussion cannot progress very much.
You could define God usefully in a context where He is not the central issue. For example, I recently wrote an essay about moral values, and I was arguing that they are subjective.
I defined God's possible properties and explained how my thesis applied in each and every one of those possible configurations of God.
But if you have to speak of God, then you must end with a definition of Him, not begin with one.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
So, you mean God is the entirety of unknowable existence?
This definition of god doesn't seem to tell you very much about god, and I don't see how you can come to any useful conclusions about god from it. You don't know and, by definition, can't know, if this God is omnipotent, good, the creator, etc. or anything that would normally be called God.
In fact, you can't even know if this God even exists, because it may very well be that all existence is knowable - e.g. the universe is everything. After all, on what basis can you say what the entirety of unknowable existence is? It could very well be nothing.
But your starting point is also the ending point. God's other attributes and even existence are all unknowable. The end.
There are many, many theists who would not agree with that one attribute (maybe even a majority, I dunno).
That attribute makes proposing any other attributes a pointless exercise.
I find this definition of God to be trivial. What exactly is the point of it?
There are some other definitions of God that I find are more useful and result in much stronger arguments concerning God's existence and nature.
Anselm's ontological argument - The being than which nothing greater can be conceived... or the greatest conceivable being. However you wanna word it.
Argument from causation - The uncaused first cause.
Argument from contingency - The necessary being on which all contingent beings depend.
Teleological argument - The (usually assumed to be intelligent) designer of the universe
Traditional omnimax God - an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (all good) being
However, as an atheist, obviously I am not convinced by any of them. And I personally wouldn't necessarily call all of them god. For example, even if I was convinced that there was an uncaused first cause, I see no reason to call it god.
No, my idea is not a useful one. No further logical conclusions can be drawn from it. This excersize has, however, confirmed that there is no attribute of God that can be universally agreed upon and there is no such thing as a logic argument about God that doesn't start with a mutually agreed-upon, but arbitrary, definition.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
1. Cause and Effect exists
2. The universe is an effect
> there must be an uncaused cause
And the uncaused cause is what we call 'god.'
Support this statement.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
That is a kinda clunky formulation of the argument from causation.
This is a formal version of Aquinas's argument from causation:
1. There are things that have causes.
2. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
4. Thus, there must be a first uncaused cause.
5. The uncaused first cause is God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
The main objections to the arguments involve premise 3. But it is also remarked that the argument does not prove that there is a single first cause, or a single uncaused cause.
As I mentioned above, it also seems rather arbitrary to call that God. Maybe some other proof can demonstrate that this uncaused first cause has the properties traditionally associated with God, but this proof alone doesn't really cut it.
Your objection is the same as the one I mentioned above, that it doesn't prove that there's only one uncaused cause. It could be that there are a multitude of uncaused causes throughout time. You can also restate premise 1 as "All things that we have observed, have been observed to have causes", although that doesn't totally escape that objection. It would be implying that through induction we can show that it is probable that almost all things have causes.
However, that there must be at least one first uncaused cause (there could be several simultaneous first causes, after all) doesn't rely on all other things having causes, but on premise 3, that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
I do not think that premise 3 has been proven, ergo the conclusion hasn't been proven.