Does God exist? (8 Viewers)

[Sy123]

Yes but that's attaching a definition to something to prove it.

You're defining God as a being that is uncaused and then saying therefore God doesn't need a cause. Now if someone was to come up with a term such as XYZ and then defined it in such a manner, or if someone defined the Universe or the Big Bang in such a manner, then the same logic would apply.

It's not a proof per se, it's pre-supposing something exists, defining it in a way and then saying therefore it exists.

I know its not a proof, its a clarification of a definition.

If someone shows that there is an uncaused being with a rational argument (who for all intents and purposes we will call God), then to then ask what caused God is simply irrational.

 

[Sy123]

However, Sy raises an important point, and that is the definition of God. God, being by definition an omnipotent being, is therefore not bound by any laws or rules, and is not constrained by logic or science. Simply put, it is impossible to "disprove" God's existence simply because a truly omnipotent being by definition can defy logic.

No theologian in their right mind would say that God can "defy" logic. Not even God can lift a stone that he cannot life, God cannot make 1 + 1 =3, God cannot make that which is round, square, God cannot make a ball that is both in motion and in rest at the same time and in the same respect.

An Omnipotent being is a being who can do all possible things, this is the definition of omnipotence, we can safely ignore anyone who claims that there is a being who can perform the impossible, as such a being would be absurd and exist in no possible worlds.

Therefore the debate is essentially about whether or not logic and science are limited. If they are, then it follows that there must be concepts beyond logic and science in which case the existence of God becomes a far more obvious notion. If however, science and logic are shown to have no clear limits then the question arises as to whether or not a concept beyond logic and science such as God is "necessary".

Arguments around causality have little credence simply because by definition the concept of cause is reliant on time. Cause is essentially about something performing an action that results in something, i.e. it's dependent on some notion of time. Since the universe by definition is all of space and time, then it started at t=0. The question of whether or not something caused it becomes moot simply because you can't cause something if time didn't exist, nor does the notion of a cause exist when time doesn't exist.

Causation is not dependent on time, one can suppose two timeless beings, A and B, A causing B (meaning B is eternally reliant on A), and there is no contradiction in that. Causation simply is the concept of one being being the direct reason for the existence of another. The rest of your statement in this part is reliant on this faulty presupposition.

Furthermore, even if you took the argument that the universe was caused by some form of intelligent design, then what guarantees that such an intelligent design is necessary now or still active? As such any argument that logic and science is limited needs to be based on what is happening now too, why is the notion of God necessary *now*? Are science and logic limited now?

Well clearly to show that this being exists "now" would have to be a result of further arguments

But if one proves the existence of a Necessary being, then the statement "this Necessary being exists" is true whenever and wherever, for to suppose the non-existence of a Necessary being is absurd

 

[Kiraken]

No theologian in their right mind would say that God can "defy" logic. Not even God can lift a stone that he cannot life, God cannot make 1 + 1 =3, God cannot make that which is round, square, God cannot make a ball that is both in motion and in rest at the same time and in the same respect.

An Omnipotent being is a being who can do all possible things, this is the definition of omnipotence, we can safely ignore anyone who claims that there is a being who can perform the impossible, as such a being would be absurd and exist in no possible worlds.



Causation is not dependent on time, one can suppose two timeless beings, A and B, A causing B (meaning B is eternally reliant on A), and there is no contradiction in that. Causation simply is the concept of one being being the direct reason for the existence of another. The rest of your statement in this part is reliant on this faulty presupposition.




Well clearly to show that this being exists "now" would have to be a result of further arguments

But if one proves the existence of a Necessary being, then the statement "this Necessary being exists" is true whenever and wherever, for to suppose the non-existence of a Necessary being is absurd

"An omnipotent being is one that can do all possible things"

Based on what definition? Omnipotence is by definition *unlimited* power

And yes u can suppose that but that one exception cannot be applied to the creation of the universe and the concept of God creating the universe because by that argument, God and the Big Bang came into being at the same time, which is nonsensical, because your argument concerns God *creating* the Universe

 

[Kiraken]

I know its not a proof, its a clarification of a definition.

If someone shows that there is an uncaused being with a rational argument (who for all intents and purposes we will call God), then to then ask what caused God is simply irrational.

Yes but that means you have to prove that such a being is uncaused anyway in your rational argument

 

[Sy123]

"An omnipotent being is one that can do all possible things"

Based on what definition? Omnipotence is by definition *unlimited* power

And yes u can suppose that but that one exception cannot be applied to the creation of the universe and the concept of God creating the universe because by that argument, God and the Big Bang came into being at the same time, which is nonsensical, because your argument concerns God *creating* the Universe

That is the layman's definition, it is the consensus of all theologians, across pretty much every religion, with only very few exceptions, that omnipotence only refers to that which is possible. If you want to criticise those people (like Decartes iirc) who believed that God can perform the impossible (such as making 1 + 1 =3, or creating a being in motion and rest in the same time and respect), then I will join you in criticizing them out for taking such an absurd view of God.

I do not suppose that God came into being with the Universe, I do not even suppose that God enters time at all. God is timeless with or without creation, the only thing that comes into being is the Universe, (and we can say that the relation of God to the Universe comes into being, but such a relation does not have any real existence in the same way that objects and substances have existence).

Yes but that means you have to prove that such a being is uncaused anyway in your rational argument

Right, and I don't deny that, what is your point?

 

[Kiraken]

That is the layman's definition, it is the consensus of all theologians, across pretty much every religion, with only very few exceptions, that omnipotence only refers to that which is possible. If you want to criticise those people (like Decartes iirc) who believed that God can perform the impossible (such as making 1 + 1 =3, or creating a being in motion and rest in the same time and respect), then I will join you in criticizing them out for taking such an absurd view of God.

I do not suppose that God came into being with the Universe, I do not even suppose that God enters time at all. God is timeless with or without creation, the only thing that comes into being is the Universe, (and we can say that the relation of God to the Universe comes into being, but such a relation does not have any real existence in the same way that objects and substances have existence).



Right, and I don't deny that, what is your point?

but that's a view among "theologians" not necessarily philosophers as a whole, nor is it a view based on the actual definition of what the word omnipotent means. Where is it stated that omnipotence isn't unlimited power?

Yes but that's why your example about causality not being dependent on time is moot, the *one* exception where it isn't doesn't apply to your situation unless you purport that God and the universe were created at the same time.

My point is that you can't call people out for questioning "what caused God?" until you have actually proven that whatever created the universe does not need it's own cause

 

[Sy123]

but that's a view among "theologians" not necessarily philosophers as a whole, nor is it a view based on the actual definition of what the word omnipotent means. Where is it stated that omnipotence isn't unlimited power?

It is the view among most philosophers as well, and in fact philosophers would be more likely to hold my view of omnipotence since some theologians can in fact be anti-rationalist and would take the position you take. I don't know why you are pressing this point, it is quite clear that no one really holds your view of omnipotence. The universal statement of omnipotence "the power to do all things", is true, in that "things" in this case refers to things that are actually possible to do, being able to do that which is impossible (i.e. that which cannot be done) is a violation of the most basic rule of logic.

Yes but that's why your example about causality not being dependent on time is moot, the *one* exception where it isn't doesn't apply to your situation unless you purport that God and the universe were created at the same time.

How is that the case? The only reason I gave an example was to show that there is no necessary link between causation and temporality. If you want to show that it is absurd to say that God causes the Universe, and that the Universe begins to exist where the Universe includes time, then the burden of proof is on you to show that such causation is impossible.

My point is that you can't call people out for questioning "what caused God?" until you have actually proven that whatever created the universe does not need it's own cause

It depends on the context of the question, clearly. If some moron for instance gave the following argument (that no one in the history of philosophy has ever made)

1. Everything has a cause
2. The universe exists
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
4. THat cause is God

Then I will join you in showing that this argument is special pleading for God, but the objection "What caused God" is not a good objection for any serious cosmological argument, it is not good for any of the Thomist arguments, not Leibniz's argument, not Avicenna's, not even al-Ghazali's. So really, unless you are trying to refute Pastor Bob or Mullah Ahmed from the local church/mosque, then I don't see why anyone should give credence to the question "What caused God".

 

[Kiraken]

It is the view among most philosophers as well, and in fact philosophers would be more likely to hold my view of omnipotence since some theologians can in fact be anti-rationalist and would take the position you take. I don't know why you are pressing this point, it is quite clear that no one really holds your view of omnipotence. The universal statement of omnipotence "the power to do all things", is true, in that "things" in this case refers to things that are actually possible to do, being able to do that which is impossible (i.e. that which cannot be done) is a violation of the most basic rule of logic.



How is that the case? The only reason I gave an example was to show that there is no necessary link between causation and temporality. If you want to show that it is absurd to say that God causes the Universe, and that the Universe begins to exist where the Universe includes time, then the burden of proof is on you to show that such causation is impossible.



It depends on the context of the question, clearly. If some moron for instance gave the following argument (that no one in the history of philosophy has ever made)

1. Everything has a cause
2. The universe exists
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
4. THat cause is God

Then I will join you in showing that this argument is special pleading for God, but the objection "What caused God" is not a good objection for any serious cosmological argument, it is not good for any of the Thomist arguments, not Leibniz's argument, not Avicenna's, not even al-Ghazali's. So really, unless you are trying to refute Pastor Bob or Mullah Ahmed from the local church/mosque, then I don't see why anyone should give credence to the question "What caused God".

Provide me the source showing that that is the most used definition of omnipotence

Are you claiming btw that the actions of God are limited by logic? They either are or they are not.

It's the case because the fact is causation is linked to the notion of time unless you take the case where they both happen simultaneously and are dependent upon one another, which isn't the case when you're talking about concepts such as "what created the Universe". Any argument stating that God caused the Universe is fallacious simply because the Universe by definition doesn't need a cause because time didn't exist before the Universe and therefore the concept of "before" the Universe is not necessary.

And lol practically every first cause argument is essentially an elaboration of those 4 points

 

[Sy123]

Provide me the source showing that that is the most used definition of omnipotence

Are you claiming btw that the actions of God are limited by logic? They either are or they are not.

I already showed you why your understanding of omnipotence is silly and incoherent. I also showed how the statements "God has power over all things" and "God's power is unlimited" are also coherent, since these impossibilities, such as a square-circle or a married-bachelor are merely ideas and can never be concrete things, they are absurdities constructed with our broad grammar.

So obviously God's actions can never result in any illogical outcomes, but this isn't due to any limit, since a limit presupposes that there is something that is possible that is not within God's grasp. But there is nothing that is possible that is without having God's power attach to it, as God is omnipotent.

If you're looking for some statistical analysis on how philosophers have used the definition of omnipotence then you will not find any

It's the case because the fact is causation is linked to the notion of time unless you take the case where they both happen simultaneously and are dependent upon one another, which isn't the case when you're talking about concepts such as "what created the Universe". Any argument stating that God caused the Universe is fallacious simply because the Universe by definition doesn't need a cause because time didn't exist before the Universe and therefore the concept of "before" the Universe is not necessary.

This is confused. I have already shown that there is no necessary connection between causality and temporality, so one cannot say that it is impossible for the Universe to be caused just because there is no "before" the Universe. Obviously God is not before the Universe, nor is God after the Universe, one can only apply the terms "before" and "after" in an analogous sense.

Your argument as it stands is a non-sequitur, and the only way for it to be valid is to include the premise, "The concept of a before is necessary for causation". However such a premise is dubious and requires proof.

And lol practically every first cause argument is essentially an elaboration of those 4 points

This statement betrays your ignorance of any kind of cosmological argument

 

[dan964]

Yes. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not true.

I know (the same logic applies for God as well)

I am more so implying that 'the statement you are replying to' reduces everything in life to something that is indeed pointless.

It is interesting how we can assume certain things to be true, but assume also (from science) that certain things either aren't true, or if they were true, it would be inconsistently true. (This argument applies both ways)

 

[dan964]

That is the layman's definition, it is the consensus of all theologians, across pretty much every religion, with only very few exceptions, that omnipotence only refers to that which is possible. If you want to criticise those people (like Decartes iirc) who believed that God can perform the impossible (such as making 1 + 1 =3, or creating a being in motion and rest in the same time and respect), then I will join you in criticizing them out for taking such an absurd view of God.

I do not suppose that God came into being with the Universe, I do not even suppose that God enters time at all. God is timeless with or without creation, the only thing that comes into being is the Universe, (and we can say that the relation of God to the Universe comes into being, but such a relation does not have any real existence in the same way that objects and substances have existence).
Right, and I don't deny that, what is your point?

1. Typically God is defined in a way, rejects pantheism (that God is the universe) or panentheism (that God is inseparably bound to his creation)
2. Wrt (1), God is defined as distinct from creation (transcendence ) yet is intimately involved with his creation (called immanence, otherwise this whole thread would be a bit pointless)

*defined is probably the wrong word as we don't define God.

 

[Kiraken]

I already showed you why your understanding of omnipotence is silly and incoherent. I also showed how the statements "God has power over all things" and "God's power is unlimited" are also coherent, since these impossibilities, such as a square-circle or a married-bachelor are merely ideas and can never be concrete things, they are absurdities constructed with our broad grammar.

So obviously God's actions can never result in any illogical outcomes, but this isn't due to any limit, since a limit presupposes that there is something that is possible that is not within God's grasp. But there is nothing that is possible that is without having God's power attach to it, as God is omnipotent.

If you're looking for some statistical analysis on how philosophers have used the definition of omnipotence then you will not find any



This is confused. I have already shown that there is no necessary connection between causality and temporality, so one cannot say that it is impossible for the Universe to be caused just because there is no "before" the Universe. Obviously God is not before the Universe, nor is God after the Universe, one can only apply the terms "before" and "after" in an analogous sense.

Your argument as it stands is a non-sequitur, and the only way for it to be valid is to include the premise, "The concept of a before is necessary for causation". However such a premise is dubious and requires proof.



This statement betrays your ignorance of any kind of cosmological argument

No you didn't actually, in fact it's common knowledge that the only two solutions to the omnipotence paradox (look it up btw) are that either a) God cannot do something illogical or b) God can do something illogical.

Solution a) then leads to the Euthrypho dilemna, so essentially if God can only do logical things, what created logic? Where did these laws of logic that God cannot supersede come from?
Solution b) is also backed up by the notion of miracles, which God is said to be responsible for, miracles being inherently illogical in nature.

Again, u didn't show time and causality aren't linked, u simply showed that they are not linked in one situation that doesn't even apply to the creation of the universe anyway. Arguments about first cause (note: the use of the word first implies time anyway lol) all presuppose that God needs to have been there before the Universe, but due to the fact that the notion of "before" time is moot, these arguments are based on shaky ground at best.

 

[Sy123]

No you didn't actually, in fact it's common knowledge that the only two solutions to the omnipotence paradox (look it up btw) are that either a) God cannot do something illogical or b) God can do something illogical.

I know what the omnipotence paradox is, and it is clear that God cannot do something illogical, I already clarified this in my very first post.
You then ignored all my explanations for why it makes sense to keep talking about omnipotence as the "power to do all things", and omnipotence also is known among most serious philosophers to be the power to do all possible things.

Solution a) then leads to the Euthrypho dilemna, so essentially if God can only do logical things, what created logic? Where did these laws of logic that God cannot supersede come from?

That isn't the Euthyphro dilemma, that dilemma is do with ethics and is illustrating the dichotomy of Divine Command Theory and some sort of platonic Natural Law theory. What you are describing isn't even an actual dilemma. No one says that God created logic, these "laws of logic" are not actual things, they are simply the way propositions are connected and are grounded in the very being of God.

Solution b) is also backed up by the notion of miracles, which God is said to be responsible for, miracles being inherently illogical in nature.

Miracles are not "inherently illogical", that would require proof. A miracle is simply an extraordinary event that goes against some human conception of a "law" of nature. Miracles do not affirm two contrary propositions, so saying that it is illogical is silly.

Again, u didn't show time and causality aren't linked, u simply showed that they are not linked in one situation that doesn't even apply to the creation of the universe anyway.

I don't think you understand the concept of a necessary connection, if you want to rebut causation at the beginning of the Universe, then you need to show the link between time and causation, not me. I only need 1 example to show that there is no necessary connection between time and causation. For if it were a necessary connection, then it must apply always.

Arguments about first cause (note: the use of the word first implies time anyway lol)

You don't really know anything about cosmological arguments do you. Only a minority of arguments have anything at all to do with time. The Thomist arguments, Avicennan arguments and Leibnizian arguments don't deal with time in any way.

all presuppose that God needs to have been there before the Universe

No argument does that, not even the Kalam argument that uses time

but due to the fact that the notion of "before" time is moot

No one says that God is before the Universe

these arguments are based on shaky ground at best.

Only according to your ignorance

 

[Kiraken]

I know what the omnipotence paradox is, and it is clear that God cannot do something illogical, I already clarified this in my very first post.
You then ignored all my explanations for why it makes sense to keep talking about omnipotence as the "power to do all things", and omnipotence also is known among most serious philosophers to be the power to do all possible things.



That isn't the Euthyphro dilemma, that dilemma is do with ethics and is illustrating the dichotomy of Divine Command Theory and some sort of platonic Natural Law theory. What you are describing isn't even an actual dilemma. No one says that God created logic, these "laws of logic" are not actual things, they are simply the way propositions are connected and are grounded in the very being of God.




Miracles are not "inherently illogical", that would require proof. A miracle is simply an extraordinary event that goes against some human conception of a "law" of nature. Miracles do not affirm two contrary propositions, so saying that it is illogical is silly.



I don't think you understand the concept of a necessary connection, if you want to rebut causation at the beginning of the Universe, then you need to show the link between time and causation, not me. I only need 1 example to show that there is no necessary connection between time and causation. For if it were a necessary connection, then it must apply always.



You don't really know anything about cosmological arguments do you. Only a minority of arguments have anything at all to do with time. The Thomist arguments, Avicennan arguments and Leibnizian arguments don't deal with time in any way.



No argument does that, not even the Kalam argument that uses time



No one says that God is before the Universe



Only according to your ignorance

Um no, morality and omnipotence are directly related in the Euthyphro dilemna, in fact omnipotence is one of the huge issues arising from it because if morality is arbitrary or independent then it contradicts the supposed omnipotence of God.

If it goes against the law of nature and has no *plausible* explanation apart from a transcendental entity causing it, it is definitely "illogical". Nor is contradiction the only means to judge if something is illogical or not.

You're also entirely missing my point with the causation thing. I'm not saying time and causality are *necessarily* linked, i'm saying that they are linked if you're talking about things like "first" cause because "first" implies a position in time. Just because an argument does not explicitly MENTION time, it doesn't mean it isn't inherent to it, simply because the concept of a first cause implies a before.

If God wasn't there before the Universe, how was it created?

 

[Sy123]

Um no, morality and omnipotence are directly related in the Euthyphro dilemna, in fact omnipotence is one of the huge issues arising from it because if morality is arbitrary or independent then it contradicts the supposed omnipotence of God.

You haven't replied to anything else I said here so I assume you concede it, because now you are bringing up a topic that is entirely irrelevant.
One can think morality is "arbitrary" or "independent" or even (since the dilemma is not exhaustive) "grounded in the nature of God", and the logicality of omnipotence is not effected.

If it goes against the law of nature and has no *plausible* explanation apart from a transcendental entity causing it, it is definitely "illogical". Nor is contradiction the only means to judge if something is illogical or not.

That is not "illogical", your use of "illogical" is what the masses use and is in fact not precise. Something is "illogical" specifically if it denies a law of logic.

You're also entirely missing my point with the causation thing. I'm not saying time and causality are *necessarily* linked, i'm saying that they are linked if you're talking about things like "first" cause because "first" implies a position in time. Just because an argument does not explicitly MENTION time, it doesn't mean it isn't inherent to it, simply because the concept of a first cause implies a before.

Instead of asserting this you need to actually SHOW how causation implies a before

If God wasn't there before the Universe, how was it created?

Why does God need to have a temporal location in order for God to create something?

 

[Kiraken]

You haven't replied to anything else I said here so I assume you concede it, because now you are bringing up a topic that is entirely irrelevant.
One can think morality is "arbitrary" or "independent" or even (since the dilemma is not exhaustive) "grounded in the nature of God", and the logicality of omnipotence is not effected.



That is not "illogical", your use of "illogical" is what the masses use and is in fact not precise. Something is "illogical" specifically if it denies a law of logic.



Instead of asserting this you need to actually SHOW how causation implies a before



Why does God need to have a temporal location in order for God to create something?

Lmao i did reply, you simply haven't provided any actual coherent reply to it.

"One can think morality is "arbitrary" or "independent" or even (since the dilemma is not exhaustive) "grounded in the nature of God", and the logicality of omnipotence is not effected."

No, it is DEFINITELY affected and that is the *entire* point of that argument, you cannot just say it doesn't matter because you don't agree with it lol. The only coherent solution is if you believe that notions such as morality, such as the laws of nature are inherent to the very being of God, which again then goes back to you to prove it.

The point is either God is limited by what is logical and can only perform things that are logical or God can perform things that are illogical. If the former, that doesn't explain miracles, which are inherently illogical because they cannot occur under laws of nature and have no purely rational explanation apart from a transcendantal entity causing them. Regardless of what your personal definition of what illogical means, the fact is it means anything that lacks clear or sound reasoning or rational thought. There is nothing rational about something that doesn't fit in with the laws of nature or what logically should happen.

You also once again continually miss the point of my statement about cause. I don't need to show a "before" because the very word" first" implies the notion of before. That's just a fact lol. "First" by definition can't happen after "second".

 

[Kiraken]

So essentially we have a Being that on the one hand exists beyond space-time and therefore is not bound by the laws of the Universe, can perform all forms of miracles that defy the laws of nature and reason, knows literally everything that happens in the Universe, happens to be everywhere at the same time but then on the other hand can only do logical things and cannot conceivably do anything illogical

k den

 

[Sy123]

You keep saying that I'm missing the point when you're the one who is unable to actually provide any systematic reply to anything I've said, and instead have resorted to quoting my whole post so you could safely ignore certain parts of my post

Lmao i did reply, you simply haven't provided any actual coherent reply to it.

"One can think morality is "arbitrary" or "independent" or even (since the dilemma is not exhaustive) "grounded in the nature of God", and the logicality of omnipotence is not effected."

No, it is DEFINITELY affected and that is the *entire* point of that argument, you cannot just say it doesn't matter because you don't agree with it lol.

Then how about you show it instead of asserting it

The only coherent solution is if you believe that notions such as morality, such as the laws of nature are inherent to the very being of God, which again then goes back to you to prove it.

You need to make an actual argument and show why this is the case

The point is either God is limited by what is logical and can only perform things that are logical or God can perform things that are illogical.

This shows that you have ignored my explanation as to why that which is "illogical" is not an actual "thing" and so it is still not coherent to talk about "limits"

If the former, that doesn't explain miracles, which are inherently illogical because they cannot occur under laws of nature and have no purely rational explanation apart from a transcendantal entity causing them.

Them having an explanation only in a deity does not entail it being illogical, you need to provide proof as to how that would be illogical.

Regardless of what your personal definition of what illogical means, the fact is it means anything that lacks clear or sound reasoning or rational thought.

Illogical is literally defying logic. You can go argue with pastor bob if you want, he seems to be more at your level and might agree with you.

There is nothing rational about something that doesn't fit in with the laws of nature or what logically should happen.

Assuming "laws of nature" exist, sure, but that is dubious and requires proof

You also once again continually miss the point of my statement about cause. I don't need to show a "before" because the very word" first" implies the notion of before. That's just a fact lol. "First" by definition can't happen after "second".

This shows that you have ignored everything I have said on the cosmological arguments. "First" is quite clearly not only first in a temporal sense, it could mean "first" in an ontological sense. Where a being is the First cause, meaning it is the ground of all being like in Thomist arguments.

 

[Sy123]

So essentially we have a Being that on the one hand exists beyond space-time and therefore is not bound by the laws of the Universe, can perform all forms of miracles that defy the laws of nature and reason, knows literally everything that happens in the Universe, happens to be everywhere at the same time but then on the other hand can only do logical things and cannot conceivably do anything illogical

k den

That is because logic is a necessary truth, mathematics is a necessary truth, "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a necessary truth and etc.

"Gravity" is not a necessary truth, and etc.

You need to actually read about modality before dealing with my terminology

 

[Kiraken]

You keep saying that I'm missing the point when you're the one who is unable to actually provide any systematic reply to anything I've said, and instead have resorted to quoting my whole post so you could safely ignore certain parts of my post



Then how about you show it instead of asserting it



You need to make an actual argument and show why this is the case




This shows that you have ignored my explanation as to why that which is "illogical" is not an actual "thing" and so it is still not coherent to talk about "limits"



Them having an explanation only in a deity does not entail it being illogical, you need to provide proof as to how that would be illogical.



Illogical is literally defying logic. You can go argue with pastor bob if you want, he seems to be more at your level and might agree with you.



Assuming "laws of nature" exist, sure, but that is dubious and requires proof



This shows that you have ignored everything I have said on the cosmological arguments. "First" is quite clearly not only first in a temporal sense, it could mean "first" in an ontological sense. Where a being is the First cause, meaning it is the ground of all being like in Thomist arguments.

what do you mean show it instead of assert it? Show what? That's the relationship between Euthyphro dilemna and Omnipotence, what else is there to show?

I do not know how to phrase it more simply but I'm assuming you don't have an argument against it and that is why you're choosing not to reply to it directly.

Is morality a notion separate from God? If it is, then God therefore must ascribe to the notion of it when performing things that are "good" or "bad". Of course this is not an issue if morality is entirely dependent on God, but in that case the burden of proof is on you to prove that.

I ignored your explanation because it's just a denial of what illogical actually *means*. You cannot just say "no i don't believe that is what illogical means" and then ignore the definition lol.

I'm not sure you understand how burden of proof works, the burden of proof does not lie on a person to prove something is illogical, it lies on the person proving if it is logical. Claiming that I need to prove it's illogical while saying God is a logical solution without any proof is simply a "god of the gaps" argument.

What do you mean the "laws of nature" is dubious and requires proof? So gravity doesn't exist? So science doesn't exist? So the directly observable phenomena around us does not exist?

Please elaborate what you mean by "first" in the ontological sense then.