Oh there are plenty here. I made a comment in an incoherent thread about coherence (although I won’t continue as the irony becomes too much.)
I was only trying to fit in. 
Your posts are interesting. God is a transcendent being, despite the name Immanuel.
Banno points out the incoherence of God, as illustrated by e.g. the stone paradox.
1 Like
The FTA is an inversion of reason. The universe isn’t fine-tuned for us, it’s the opposite. An example of contraduction, as illustrated by Voltaire’s feigned wonder at how the nose seems perfectly shaped and positioned to hold a pair of spectacles.
God as OOO-God is incoherent
- The omnipotence paradox
- The omniscience paradox
- The omnibenevolence paradox
God’s a married bachelor. 
For what it’s worth, here is the cosmological argument which I am familiar with:
Prior to each material thing, there exists the potential for that thing. But any potential cannot be actualized without something actual to act as the cause. Therefore, if potential was prior in an absolute sense, it could not actualize anything and there would never be anything actual. However, we observe that there is actual existence. Therefore there must be an immaterial actuality which is prior to all material things. This is God.
Why can’t the concept of foo remain vague and allow the agnostic position?
1 Like
Why is this thing God?
2 Likes
The cause must be a transcendent intelligence. 
God, by definition is the cause of material existence. The argument demonstrates that there is a cause of material existence. Therefore the argument demonstrates God.
I don’t care if you prefer to call it something other than “God”, finding too many other connotations involved with the word “God”, that’s ok but I think counterproductive. It’s still the same thing as what is commonly called “God”, i.e. the immaterial cause of material existence. So if instead, we get rid of all that other baggage, then we are left with the basic form of God. Therefore it would be better to say that all those other definitions for “God” which fail, are not really “God”, if we find one that doesn’t fail.
If we “get rid of all that other baggage” then there’s no need to use the term “God” at all; we can just say that the material universe has an immaterial cause. In using the term “God” to name this immaterial cause you are introducing all this “other baggage”, whether intentionally or not.
As an example, let’s say that the universe originated as a superposition of all possible initial conditions, and that a non-physical particle came into existence, collapsed the wave function, and then was annihilated. The material universe has an immaterial cause. You’re welcome to call this temporary, non-physical particle “God”, but it seems silly to do so.
1 Like
This is the same issue which came up on the “qualia” thread. The word “God”, like the word “qualia”, is used for simplicity sake. Instead of saying “the immaterial cause of the material world”, we facilitate discussion by putting a name to the described thing, “God”.
Consider, instead of saying “that green stuff growing in my front lawn”, I might facilitate the discussion by naming it “grass”. If you insist that I ought not use that word “grass”, because people might think I’m growing marijuana out there, I’d think you’re just quibbling, being unnecessarily ornery.
This is nonsense. A particle cannot be non-physical. Furthermore it is illogical to say that a particle came into existence without a cause. This is the claim that something comes from nothing. The idea of ‘random quantum fluctuation’ as a first cause is fundamentally flawed.
This is the point of the cosmological argument, to be able to refute nonsensical ontology such as that. It shows us the logic which rejects infinite possibility, or what you call “all possible initial conditions”.
Suppose there is such a ‘sea of possibility’, as the initial conditions. No individual possibility could ever actualize itself without something already actual, to act as a cause. A ‘random fluctuation’ (actuality) is impossible, because such a change within the sea of possibility requires a cause. This type of “initial conditions” (infinite possibility) would persist forever unless there is something actual to produce a change to it. That necessity of something actual would be a restriction contradicting the proposed initial conditions.
The “sea of possibility” here refers to the potential for material existence. The required “actuality”, to act as the cause of actual material existence, is the immaterial cause (God, if you will).
Why not?
If this immaterial cause cannot be a particle, then what sort of thing can it be?
Did the immaterial cause come from nothing?
I didn’t say it was a random quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations are physical phenomena; this immaterial particle isn’t a physical phenomenon.
And perhaps this immaterial cause is an inanimate immaterial particle that has since been annihilated.
Except it’s not being used for simplicity sake. It’s actually making things much more complicated because of all the “baggage” associated with the name. Just stick with “immaterial cause”, or “X” if you want to type fewer letters. Then we must ask; what is the nature of this X and what are its properties? Does it have extension? Does it have mass? Does it have a will/intention of its own? Does it still exist, or was it annihilated in the act of actualising the material universe? Was there just a single immaterial cause, or were there multiple that were collectively responsible for the material universe? Are there multiple material universes, each with their own distinct immaterial cause?
Nice demonstration of points 5 and 6.
1 Like
As far as I understand what a “particle” is, “immaterial particle” is oxymoronic. My OED defines “particle” as “a minute portion of matter”. So this proposal of an immaterial particle is unintelligible to me, as self-contradicting.
OK, if that word “God” is so repugnant to you, I’m happy to oblige and proceed with “immaterial cause” instead. That’s the least I can do to help you along.
It’s the sort of thing that a soul is, you know, the source of a freely willed act. Do you recognize free will as a true principle? If so, it is implied that you recognize an immaterial cause as well. The cause of a freely willed act cannot be material, because matter is restricted to Newton’s laws, implying that there would be a prior material cause. But there can be no prior cause to the freely willed act, or else it would not be freely willed, it would be determined by that prior material cause. Therefore the cause of a freely willed act must be immaterial.
Sure, once you accept the logical necessity of the immaterial cause, then you can proceed to ask such questions in earnest. I will help you toward answers if you want. But I will also tell you that a good place to study this is in theological documents, because theology is a very relevant discipline. However, you seem to be repulsed by the word “God”, so I don’t think you will get very far. with your search for answers.
At most, an ‘immaterial effect’ …
re: material conservation laws, thermodynamics, causal closure, … planck scale quantum uncertainty (random vaccuum fluctuations, virtual wavicles, etc) i.e. a-causal “Big Bangs”
So now you’ve introduced “baggage”. You’ve gone from the conclusion that the material universe has an immaterial cause to the conclusion that the material universe was caused by an immaterial will. Your reasoning does not support this conclusion. You haven’t shown that the immaterial cause must be a will of some kind. It might be a particle (or particle-like, if you can’t get help but conflate “particle” and “physical particle”), or just some other inanimate “stuff”.
This is the fallacy you commit when you introduce the term “God” in your conclusion. If the immaterial cause isn’t a will but just some inanimate non-physical “stuff” then is it God?
Almost all atheists confess that the FTA is the biggest gun the theists have. The life-permitting range for the physical constants is indeed strait and narrow. I don’t know how far this is true but if some (I forgot which) were off by a billionth of a billionth then the universe wouldn’t exist. That’s the level of fine tuning we’re talking about.
On the flip side why would God be constrained by physical laws? An omnipotent being should be able to do anything and everything.
How do you get from “intelligent designer” to “omnipotent intelligent designer”? Like Meta_U, you’ve used an argument that prima facie entails some minimalist notion of God (or in Meta_U’s case, some minimalist notion of an immaterial cause) and then added in a bunch of ad hoc properties that were not entailed by the argument.
Perhaps there was an intelligent designer, but its power was limited to selecting the universe’s physical constants, and that it exhausted all its power in doing so and died as a result.
2 Likes
What are you talking about Michael? I made no such conclusion. You asked me “what sort of thing” is an immaterial cause. I gave you an example of that “sort” (“It’s the sort of thing that a soul is”) . To jump to the conclusion that if two things are of the same sort, one is exchangeable with the other, is an invalid conclusion. I did not make that invalid conclusion, you did. I gave two distinct examples of this sort of thing, “immaterial cause”. One is the cause of material existence, the other is the cause of freely willed acts. I did not imply that these two distinct examples of the same sort of thing, are actually the same thing, only that they are the same sort of thing, this category we are discussing “immaterial cause”.
Again, you’ve gone way off, in totally misrepresenting what I wrote. If I said “God” is the immaterial cause of the material world, and I said that the human “soul” is the immaterial cause of a freely willed choice, we cannot conclude that God is a human will. Such a conclusion would be ridiculous.
And I thought you wanted me to quit using the word “God”, so we could focus on “immaterial cause” instead. Quit provoking.
You commit the fallacy which you accuse me of. I did not make any such conclusion. You drew the fallacious conclusion yourself, so that you could accuse me of making it, when I did no such thing. That is deplorable interpretation.
This was our exchange:
It’s not unreasonable for me to read into this that you are suggesting that the immaterial cause of the material universe is or has a will.
But if I’ve misunderstood you, then I apologise. My question stills stands, though; if the immaterial cause of the material universe is just some inanimate immaterial “stuff” (without anything like a mind or a will, and perhaps which no longer exists) then is it God?