I agree, but it seems impossible to have a discussion here about definitions of God alone, without people trying to refute theism generally.
It makes sense to try to clarify our terms before we set off arguing about them. Arguments that might apply to one sort of concept might be largely irrelevant to another.
You seem to know I fall into the first camp
I tend towards that as well. Perhaps the biggest difference is that I prefer to think of the "God" of natural theology (ground of being, source of cosmic order etc.) as whatever hypothetically answers the metaphysical questions, rather than as a religious style deity. Why should we
worship the 'first cause' or whatever it is? What justifies the idea that it's
Holy and somehow represents a guide and goal to life? While I consider the questions to be of deep and fundamental importance (certainly they are the questions that interest me the most), I don't have a clue what the answers are, or even whether there are any answers. That's why I consider myself an agnostic.
Our atheists seem to think that in order to exorcise any idea of "God" from reality, they have to dismiss the most fundamental questions about reality as well. Unfortunately, that seems to leave science (which seems to be their religion-substitute) just floating on air, without any sound justification of its own, and seemingly faith-based.
I do hold out that abiogenesis may be possible
If by 'abiogenesis' we just mean the origin of life from non-life, I'd say that it's more than possible. It's highly probable. I certainly assume that life originated somewhere, somehow.
If by 'abiogenesis' we mean what I called "naturalistic abiogenesis", life originating from non-life
by entirely natural means though the principles of chemistry or whatever, I'd probably call that probable as well. It's certainly my working assumption and it's what motivates much of my interest in astrobiology.
My objection in this thread is that the latter version
isn't something that we know. It's an
assumption, an assumption built atop some preexisting metaphysical assumptions about how reality works. (Precisely the kind of assumptions mentioned up above.) In that respect, it isn't all that different than another individual's ID assumptions. Neither one can justify them.
thereby making that sort of creator God falsifiable. We don't need to observe life's origin in the past so much as we need to demonstrate the process of the inanimate to living organism in a lab.
I don't doubt that with suitable technology (far in advance of our own), a living cell might be constructed from simple chemicals by using naturally occurring living cells as models. I'd speculate that such a synthesis might even be possible using only chemistry hypothesized to have been consistent with natural conditions on the early Earth. Unfortunately, even that wouldn't be "proof" that life in fact originated that way, only that it might arguably have been possible.
We'll probably never know precisely how it happened.
Turning to my logical proof of the existence of God...
The problem with that is that #3 is not compelling.
#2, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, is the shakiest premise in my opinion. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to accept it. Which does imply that the universe has an explanation. I just fail to conceive of that explanation as 'God' in any religious sense, which relates to your #3 objection I guess. What this little proof seems to deliver isn't God so much as whatever performs certain metaphysical functions. Not necessarily a religious deity.
But having said that, if we decide to define 'God' in the manner of #3, which is consistent with tradition and with natural theology after all, then we seem to arrive at God. Illustrating how important our definitions of 'God' can be in our thinking. JamesR's initial question is important.
I think there may be a slightly better cosmological argument to be had, but all seem to require a less than compelling step.
There probably are better versions. That's just what I thought of off the top of my head.
My purpose in posting it was
1. To demonstrate how crucial JamesR's original question was. Defined some of the ways that people define 'God', it's trivial to construct a logical proof of God's existence. Which does direct attention to #3.
2. To illustrate how logical proofs are at the mercy of their initial premises. We often read in the lay literature that somebody (scientists, mathematicians...) has "proved" something. Rhetorically, that seems to be an assertion that it's obligatory that laypeople believe whatever it is. It's been proven! It can't be doubted!! Even here on Sciforums we often see demands for "proof". Unfortunately, all proofs tell us is that if the initial assumptions are all true, then the conclusion has to be true too. That sets things up for 'Garbage in, garbage out' examples. (Which I expect our atheists to say my little proof is. They might even be right.)
3. To create some consternation in our atheists. (Always enjoyable to see.)
Oh, don't try to tell them they hold a metaphysical position. They don't believe in the sort of reasoning that underpins the very science they tout. That helps them avoid ever needing to argue that premise. Lots of unsupported givens, not much actual argument.
When they get insulting and abusive, maybe it's time to rub their little snouts in it.
