spidergoat
For something to exist, it must have boundries, and since you have defined God as without any kind of limitation, it must not exist.
Actually I disagree with this.
Though Prince James seems to think he can rationalize belief in god, so maybe my disagrement isn't consistent with his premises.
Anyway, God in the Abrahamic (and many other lineages') sense is exactly that, it is outside of logic and outside of limitations. You're saying "if it has no limitations, than it gains nothing from x, or wouldn't require x". That's a complete error. You're saying "if the rules of logic don't apply to him, then this rule of logic says he doesn't need x". Well, that's super, but the theistic premise starts with the idea that god is extra-logical. So, as far as the premise of god is concerned, there ain't nothing stopping him from wanting anything.
If he's extra-logical, he could be omnipotent and omnipresent and still be itchin' for a hamburger. I know, it doesn't make any sense. But that's what extra-logical is, it's outside of sense.
drcello
based on the rules of causality, everything which is contingent has a cause. the universe is contingent (ie, it is not necessary for the universe to exist). therefore, (must feed) the universe has a cause.
To begin with; nope. The nature of the entire shape, history and form of the universe is something we know very, very little about. There is a massive array of possibilities in terms of the universe (and, indeed, universes) work(s). Examples like consistently expanding and contracting universe, god starting and creating the universe, the universe being infininte (though this seems highly unlikely).
We don't
know that there must be a material (or other) cause for the universe. We simply have no idea yet. And to say "well, since we don't know I'm placing my bets on this god thing" is really silly. How bout we all just stick at "we don't know yet"?
the god i believe in is Logic, the governing principles of the universe. (BRAINS LET ME BRAINS) if there is such a thing as a necessary being, then it could certainly not be intelligent or personal. it would have to be a set of principles which everything that exists is contingent upon. everything that exists is contingent upon logic--i have yet to see something which can contradict the laws of logic.
How much logic have you done? (I really don't mean to sound insulting here, so disregard it if I do). As a matter of fact, nothing really follows "the rules of logic". At a most base level take math (or, even subdivide into arithmetic). For years and years it was thought that math was complete and that we could axiomatize it if only we were smart enough. Then Kurt Godel proved us wrong with his incompleteness theory. This showed that there are no set rules - and in fact, couldn't possibly be any - that govern how mathematics works.
So, no. Not everything follows the all-true body of logical axioms. FOL follows FOL's rules, SOL follows SOL's axioms, math follows some crazy pattern that we can't really nail, and the rest is a big question.
Usually, dr. cello, when people made (I say made as no one makes it anymore because it's already been proven false) your arguement they'd say the proof is in that anything can be derived. Well, nope. In 1973 (don't quote me, but I'm pretty sure it was 73) two mathematicians found an equation that can't be proven from the once-thought axioms of math. So, nadda. No logical axioms for things. Sorry.
It exists as a matter of perspective, as is obvious in that I object to your statement as wrong.