Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

[Jan Ardena]

Can you name something other than God that did not begin to exist?

Energy. Now what?

Yes. The point is that we need to pin down what exactly is meant by "everything that begins to exist" in the Kalam argument. As I explained in the opening post, the argument attempts to create two categories of things: those that begin to exist and those that do not begin to exist.

Where does it make this so called attempt.
The onus is on you to prove that such an attempt was made.

The argument begs the question of God's existence if God is the only thing comtemplated in the category of "things that do not begin to exist".

You've made an attempt to see it like that.

This is only about the tenth time this has been explained to you, Jan. Maybe now would be a good time to actually think about the argument being put, rather than desperately flailing about and trying to distract everybody from the point of discussion.

There's not much to think about.
Why don't you respond properly for a change

Can you name something oth?er than God that did not begin to exist? Or can't you? Or will you attempt to avoid the question again?

Already done that.
Now let's see this big finale. [drum roll]

Then you'll have no problem giving an unambiguous answer about whether God begins to exist, or whether he doesn't.

I've already done that.

Not only is it important - it is fatal to the validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for reasons I and others have explained to you time and again.

No it's not. The KCA stands on it's own, but good try though.

Are you familiar with the difference between a premise and the conclusion of a logical syllogism, for example (because there are indications to the contrary in what you wrote above)? Are you familiar with the term "begging the question"? Do you, in fact, understand my opening post?

Yes.

Can you name something other than God that did not begin to exist? Or can't you? Or will you attempt to avoid the question again?

Drum roll in session

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

The key word here is thing, and I have give a definition. ''Everything, or, every thing, mean all things. The definition you cling to means ''all things'' that exist.
The rest of the definitions gives ideas of what things it means.

So given that one of those definitions is: "all that exists", and as you claim that God is not a thing and thus not included within everything, then logically you are concluding that God does not exist? Which, as stated, is contrary to you claiming God exists.
To put it into a syllogism that you may (but probably won't) help you understand:
Premise 1. Everything is all that exists.
Premise 2. God is not part of everything.
The valid conclusion that everyone who comprehends basic logic will be able to tell you is: God does not exist.

I await your refutation which will demonstrate your lack of understanding, or your efforts to redefine words yet again to try to make them fit your required conclusion. Perhaps you'll start changing the word "all"?

How many times do I have to tell you?

You don't need to keep repeating your claims, Jan, you need to provide explanation for how you validly reach the conclusion from the premises. But let's see your latest retelling:...

The universe began to exist, therefore there is a cause for the universe.

Okay, assuming that you simply omitted the other premise (that everything that begins to exist has a cause) for sake of efficiency then yes, this is a valid conclusion (but not necessarily sound).

The universe, or the cosmos, contain everything, and everything has a cause.

No issue with this as a premise, but again its soundness is another matter.
But please also note that this premise is inconsistent with your previous notion that you thought matter and energy may not be something that began to exist. Is matter and energy not a thing?

It follows that the cause of everything is not a thing.

Sure, if we have defined the universe as everything, and concluded that the universe has a cause. But since you have also defined everything as "all that exists" you are also concluding that since God is not a thing, and only "things" exist, then God does not exist.
Furthermore, if you finally admit that this definition of "everything" (i.e. all that exists) was posted in error, all you are left with to overcome is the question-begging highlighted in the OP, especially as one of its premises removes your previous notion of energy and matter also not beginning to exist.

And when you've been through all that, and we're all happy with the validity of the argument, we can move on to the soundness of the premises, although happily people are already discussing those issues.

You response in post 108 does nothing to show flawed logic, it doesn't even address the argument.

I refer you to explanations provided in responses 2 and 5 of that post, explaining why your formulations, your assertions, lack of logic.
But I note how rather than admit, say, that post #118 (which was also offered up by way of evidence of explanation) does do what you accused me of not doing, you try to focus only on that which you think you can score points on.

The argument logically concludes that the universe has a cause, and that cause must necessarily be transcendental to it's effect.

Yes, to the first part. The second part most certainly has not yet been shown through valid logic.
Even assuming that you are now taking the "everything is all that exists" off the table (and I am being generous here, as to not take it off the table leaves your argument as flawed as explained previously), all you can conclude is that (a) the universe was caused, and (b) the cause is not what we can term a thing. It certainly doesn't equate that non-thing with your preconceived notions of God, and we should try to avoid that label where possible: our cause might simply be an interaction of membranes, for example, which would not classify as "things" yet clearly aren't "God". Or perhaps you think they would qualify, these non-sentient, non-intelligent, purposeless... whatever it is they are?

You might not like the outcome, but that's your problem.

My problem is arguing logic with someone who doesn't have an adequate grasp of the basics, and is too stubborn and prideful to acknowledge it.

I have read the thread Sarkus, and all that seems to keep coming up are situations that misunderstand the argument, probably because the alternative is acceptance of it.

I have not misunderstood what you have written, Jan. Others have argued the same understanding, thus it seems that the failure likes with you not adequately conveying your argument. You clearly think it is valid yet the analysis provided does not bear it out, and all you do is revert to redefining words (sorry, choosing different variations) to try and squeeze it through as acceptable.

Most people here are forced, by their world view, to not accept that as a valid argument. Most people here can not accept anything that is even slightely positive, about the existence of God.

Intention is irrelevant, Jan, please stop trying to deflect, stop trying to play some sort of victim card. The arguments from both sides have to stand up on their own merit irrespective of intention, beliefs, world-views. So please stop with irrelevancies.

I have a good idea, from scripture, of what God is, and what God is not.
You on the other can think of God however you like, but God logically exists.

So you believe,

Just as Spidergoat can say what he thinks about God, and nobody asks him to justify his claims, so can I.

No, you can't. Neither should spidergoat. And you would be right to call him out on it if that is what you think he is doing. But rather than that you decide to act like a petulant little child and deliberately disrupt a thread? Two wrongs do not make a right, Jan. Grow up, for Pete's sake!

 

[Sarkus]

The universe began to exist, therefore there is a cause for the universe.
The universe, or the cosmos, contain everything, and everything has a cause.
It follows that the cause of everything is not a thing.

Energy. Now what?

So given matter-energy equivalence, you are saying that energy is not a thing, is not included in "everything"?
So presumably, then, the universe contains everything as well as some other bits that are not things?
But given that you say the universe had a cause, and the universe contains these other bits, how did the bits-that-aren't-things get into the universe? How did matter acquire this energy?
And what do you consider energy to be if it is not a property of a thing?

And when you conclude that the cause of the universe is not a thing, why is it God and not simply what you term as energy?
If you equate God with this energy then you're back to just having one thing that doesn't begin to exist and thus question-begging as per the OP.
If you don't, and you keep the two distinct, then your argument fails to validly show why the cause is God and not this energy.

NB: Bear in mind, all is assumes that you're accepting your error in defining everything as "all that exists". If you can't even do that, though, then you're still concluding that God - and now energy- as being distinct from everything, do not exist, for the reasons previously given.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So given that one of those definitions is: "all that exists", and as you claim that God is not a thing and thus not included within everything, then logically you are concluding that God does not exist? Which, as stated, is contrary to you claiming God exists.

No. I'm concluding that God is the cause of everything.

Premise 1. Everything is all that exists.
Premise 2. God is not part of everything.
The valid conclusion that everyone who comprehends basic logic will be able to tell you is: God does not exist.

Premise 2 doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist, only that He is not part of everything.
You assume God's existence, and to some degree His nature by saying what He is not.

Everything is all that exists
God is not part of everything
Therefore everything is part of God

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So given matter-energy equivalence, you are saying that energy is not a thing, is not included in "everything"?

Everything, including the universe came into being, so matter-energy didn't operate the same way as we observe it to operate now. If they did, the universe would not have come into being.

So presumably, then, the universe contains everything as well as some other bits that are not things?

Material energy is what the stuff is made of, and how the system works. It's like harnessing energy from the sun, or wind. Taking the raw material and utilising for your own purpose.

How did matter acquire this energy?
And what do you consider energy to be if it is not a property of a thing?

The capacity for doing work.

And when you conclude that the cause of the universe is not a thing, why is it God and not simply what you term as energy?

God utilises the energy.

NB: Bear in mind, all is assumes that you're accepting your error in defining everything as "all that exists". If you can't even do that, though, then you're still concluding that God - and now energy- as being distinct from everything, do not exist, for the reasons previously given.

It's not an error. I comprehend what it means, especially when you take the other definitions into consideration.

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Can you name something other than God that did not begin to exist?

Energy. Now what?

Now we re-read my opening post of the thread to see what follows.

It appears from what you have said that there are at least two distinct things that belong in the category "things that did not begin to exist", namely God and Energy.

Premise 1 of the Kalam argument states that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause". Since, according to you, neither God nor Energy begin to exist, either God or Energy or both might be uncaused.

Premise 2 of the Kalam argument states that "The universe began to exist". If we accept premise 1, then the conclusion (3) follows logically: "The universe has a cause."

Thus we conclude that the Kalam argument is valid in terms of its structure as a logical syllogism. We might therefore be in a position to move the discussion on to complating whether the premises are sound. However, before we continue I need to make sure that we are on the same page as to what you have done in naming "Energy" as a "thing that did not begin to exist".

Do you agree that you have named two distinct items that "did not begin to exist"? If you agree that you have, then we can proceed. However, I am worried that you might want to claim that God and Energy are actually one and the same in some sense. It could be, for example, that God is a kind of Energy, or that Energy is part of God, or that God contains Energy or something like that. You have talked about Energy as "the capacity to do work". You claim that this capacity did not begin to exist, so I take it that this capacity is uncaused or eternal or similar.

If Energy and God turn out to be the same thing and not distinct after all, then what we have with your "Energy" is simply an alternative name for God. And in that case, the first premise of the Kalam argument is seen once more to beg the question, and the entire Kalam argument still fails.

If, on the other hand, you agree that Energy is distinct from God, then we can move on to asking the following question: Given the valid conclusion (3) that the universe has a cause, what was the cause? It seems there are now several possibilities, such as: (A) God caused the universe, or (B) Energy caused the universe, or (C) God and Energy, both being uncaused themselves, together caused the universe.

Suppose it turns out that option (B) is correct. Then it follows that the subsidiary conclusion (4) of the Kalam argument ("The cause of the universe is God") would be false. That is, we have shown that the Kalam argument as a whole does not imply that God exists. It is a logical possibility that God does not exist and that only Energy exists. Recall that to avoid the whole KCA collapsing from the start it is necessary to say that God and Energy are distinct from one another.

So, please assure me, Jan, that you are saying that Energy and God are distinct. If they are not, then you will need to come up with something else that "did not begin to exist" or else the Kalam argument has failed because it begs the question.

The point is that we need to pin down what exactly is meant by "everything that begins to exist" in the Kalam argument. As I explained in the opening post, the argument attempts to create two categories of things: those that begin to exist and those that do not begin to exist.

Where does it make this so called attempt.
The onus is on you to prove that such an attempt was made.

It's right there in premise 1. If no distinction was being made, premise 1 would read "Everything has a cause". But instead, premise 1 reads "Everything that beings to exist has a cause". See the difference? The first version is the standard Cosmological argument. The second is the Kalam argument, which is supposed to avoid the pitfalls of the standard argument.

The argument begs the question of God's existence if God is the only thing comtemplated in the category of "things that do not begin to exist".

You've made an attempt to see it like that.

A successful attempt, it seems. Unless you have a valid objection to the argument I have put, of course.

There's not much to think about.
Why don't you respond properly for a change

It seems to me that I (and others, of course) have been putting very careful and precise arguments to you. You have responded with non sequiturs and with many clear signs that you're not actually across what the argument is about. You haven't engaged effectively with the argument that has been put to you at all so far.

A "proper" response would not be kind of evasion you have attempted, but rather an honest attempt on your part to get to grips with what has been said and to see whether you can come up with any valid objection to what has been put to you.

The KCA stands on it's own, but good try though.

No logical syllogism stands on its own. A logical argument must have two features: 1. It must be a valid syllogism and 2. Its premises must both be shown to be true in order for the conclusion to be true.

Up to this point, I have concentrated almost exclusively on feature (1) and have barely scraped the surface of (2).

Anyway, let's hear you confirm that Energy is separate from God, for a start.

 

[James R]

Everything is all that exists
God is not part of everything
Therefore everything is part of God

Just a note: this is not a valid logical argument, either.

What you have there is an argument of the following form:
1. All Ts are part of E.
2. G is a not part of E.
3. Therefore E is part of G.

Here's another example, based on the same pattern:
1. All motor vehicles that go on four wheels are part of "The collection of all Cars".
2. My motor cycle is not part of "The collection of all Cars".
3. Therefore "The collection of all Cars" is part of my motor cycle.

See the problem?

 

[Edont Knoff]

So it is more parsimonious to postulate a god, or equivalent uncaused first cause

Personally I'm in favor of an uncaused first cause other than god in regard of the universe, since my, personal, finding that there very likely is no god, is based on many observations.

Thus I don't want to introduce a god into my model just to explain the beginning of the universe, when I have collected so many hints that there are no gods.

But this is a very personal view - and if someone can show me convincing evidence that a god, or many gods exist, I'll happily accept that fact. I'm agnostic, not atheist, meaning, that I have doubts, but I think we basically just can't know for sure.

E.g. if I assume there is an almighty god. They will be very good at hiding. How could I ever be sure that a god doesn't exist, if they use all their power to hide from me? This makes me think, I can't be sure that there is no god.

The other side is, a god which is so inactive, that one cannot find any trace of them, is likely as good as no god at all.

So for the time being I keep my doubts, but I like to talk with believers and listen to their views, since some day someone might actually come up with good evidence for the existence of a god. At the moment I don't want to convince anybody that there is no god. If they want to believe in one, it's fine for me. But if they want me to believe in their god, I want to see good evidence that their god actually exists.

At the moment I see a lot of competing religions, each telling me they are the correct one. This rather makes me think, none of them re right. But that's just a personal thing.

PS: Having said that, the the argument shown in this thread is not convincing me. Once I think it has logical flaws. Second, it doesn't explain that there is only one god, and not many. Third, it doesn't say which of the proposed gods of the religions is the right one. It leaves too many questions open to convince me.

 

[James R]

A few loose ends, while I wait for a response to the substance (if there is one coming).

God exists, and it is up to the denier to show that He doesn't.

If I claim that eating lemons will cause a missing leg to grow back, it is not up to the denier to show that it doesn't work. It is up to me to show that it really works.

If I claim that the demon Beelzebub appeared our of nowhere and set fire to my curtains, it is not up to the denier to show that he didn't. It is up to me to show that he did.

If I claim that there's a teapot orbiting the sun, it is not up to the denier to prove me wrong.

You need to get this whole burden of proof thing straight in your head.

It's quite silly to go out and about looking for God, as nobody believes that you can find God in a test tube, or in the fossil record.
The default position IS God exists.

Is it the default position that eating lemons makes your legs grow? Is it the default position that demons appear out of nowhere to set fire to curtains? Is it the default position that teapots orbit the Sun?*

Where do you get your "default position" from, exactly?

The universe, or the cosmos, contain everything, and everything has a cause.
It follows that the cause of everything is not a thing.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Here's that argument reduced to its basics:
1. U contains all Ts.
2. Each T has a C.
3. (Therefore U has a C.)
4. Therefore the C of U is not a T.

Note that (3) is implied in your statement.

Here's another argument that uses the same reasoning:
1. The family contains all the children.
2. Each child has a sibling.
3. (Therefore the family has a sibling.)
4. Therefore the sibling of the family is not a child.

As you can see, conclusions 3 and 4 are nonsensical and clearly do not follow logically from premises 1 and 2.

---
* All known teapots do orbit the Sun, of course, but not in Russell's sense.

 

[Sarkus]

No. I'm concluding that God is the cause of everything.

You are simply asserting it, Jan, as it does not follow logically from the premises, as explained.
The assertions you have made over the past pages of this thread: God is distinct from everything; everything is all that exists; God exists.
This is the same logical structure as saying:
Bob is a not a P.
The only thing that exist are Ps.
Therefore Bob exists.

Do you still not see the illogic of the conclusion?

Premise 2 doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist, only that He is not part of everything.

Yet Premise 1 states that everything is all that exists. I.e. if it is not part of everything (or the entirety of everything) then it does not exist.
Imagine a sack into which you put everything else (such that the sack plus its contents constitute everything). Then imagine that this sack and its contents are the only things that exist. This is what you are saying when you say "everything is all that exists". I.e. If it is not part of everything (or the entirety of) then it does not exist.
I really can't explain it any simpler than that for you.

You assume God's existence, and to some degree His nature by saying what He is not.

I make no assumption as to God's existence or not. I am going simply by the premises you have provided.

Everything is all that exists
God is not part of everything
Therefore everything is part of God

I see JamesR has adequately covered this invalid syllogism.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do you agree that you have named two distinct items that "did not begin to exist"?

Yep.

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence, and false ego - all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

Just a note: this is not a valid logical argument, either.

What you have there is an argument of the following form:
1. All Ts are part of E.
2. G is a not part of E.
3. Therefore E is part of G.

Here's another example, based on the same pattern:
1. All motor vehicles that go on four wheels are part of "The collection of all Cars".
2. My motor cycle is not part of "The collection of all Cars".
3. Therefore "The collection of all Cars" is part of my motor cycle.

See the problem?

It's not the same.
From Sarkus' perspective, everything is all that exits, and no other thing can exist.
But here we have God who isn't partof everything.
So the obvious conclusion is that every thing is part of God.

Let's put Sakus's argument to the same test.

1. All motor vehicles that go on four wheels are part of "The collection of all Cars".
2. My motor cycle is not part of "The collection of all Cars".
3. Therefore the my motorcycle doesn't exist.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Everything, including the universe came into being, so matter-energy didn't operate the same way as we observe it to operate now. If they did, the universe would not have come into being.

Im not sure if this is special-pleading, question-begging or both...
You are concluding that matter-energy didn't operate as we observe it today as a result of that which you aim to prove (that God caused the universe) and then use this conclusion as a premise within your "proof" that God caused the universe. Question-begging it is, then.
You can certainly add some premises into your argument, but please don't try to use that which you intend to prove as justification for their acceptability.

Material energy is what the stuff is made of, and how the system works. It's like harnessing energy from the sun, or wind. Taking the raw material and utilising for your own purpose.

"Material energy"? Are you trying to differentiate between types of energy here? If so, please clarify?
It also doesn't answer my question: so presumably, then, the universe contains everything as well as some other bits that are not things?

The capacity for doing work.

How is this not a property of matter?

God utilises the energy.

So really we're back to the hidden premise that there is but one thing with causal power that did not begin to exist. And hence question-begging as previously explained.

It's not an error. I comprehend what it means, especially when you take the other definitions into consideration.

You may comprehend, but you seem unable to demonstrate a consistent usage that does not lead to illogical conclusions.
If, as you now confirm to be your understanding, that everything is all that exists, you simply can not conclude that God exists while not being part (or the whole) of that which you have defined as being "all that exists".

Otherwise you're simply arguing as follows:
Premise 1. Tom owns all the sweets.
Premise 2. Bob is not Tom
Your conclusion: Therefore Bob has sweets.
This is invalid, I'm sure/hope you will agree.

The valid conclusion is simply that Bob has no sweets.

Everything is all that exists - if it doesn't exist then it is not part (or e totality) of everything, and if it is not part (or the totality) of everything then it doesn't exist. That is what "everything is all that exists" means.

 

[Sarkus]

Let's put Sakus's argument to the same test.

1. All motor vehicles that go on four wheels are part of "The collection of all Cars".
2. My motor cycle is not part of "The collection of all Cars".
3. Therefore the my motorcycle doesn't exist.

You can't even come up with an example that uses the same formal logic.
The equivalent conclusion to my argument would be "3. Therefore your motorcycle does not go on four wheels."

The analogy is as follows: The Collection of All Cars = everything; motor vehicles that go on four wheels = " all that exists"; and finally motor cycle = God.

1. All that exists is part of everything
2. God is not part of everything.
3. Therefore god does not exist.

 

[spidergoat]

What do you mean by ''begin''?

jan.

Appearing from nothing, rather than undergoing a transformation of existing matter and energy.

 

[PhysBang]

Where does it make this so called attempt.
The onus is on you to prove that such an attempt was made.

In English, when one says, "everything that began to exist", one is saying that there are two categories of things, one of which is things that did not begin to exist. It may very well be that one category of things is empty, but one is still making the categorization.

 

[arfa brane]

They're not for searching for God, or demi-gods.

All the cultures who built temples, weren't looking for God?
What were they looking for? What's your explanation for the names of constellations? Why is there a hunter, Orion?

Why would anybody think to look for God like that?
Unless you deny even the basic attributes.

You mean, why did alchemy look for something it didn't find? What did people think about the fossils being found when they found them?

The best place to get at least an idea of what God is, is the scripture. There you will learn that God is not physical.

Which scripture though? It will need to have been translated into English for me whichever one it is. I have never had the idea that God is not physical, I am physical.
If I want to know what God is, it will have to be a physical experience, you know, like drinking beer is a physical experience.

Is the question just: Can I experience God by drinking beer? Why can't I? Does it depend on how much I drink? Shouldn't I realise that I can't get enlightenment (knowledge of God) from something, unless that something is me, and stop searching in a bottle?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You can't even come up with an example that uses the same formal logic.
The equivalent conclusion to my argument would be "3. Therefore your motorcycle does not go on four wheels."

The analogy is as follows: The Collection of All Cars = everything; motor vehicles that go on four wheels = " all that exists"; and finally motor cycle = God.

1. All that exists is part of everything
2. God is not part of everything.
3. Therefore god does not exist.

If all that exists is part of everything, and God is not part of everything, it no way follows that God does not exist.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Everything is all that exists
God is not part of everything
Therefore everything is part of God

What you have there is an argument of the following form:
1. All Ts are part of E.
2. G is a not part of E.
3. Therefore E is part of G.

more like...

1. E is All Ts
2. G is a not part of E.
3. Therefore E is part of G

Here's another example, based on the same pattern:
1. All motor vehicles that go on four wheels are part of "The collection of all Cars".
2. My motor cycle is not part of "The collection of all Cars".
3. Therefore "The collection of all Cars" is part of my motor cycle.

This is nothing like the argument I presented.
The motor cycle is simply different that The collection..
The way Sarkus uses everything, as a totality, means that God exists, but is not a part of everything (the totality), therefore He must be everything (the totality).

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

It's tough to have to try to teach you logic almost from scratch in order to lead you to appreciate why the KCA is logically flawed. I must say, I wasn't expecting that would be necessary. Your apparent inability to follow logical reasoning does, however, go some way to explaining why you hold some of the beliefs that you hold without apparently worrying about whether they can be justified. Note: I'm not saying you lack the capacity to understand this stuff. It looks like you're just uneducated and have never been exposed to this stuff properly before. Let's hope you're willing to learn.

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence, and false ego - all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

Whatever. What matters for the purposes of the argument I have put to you is not whether you have 8 or 27 or 53 types of Energy, but whether all these "energies" are separate from God or the same as God.

I notice you tried to dodge that question. Will you answer it, or continue to try to dodge it?

It's not the same.

*sigh*

Yes it is the same. Here. Let me break it into small pieces for you to make it clearer.

You argued:

Everything is all that exists
God is not part of everything
Therefore everything is part of God

Premise 1 talks about all the "things" that exist, and labels that collection as "everything". Hence:
1. All Ts are part of a collection called E. ("All things are part of everything.")

Premise 2 is straight forward:
2. G is a not part of E. ("God is not part of everything.")

Your conclusion is:
3. Therefore E is part of G ("Everything is part of God").

Do you agree that I have represented the logical structure of your argument correctly? If not, point out where I went wrong.
Otherwise, let's move on.

So, the logical structure of your argument is:
1. All Ts are part of a collection called E.
2. G is a not part of E.
3. Therefore E is part of G.

Here's another argument with the same structure (I will put the labels T, E and G in brackets to make things clear):
1. All jet engines (T) are part of a collection called jet aircraft (E).
2. A rubber duck (G) is not part of jet aircraft (E).
3. Therefore, the collection of jet aircraft is part of a rubber duck.

I hope you can see that the conclusion (3) does not follow from your premises (1) and (2). For exactly the same reason, your argument about God fails on the grounds that it is illogical.

From Sarkus' perspective, everything is all that exists, and no other thing can exist

Ok. This is going to get a bit complicated. I think that you probably won't understand what you're about to read until you have more experience dealing with logical arguments, but I'll deal with your point here anyway as a matter of completeness. I don't expect you will be capable to coming up with a reasoned response to what is below at this point in your education.

Put into its basic form the premise you have attributed to Sarkus is:
"E is the collection of all Ts that have property X."
("Everything" (E) is the collection of all "things" (T) that have the property of "existence" (X).)

The assertion is: "No other thing can exist apart from everything". Is that reasonable?
In logical form, this assertion is "No A can exist that is not in the collection E."

Let's assume the opposite: that there is an A that is not in E and A exists (has property X). But then, according to the premise, if A is a thing (T) then A must be part of E. This is a contradiction. Therefore, we have shown logically that any given A that is a "thing" (T) that "exists", A must be part of "everything" (E).

Now, you claim that God is not a part of everything. That is, G (God) is not part of Everything (E). From the argument above, we must conclude therefore that God (G) cannot be a thing (T) that exists (X). The logical implications are that this God (G) is either not T (not a "thing") or not X (does not exist), or both.

If we accept the premise you attribute to Sarkus, then the least problematic answer is that God does not exist. The only alternative is that God is not a "thing". If that is the case, then we can conclude nothing about God's existence, because the premise is only concerned with "things" and the collection of all things ("everything"). To establish God's existence, you need some other premises.

So the obvious conclusion is that every thing is part of God.

No. That conclusion does not follow logically from any of the premises you have put, as I have explained.

 

[James R]

If all that exists is part of everything, and God is not part of everything, it no way follows that God does not exist.

If all things (T) that exist (have property X) are part of everything (E), and God (G) is not a part of everything (E), then we can conclude logically that either God is not a Thing, or that God does not exist. No premise here helps us to conclude that God exists.