“Oh, really? Supernatural explanations or spiritual beings?”
I use supernatural as an all-encompassing term. When I started this thread I used multiple words to describe what I disbelieved in because many people use different phrases on this topic. They may say, “I am not religious, but spiritual” or “I feel that there is more to life than the material world”.
“Again, that’s the definition of capital “G” God, so either someone is debunking a god, a first creator god, or simply the Christian deity God.”
I was asked the definition of God that I responded to by Malachi, so I provided it. People may be misunderstanding each other in this thread because people are using different definitions.
“For the sake of argument I’m making the case the universe can create the god, the god does not always have to create the universe, being said something else beyond a god can be the first creator - universe/energy/Big Bang/whatever. If I say a god was created from the universe, can you debunk the existence of that god if he came from the same first cause of all other life?”
I have not heard that argument before. However, just saying “god was created from the universe” does not make it so.
“A regression of infinite causes is essentially causeless as such if we want to hold to cause and effect either the universe is an uncaused cause”
An infidel’s opinion: If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question “Why is there a universe rather than nothing?” you raise the further question “Why is there a God rather than nothing?” The fundamental question—“Why is there something rather than nothing?”—remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?
“You may find Liebniz’s cosmologiucal argument interesting.”
Nope. Seen too many formulations of the cosmological argument.
Liebniz said, “the only type of thing that can exist outside of the universe is something that is non-physical, such as abstract things, like numbers, or immaterial things, such as minds.” I always thought of the universe as everything that exists, so how can anything be outside of it? Numbers were created in reference to physical things: apples, cars, bananas, and etcetera. The humans who created the number concept are physical things. The universe is physical. The idea of non-physical is silly to me. Doing math requires certain physical chemicals in your head to operate. I don’t know what an abstract mind is. I always thought a mind was contained in one’s skull, but an abstract mind? Might as well call it an abstract pancake because that makes just as much sense to me.
“A common misconception though: God is not believed to be more complex than the universe, to the contrary he’s supposed to be simpler.”
Bert’s argument of god being created from the universe is compatible with what you said, but the more common view that God created the universe from nothing shows that God is more complex than the universe.