Begging the Question or an Appeal to Authority fallacy?

I agree that it is an appeal to authority, and Christians should never use that form of argumentation (sadly, many do). But I don't think an appeal to God is begging the question. To state that God is not in evidence is begging the question as well, so either or is question begging. The point in this little exercise, in my view would be to make sure that all arguments appeal to reason - not to evidence. The use of evidence also has to appeal to reason. So I would say that at the top of the order here is reason's rules - non-contradiction, identity and excluded middle. Appeals to authority are fallacys because they discount reason's rules for a more popular form of argumentation that says because somone said do, and that someone is always true, it must be true. We must first show reasonably that the someone in quesstion is always true. God by definition is always true, or he wouldn't be God. But we have to reasonably demonstrate that the bible is his word. I think there are ways of doing just that within reason.

Why do you gratuitously include "always true" in your definition of GOD?

Frank Apisa, responding to brandonsays wrote:

Why do you gratuitously include "always true" in your definition of GOD?

Would you worship God if he lied?

BTW, the first liar was the entity who spoke through the serpent in Genesis ch 3. Many worship him.

From a philosophical standpoint, I view God as the necessary first cause of all that began to exist. This should be the beginning of any meaningful definition of what we mean by God. If He is other than that by definition, then He is hardly necessary, and hardly God. If we extrapolate further from this, we discover that God, by definition is above and before all. Therefore deception are hardly necessary for a being who can accomplish what He wishes without it. It would therefore seem to be in His character to always be true. Deception is the trademark of created beings who have been given free will. It hardly makes any sense that God would have that same character and 'remain' God, which logically He must do.

God as a deceiver presents us with another myriad of logical absurdities. We could not, in fact argue logically if God is not true.

Thanks for that, Frank,

But what have you given me to show that your own assertions are nothimg but mere "guesswork?"

I can find no argument that refutes the necessity of God's existence given the world and universe we observe, and given our ability to understand it from a rational basis. Your assertion that it's mere speculation on my part does not advance an alternative.

Why, your assertion that my arguments are merely "guesswork." Iow, I have no problem with thatcexcept that you have presented no argument, just an assertion. Why do you suppose my argument is guesswork?

Give me the argument that makes a god unnecessary.

I've already given you my argument that what begins to exist has a cause, and this implies a necessary first cause to all that exists on pain of absurdity (infinite regresses of causes and such). What is your counter argument?

Actually, no. I base them on logical inferences. If God exists, he is the necessary first cause of everything that began to exist. That isn't guesswork, but a conclusion you get when you consider how things exist at all. If the axiom "you don't get something from nothing" is correct (and in a cause-effect scenario, it is), then that there is a necessary first cause is an unavoidable conclusion. Any other conclusion is incoherent.

You get 3 things right there regarding the nature of God. 1) He is eternal (uncaused cause). 2) He is immaterial, and 3) He is more powerful than what he created.

Your continued charge that my inferences are "gratuitous" does not make them so, Frank. I have repeatedly based those inferences on the axiom: "nothing comes from nothing," or "you don't get something from nothing." There is nothing gratuitous in that statement whatsoever. It is a foregone conclusion when observing cause/effect scenarios, and it is common to our experience without exception.

An inference based on this is that since you don't get something from nothing, something, rather than nothing caused the universe into being.

If you can show me how nothingness can cause something into being, you just might have an argument. But you can't. That is a gurantee. Just stating you don't know because you are unhappy with the foregone conclusion simply doesn't work.

Yes, I see where you have difficulties with what I'm saying. Perhaps I'm jumping a bit too far ahead from the basics of the cosmological argument, which goes like this:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause (Law of causality).
2) The universe began to exist (on pain of absurdity, but also supported by several current cosmological models).
3) Therefore the universe had a cause.

In order to resolve any absurdities (which we must do), such as infinite regresses of causes, we must posit that given the premises and conclusion above there is of necessity a first cause to the universe that is uncaused (eternal). That cause must be immaterial. Now the issue we're faced with here, and the reason I think you objected to my initial argument is in the word "something." from the phrase "something from nothing." We don't have an adequate term for an immaterial uncaused "something," and I think that is where the difficulty lies. However, I believe the argument is sound. Are you doubting that an immaterial uncaused "something" can produce a material something? If so, please explain.