My subjective personal experience is no proof for the objective external existence of God. God either exists or doesn't exist independent of whether I or anyone else has experienced him or not.

God didn't begin to exist, therefore no cause is necessary. And if you then think "then why does the universe need a cause" you don't understand the argument and therefore have no right to criticize it. The first step is understanding. Critism without understanding is foolishness.

I agree with you that if everything requires a cuase you get into an infinite regress and nothing can ever have happened. It would be like a chain suspended in midair. Just looking at the one link above the bottom link does not explain anything. You must get to an uncaused cause in order to have any causes at all.

I agree- the bible is not proof that any God exists and I never claimed it to be.

That was precisely my point, and what exactly would make a god exempt from causality? the only argument i have ever heard for that view is "no one knows so the ultimate cause must be god despite there being no evidence for it" is only there if you subjectively already accept god as an ultimate default, which in turn demands its own proof.

the bible statement was in response to a post earlier in the thread by rjwood i think posted it, wasn't aimed at you.

Well, if that's the case, you don't know if God began to exist or not... so you couldn't argue a cause wasn't necessary

Except for the fact that the only reason the argument supposes god in the first place is the assumption that "Everything must have a cause", which leads to the problem of turtles all the way down.

Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion has an excellent refutation of the ontological argument.

1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.

The point is that you cannot have any causes without an ultimate uncaused cause. The uncaused cause is what we call God - not that we don't know what it is so we say it is God - but the uncaused cause is precisely God.

Sorry about the confusion earlier.

If God began to exist he would no longer be God and whatever caused him to exist would be God. God is the uncaused cause.

I have never once said, and I agree with you that the argument falls apart, if the 1st premise is that Everything has a cause. If this is true, any certain knowledge is impossible.

And Dawkin's argument is ridiculous and I won't say any more about it. It is a good example of an argument that someone wanting to not believe in God makes. Too many rabbit trails in the thread already though so I'll drop it.

LOL this is complete nonsense. The universe and all it holds within is from the great Tao, it was here long before our galaxy and will be after it also. Dont missinterperate Tao as god, or an entity, for it is not. It has no mind of its own and does not knowingly create nor destroy. It is pure spontanity. Cheers

and how do you get from "something outside the universe made the universe" (extremely powerful assumes without explaining so I remove it) to the God you claim exists? I mean, if something conscious created our little existence, and you've apparently proved that (I'll take on that idea later) how can you claim that he is the God your faith follows? If whatever created our universe has to be a God, that still leaves your entire faith completely unsupported in it's insane assumptions. (Not knowing your faith, I speak simply of the fact that you think you understand God? [if he exists])

In response to the idea that what you suggested proves a God at all, let me ask you to explain the beginning of time, or how time could begin, or what is beyond the end of the universe, or what infinity truly is. Your inability to provide any REAL answer to this, shows me what I already know. Human being's are limited. Stop filling in blanks with what you want.

but hey, if you need this to feel good about yourself, you will never know you were wrong. When you die, there will be nothing, and no "you" left to know you were wrong. Pascals wager is the only reason to believe in God, and it only works for cowards.

It's funny this assumption of yours when trying to explain how God should be, when the existence of such a being is still a mystery, even more how it comes to exist!!

Or will you tell me how is God is supposed to be?? or how is he supposed to act??

I wasn't trying to prove the God of Christianity, just the generic Theistic God. You may have been confused by my quoting of Scripture. I was doing that for the Christian who thought the discussion was useless. If you accept the validity of this argument, the religions that can be true narrow down to roughly Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (with the possibility of some other minor religions as well).
I think there is adequate evidence to show that this God is the God as revealed in the Christian scriptures, but this thread wasn't about that.

In response to your criticism to my argument - I cannot explain the beginning of time, or infinity or any of that. Nor did I ever say I could. I am very much aware of the limitations of my mind, but my argument, as you claim, is not "filling in the blanks". It was a positive argument. It wasn't "something needed to cause the universe, I don't know what it was.. let's say God did it." That wasn't the argument. The argument was "something needed to cause the universe, the thing that caused it is what we call God". That is a positive argument not an argument from ignorance. You don't have to be able to fathom the mysteries of the beginning to understand that there was one and that something needed to cause it and know some things about the cause.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, could you clarify?

you either missed or did not answer my question, why is god the thing that is exempt from causality? there is nothing to say why the beginning of the universe is any more likely to be exempt from causality,(i do not assume this btw)

the only way you can make god exempt from causality is if you just accept it as a default, which objectively is illogical and you cannot do.

also you make no objective argument as to why the start of the universe has to be a god at all.

and it is arrogance to accept that the 3 big religions should be the right one, number abuse doesn't make anything true, for the same reason that most of the world beleived the world was flat 400 years ago. there is as much evidence it could be scientology or voodoo that held the correct answer to the beginning of the universe as the judeo-christian view.

You said if God began to exist, then he wouldn't be God. You are saying you know God is a being who need not to be created, as if you personally know him and his past!!

How do you KNOW God has been there forever, or appeared suddenly, or whatever. Every single idea behind God's origins is pure fiction made up by people!!

For doing so you'd need:

A. Prove God exists, as physical or metaphysical entity.
B. Ask him if he has been here forever or other being created him, or how he came to exist
C. Get an answer from him

first sensible thing I've read all evening.

oh, and by the way, causality only exists in your head, it cannot be proven. Trying to assert the existence of god by way of a causality argument is like a double whammy of nonsense

I think we shouldn't be worried about things we'll never know...

Just check my previous post...

You all seem to be looking at this a little backwards. There must be an uncaused cause in order to have any other causes. Everything that begins, needs a cause. So in order to have anything at all, you need something that hasn't begun, a foundation for all other causes. That first cause is what we call God. It isn't the other way around. It is not that we have God and we have the first cause and we just equate them. It is that we have the first cause and that is God. It is a subtle but important difference.

@hairy - the reason the universe is not exempt from causality is that it had a beginning, and anything that begins to exist, has a cause. If the universe did not have a beginning, it would not have required a cause. (And by universe I don't just mean the current arrangement of matter - but matter/energy itself).

I agree with you that the number of followers has no relation to the truthfulness of the belief (good thing for the atheist who are extremely(!!) out numbered). I don't think I ever said that I did. I apologize for my unclarity if you interpreted my statement that way.