>>11895786Hmm, does God have a cause? Perhaps a meta-God? After all, if everything has a cause, then God has a cause. So perhaps the idea that "everything has a cause" is wrong.
The notion of a God is often poorly defined, especially in the Kalam argument in
>>11895790After all, what is a God?
Many insist that their definition includes their holy book. Their justification for such insertion is lacking.
Many also assert that their God is eternal in some way and operates outside of time. An expanation is lacking of how actions and causes are done when there is no time for action to take place.
I dare propose that the only God is the universe itself, or Cosmos in the Carl Sagan sense. Time began when the universe began, which is literally a theory that it is a first cause without precursor. There doesn't need to be anything more.
