Hi again, Jigger
A noticed a few things about your post, and thought I'd offer some of what traditional philosophy has to say on the matter.
You needn't invoke the term, 'religious,' when making an objection to the real matter at hand, which is Theism (traditional Buddhist religions do not
include the belief in a supreme Deity). Theism is ONLY the belief that at least one Deity exists, and that Deity is responsible, in some way or
another, for the creation of the Universe. More specifically, Deism does not set forth that a Deity created everything; rather, that this being was
only responsible for the initial spark that set everything else in motion (the Big Bang).
The argument which is relevant to your post:
I. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
II. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
III. The universe has a cause of its existence.
IV. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is a supreme creator.
V. A supreme creator exists.
This is where the terrain gets strange (and if one has even a cursory study of quantum theory, which arose from philosophical considerations, then the
following should seem too weird); We may appeal to premise 1 and say something along the lines of, 'well, doesn't God also have a beginning of
existence, and therefore subject to the same criteria as everything else?' This would unravel the argument, and ultimately lead to an infinite
The Theist solves this problem by accounting for the nature of the Supreme Being as existing outside space or time & by classifying all beings that
exist into two categories: Independent Beings, and Dependent Beings.
Dependent Beings are like us - our very existence was initially dependent upon our parents making the decision to park the Dodge Charger after the
Enchantment Under the Sea Dance, and polish off a bottle of Peppermint Schnapps. Simply put, we appeal to what is known as the Principle of
Sufficient Reason. PRS states that for any given X, there must be a reason for X, so as to account for its existence.
Independent Beings are also subject to PRS, but the very definition of an Independent Being satisfies its criteria. An independent being is one that
wasn't dependent upon a chain of being preceding it, so as to account for its existence. Rather, an Independent being is one that may exist outside
of space and time, and has theoretically, always existed. An independent Being has no parents, for it is known as a 'Casua Sui,' or, 'a thing caused
Really, the only difference between Theists an Atheists in a strictly philosophical sense, is that the Theist believes that some conscious energy set
forth the big-bang, while the Atheist does not. Further, the Theist can account for the reason for the Big-Bang, whereas the Atheist may have a
difficult time explaining just how something (the energy which culminated in the Big Bang) came from nothing. Again, the argument above rests upon
the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and if rejected, the argument fails. Yet, one must cook up some clever ways of explaining how exactly PRS fails,
or is untrue, but to subscribe to that philosophy leads one into some exceedingly unpleasant complications.
A second objection to the argument may be had by appealing to premise 2, and concluding that the universe has always existed, and thus never required
a beginning. In doing this, one must reject some basic principles of modern astronomy (the Big Bang) - but to do this requires an extensive amount of
technical knowledge that really goes against the grain of what modern astronomy offers.
In any event, of one is attracted to Theism in a philosophical sense, nothing follows about the nature of morality. Such a conclusion (that there
exists a source of consciousness that, at very least, created the conditions which gave birth to the big-bang), demands nothing further from the one
it persuades (e.g., beliefs about abortion, gun-control, hand-jobs, gay-marriage, terrorism, tolerance, KISS's disco record, etc). Religion is based
upon Theism, yet the Theist need not be religious. Some religious fanatics might try to tell you differently, but . . . they're wrong. Moral
Philosophy does not appeal to the existence (or lack thereof) of a Deity to account for moral facts, but that is another matter entirely.
Anyhow, it's good to see someone using philosophy to make claims with regard to Theism, rather than people pointing to scripture to undermine
This may be of value to you:
Included are many classical arguments for (and against) Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism.
Arm Thyself, for Knowledge is Power.
edit on 1-7-2012 by kissy princess because: My cat barfed, so I had to clean some things up.