God's Existence

Thanks for the response. Con argues that the concept of God fails from the get-go. He argues that defining God as the creator/sustainer of the universe is like defining a human as a builder of cities. However, I do not think that this definition of a human is an inadequate definition. It is an incomplete definition. But it still tells us something about humans. It just doesn't tell us everything about humans. So likewise, defining God as the creator, does not tell us everything about God, but it does tell us something about God. We can then derive God's primary attributes by deducing features about Him that must be true from cause and effect reasoning etc. Con then examines the argument from contingency. Con says that the argument fails for a couple of reasons, however I will respond to the objections that Con specifically makes to the version that I presented. Con objects that it is not self evidently true that things are contingent until a ground of existence is reached. However, I do take this as evident after the nature of contingency is contemplated. Things are contingent on more fundamental components (ie. the computer and bottle analogies that I gave) and this contingency keeps going until a stopping point is reached, which I call the ground of existence. I see no problem with this being self evidently true once it is explained. Con then objects that there could be multiple 'grounds of existence' as opposed to just one. I agree that this initially is possible. However, the ground of existence cannot have limitations/constraints. Once that is understood there is no room for more than one ground of existence since more than one ground of existence would entail that each ground of existence limits the other ground of existence. But the ground of existence must be without limit/constraint, so there can only be one ground of existence. Con then objects that theists argue against infinite regresses, but then they claim that God is infinite (which is thereby contradictory). However, when the theist claims that God is infinite, what they mean is that is God is not limited in His being. They do not mean that God is an infinitely long set of things (and thereby an infinite regress). Regardless, I gave a reason in the first argument as to why there cannot be an infinite regress of contingent things sustaining each other, as I said: "Things are contingent upon a component that transcends the limitations of the contingent thing itself. This transcendence would ultimately bottom out at the ground of existence. So an infinite regress is not plausible." Con then argues that the 2nd premise of my argument is a bare assertion because no reason is given as to why the ground of existence must be without limitation/constraint (and thereby be perfect). Yet, I explained in premise 2 that if the ground of existence is not without limitation/constrain then "it would be contingent because further possibilities would exist outside of it." Con then objects that if the ground of existence is perfect then it should only be able to produce perfect things. However, I do not think this logically follows. To use an analogy, if a bucket has a gallon of water in it, it does not need to only be able pour out a gallon. It can pour out less than a gallon. So similarly, God does not need create only perfect things. He can create less. Con then objects that premise 3 has no support. However, premise 3 logically follows from premise 2 (once premise 2 is unpacked). For if something is not constrained/limited then it can not be limited by space and time and therefore must be spaceless and timeless. Also, if it is not limited/constrained, then it must possess full intelligence because to lack intelligence would be a limitation/constraint. I look forward to Con's response.