I initially thought that the objection Uzumaki Macho provided would be dealt with with ease but apparently, it's been a fair chore so I guess I should step in now and clear some things up. I see there have been objections from various perspectives such as complexity, the nature of time and matter, but instead of going through each one I'll just lay out my own arguments which (if proven succesfull) render the objections invalid.
So, the original premise was that if God can be an exception to the laws of creation (something cannot come from nothing etc) why can't the same be said for the universe?
First off, when talking about these two we need to make clear the vast differences between them. Universe is broadly defined as all of space and time including their contents. Universe can thus be simply understood as a huge container that consists of everything around us – galaxies, planets, stars and ultimatively - us. These contents are a subject of all the laws of physics that we know and love and these contents and laws form the universe. (For if there were no elements to form the group, the group wouldn't exist.)
Going further in, at the level of individual objects such as planets or stars, we describe all these as matter. Now, what is matter? Well, to be fair there is really no set definition of what classifies as matter. There are debates of what is and what isn't matter and our knowledge of it is embarassingly limited. If we had to put it in a simple sentence we could describe matter as virtually any observable object in the universe. Depending on the context the term could also present the substance of which a certain object or objects are made.
Instead of throwing around vague terms such as „matter“ (which doesn't even have an agreed-upon definition and is all but a crucial concept in physics) the meaning of which varies from one person to another, I'm going to focus on that we actually know and is factual to make the case clear.
So, we know that the universe could be understood as a group or collection of objects. All these objects, when inspected further, at their very core are but specific arrangements of the basic elementary particles (such as quarks and leptons) and forces that bind them. Everything in the universe is composed of these elementary particles and the way these particles are arranged determines the structure of an object.
From this we can conclude that the universe as a whole, in the most basic sense, is a collection of groups of basic elementary particles organized in a specific manner to form observable entites.
The first thing that falls to mind would ofcourse be the huge difference between these two. On one side we have the universe, which can be defined as shown above, and on the other side we have God. So we defined the universe, but what about God?
Well, God, as seen in the Judeo-Christian religions, is a transcendent being. To be transcendent means to be beyond the limits of our comprehension and understanding. The key thing here is this exact property – transcendency. It is what allows God to escape the boundaries of our very limited reasoning and strive higher to present a solution in problems we deem impossible to solve.
_______________________________
So, here comes the argument:
Premise 1: Transcendant beings/things are beyond the limits of our reasoning and knowledge
Premise 2: God is a transcendent being while universe is not
Conclusion: Therefore, God is beyond the limits of our reasoning and knowledge while the universe is not.
This is a deductive argument. In order for it to be true, all premises must be true and the conclusion must logically follow from these premises. So in order to refute it, the opponet must refute atleast one of these premises. Here I'll go through usual objections (most of which were already layed out in this thread) and provide my answers to these objections. Let's see.
- Premise 1
There isn't much to be said about this. Transcendency is properly defined as:
„the quality or state of being transcendent.“
In turn, transcendent is defined as multiple things depending on the context. In this example transcendent means:
„not realizable in humanexperience.“
Not realizable is synonimus to not being able to realize/comprehend/understand. Regardless of the wording the meaning is the same. Not much can be said here as it is a universally agreed upon, standard definition. Therefore this premise is undeniably true.
- Premise 2
Now here's where things get tricky. This is where all the objections in this thread belong. I'll be now going through some (both that are present here and those that aren't).
Objection 1: If God is transcendant, you wouldn't be able to understand Him, therefore, the entirety of religion wouldn't exist.
So, this hasn't been mentioned here but I'll drop it here non-the less as it is an objection that is bound to appear sooner or later. So, the main point here is that if God is transcendant then we have debunked that notion on the very fact that we know him to be transcendant.
This seems plausible at first, but in reality it is just a sign of one's ignorance on God. While this would have been a devastating argument in the case of a God whose sole property was transcendency, it does nothing against the Judeo-Christian concept of God who is not only transcendant but also all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, etc. There is however one definitive property that this concept of God holds that hinders the objection – He is a personal God.
Indeed, had we understood God's transcendency on our own, this objection would hold its ground but in this case, we haven't realised anything. Not on our own effort. For God was the one willing to reveal Himself in a manner that We cannot comprehend. We cannot test God, nor apply physical laws to it, but we can understand His revalation – that which He wants us to know.
Being a personal figure, God can reveal things to us, therefore we can posess knowledge of Him, while His transcendency remains intact. Unlike God, the universe cannot reveal anything to us (as it isn't a sentinent being but just a collection of objects) therefore God is transcendant while the universe is not.
Objection 2: Universe is transcendant.
This is the objection Riker layed out.
„If you can call God transcendant, what's stopping me from doing the same for the universe?“
Multiple things. For that we need to first go back to what transcendency is. For something to be transcendant in nature, it must be beyond our ability to understand it. Is the universe really beyond our ability to understand it? Cosmology says hi. So does Astronomy. Hey, Physics says hi too.
We have entire branches dedicated to understanding and discovering new things about the universe, science in general serves to unveil the mysteries that surround it. All these disciplines have been more than succesfull at understanding the universe, therefore the universe is clearly realizable.
If something can be understood, than it cannot be beyond our understanding. We already have plausible theories for how the universe began, we already begun exploring it, it is out there for testing, measuring, calculations – none of these things could be possible had the universe been truly transcendant.
Unlike the universe, we cannot measure God, we cannot test Him or observe Him. He is completely, undeniably out of our reach – an ultimate riddle for our minds, one which we cannot solve on our own.
The whole nature of the universe is out there in the open, just waiting for it to be fully understood, the only problem being our current technological inability to fully do so. Regardless, just because we haven't understood the universe completely doesn't mean we cannot understand it. We've been doing a pretty good job at understanding it so far, so unless one wants to completely discredit science as a whole, they'd be better off dropping the notion of a transcendant universe.
_________________________________
These were the 2 most common objections to the transcendency argument and so far none have been able to refute it. It is in the very concept of God that he is transcendant therefore while the universe is a completely different story. Two completely different concepts should not be judged by the same criteria, therefore the argument that has been layed out by the atheist side fails.
But even if we were to ignore the transcendency argument, we simply cannot require a creator from a Judeo-Christian God for the very concept of Him is that he is an unmoved mover, an un-created creator etc. Asking for a creator of a God whose whole point is that He doesn't have a creator is nothing more than ignoring the very concept of God that is being discussed. It falls in the same category as asking „What is souther than the south“ or „What is lefter than the left“. A non-sencial question that undermines the very thing that is being discussed and moves on to something else.
