Special pleading: Is attributing eternity to God special pleading ?

Is attributing eternity to God special pleading? 

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1539-special-pleading-is-attributing-eternity-to-god-special-pleading

The universe requires no maker. How is THAT not special pleading?

If logic does not account for justifiable special pleading then such logic is clearly flawed. Of course, an Infinite Creator Who created everything would involve a justifiable special pleading. Such a Creator would not be like the rest of us. It is as simple as seeing the difference between an Infinite Being (notice I didn't say "existence") and billions of "finite beings."
The One Infinite Being is clearly different. The One Infinite Being Who created all existence is quite different than those finite beings who are created by such Being.
It is as easy as seeing the difference between "those who have a beginning" who are finite versus an "Infinite Creator" Who has no beginning and alone possesses the attribute of Aseity.
In theology, there are several (what we call) incommunicable attributes of God. 1. would be omniscience. 2. omnipresence. 3. omnisapience 4. Aseity 5. immutability 6. I would include omnitemporal being. There are others. You see, only God is infinite everywhere. Only God is the Creator of the universe. Everyone else is different.
This is why we have something as basic as justifiable special pleading to account for this every clear difference between an Infinite Creator Who created everything.... and all other finite existences.

Common atheist fallacies: exposed !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK99BsNc2Ko&t=3054s
41:40 - Special pleading

“All lemons are citrus. Mushrooms are not citrus.”
This isn’t special pleading because there is a category difference. God is not in the same category as the creation. God is in a league of His own. He is… the great I AM.

Pointing out the obvious is not special pleading. The natural universe had a beginning. Therefore, the cause of the natural universe must be supernatural.

Its not special pleading to say God is eternal since this is exactly what the atheist has traditionally said about the universe: It is eternal and uncaused. The problem is that we have good evidence that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning, and so the atheist is backed into the corner of saying the universe sprang into being without a cause, which is absurd.

Objection: 'Special pleading' is (basically) the fallacy of claiming rules that apply to everything, don't apply to your claim. Eg: Someone claims nothing is eternal, except their god.
Response: God is infinite everywhere. Only God is the Creator of the universe. Everyone else is different, and as such, he is justifiably special.  He is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent and personal, which brought space, time, matter into being. These attributes must logically belong to a necessary being that brought the contingent, physical universe into being. There is no failure in logic or sort or kind of special pleading fallacy in the proposition. The Creator as an infinite being would not be like the rest of us, finite beings. The creator's nature with its attributes of Aseity must be clearly different, and distinguish itself in its nature from his contingent created beings, and be superior to them.

God is eternal and uncaused. This is not special pleading for God, since this is exactly what the atheist has traditionally said about the universe: It is eternal and uncaused. The problem is that we have good evidence that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning, and so the atheist is backed into the corner of saying the universe sprang into being without a cause, which is absurd. 1

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. 2
This is the key sentence in deciding if I am guilty of special pleading or not. The standards I have set for the universe and deny for God fall into my first premise:
Whatever begins to exist requires a cause

I say that this premise DOES apply to the universe and it DOES NOT apply to God.

Why it does apply to the universe:
Within this universe, every experience and experiment conducted by mankind shows that if nothing happens, then nothing happens. If you do not plant a seed, then a tree will not grow. However if a tree does grow, then a seed MUST have been planted. There is no alternative. Since this rule is consistent throughout the entire universe, it is logical to think that this same law applies to the universe itself. In addition to this we have evidence of such a beginning. We have discovered the once hypothetical background radiation which would have followed an explosive beginning to the universe. Red light shift indicates that all other galaxies are moving away from us. This would be very likely if the universe did have an explosive beginning but unlikely if the universe always was.

Why it does not apply to God:
Did God begin to exist? Scientifically there is no answer. The only answer can be found in theology and that answer is no. It is important to remember here that I am not changing or reinventing God so he fits with the criteria of this argument. The idea that God was eternal dates back to at least the writing of genesis which is well before the BCE./CE switch. So I am not fitting the facts to God, not am I fitting God to the facts. They are both the same. Once again the CFC of the universe is fixed. If the universe began (which is an accepted analysis of science), then its cause must fall within certain guidelines, which I established. The fact that the God described in the bible happens to fit these guidelines is not the product of theology but rather of coincidence.

CONCLUSION:

With my reasons for applying the criteria to the universe and not to God in mind I can safely say that I have not committed the logical fallacy of special pleading. The only case in which I would have done this is if God was supposed to be held to the same standards as everything else within this universe. From Goat's source :

2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.

But the God of Christianity does not fit into the circumstances applied to the universe. The laws of the universe don't apply to God simply due to his nature. Looking at this from the other side, if the laws of this universe applied to God, then god could not have been the first cause because he would be dependent on the universe. But then we are still left with the problem of the cause of the universe. In essence what I am trying to say in as lengthy manner as possible is that whatever caused the universe, IS NOT bound by the laws of this universe. Therefore, I can not be guilty of special pleading because person A (God) is not in the circumstances described for and applied to the universe itself.

1. https://www.cbn.com/special/apologetics/articles/Al-ghazali-argument.aspx?option=print
2. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4966

Is attributing eternity to God special pleading ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1539-is-attributing-eternity-to-god-special-pleading?highlight=special


Its not special pleading to say God is eternal, since this is exactly what the atheist has traditionally said about the universe: It is eternal and uncaused. The problem is that we have good evidence that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning, and so the atheist is backed into the corner of saying the universe sprang into being without a cause, which is absurd.



If logic does not account for justifiable special pleading then such logic is clearly flawed.

Of course an Infinite Creator Who created everything would involve a justifiable special pleading. Such Creator would not be like the rest of us.

It is as simple as seeing the difference between an Infinite Being (notice I didn't say "existence") and billions of "finite beings."

The One Infinite Being is clearly different. The One Infinite Being Who created all existence is quite different than those finite beings who are created by such Being.

It is as easy as seeing the difference between "those who have a beginning" who are finite verses an "Infinite Creator" Who has no beginning and alone possesses the attribute of Aseity.

In theology there are several (what we call) incommunicable attributes of God. 1. would be omniscience. 2. omnipresence. 3. omnisapience 4. Asiety 5. immutability 6. I would include omnitemporal being. There are others.

You see, only God is infinite everywhere. Only God is the Creator of the universe. Everyone else is different.

This is why we have something as basic as justifiable special pleading to account for this every clear difference between an Infinite Creator Who created everything.... and all other finite existences.

The atheist has traditionally said about the universe that it is eternal and uncaused.

When evidence arose that the universe had a beginning, theists had an argument, namely, that a eternal God had to cause the universe into existence. Then that, suddenly, was called special pleading.

'Special pleading' is (basically) the fallacy of claiming rules that apply to everything, don't apply to your claim. Eg: Someone claims nothing is eternal, except God.

But are not atheists themselves guilty of precisely that ?
A house has a builder, a painting a painter, a car has a maker, a factory a factory maker.

But if atheists claim, that the natural world requires no maker, is that not special pleading ?

IN this universe, everything is doomed to end sometimes. Atoms are exposed to decay. If I leave a nail to the elements, it will rust. Everything is subject to disintegrate over time. Energy is consumed and will not be able to perform work in the near future, aka about in 5bi years. But according to some well-educated proponents of a No-God world, the universe itself, the big entire thing, can exist without being submitted to the same physical laws. It can exist without a beginning.

Some others think the origin of the universe is a big free lunch. It just popped out, out of nothing!!

Ain't both propositions not a big leap to special pleading??

Precisely, what do atheists accuse us of doing when we say God is eternal?