Stem, I think your observation is correct that the argument points to a something, an unknown something, which may or may not be like Craig's Christian personal God. People have observed that all of the versions of cosmological arguments have that problem. One can argue that all change is happening under the control of some infinitely powerful order which is the ground of being but is that a personal God? Aquinas being an alert thinker looks to revelation at that point of the argument.Stem wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:36 pmI listened to part of the video now so I wanted to comment on something Craig said. But, I wanted to also add the comments in this thread to this point are very fascinating, and beyond my pay grade, so there's plenty I'm missing in all of this.
Craig suggested it's universally accepted by theists that God is not composed in parts. To bring this into the Mormon context, that is not true. For Mormons God was just like us, a materially composed spirit combined with a materially composed other body. I don't see how that really means anything eternally, but for Mormons it means everything somehow. If God is both spirit and body, then it is obviously best if we too end up both spirit and body...but the spirit is body too....ah well. If Mormons can fit reality into their religion, then before the Big Bang, if we go with that as the point of time start, then what was there besides other universes with other beings and other gods, plus us in some molecularly scattered state? If Mormonism then Craig argument which seems to be nothing more than an argument made to conclude an assumption, is simply nonsense anyway because all we have is an eternal regress of cause.
Anyway, back to his argument, he states two premises and then concludes a cause. Even if we grant the first two premises, there's no reason other than religious assumption, to think God. Of course God is such the nebulous concept, as mentioned above, that even if it were God, it hardly means Craig's Christian personal God.
I think it is of some value to use the arguments to ask if or how ones ideas of God qualify for the word. People do use the word in different ways. Long ago some wags called the guitarist Eric Clapton god. The meaning there is more superlative than ground of being but nobody was confused. If some being is claiming to be the authority over you it makes sense to ask why. For most theist God is your creator, the creator of the order and natural laws of the universe in which you live ,completely understands you and the people around you. Considering authority over you I think it is important to add that God cares for you.
Traditionally God is the source of the order with which pieces of things work together so God cannot be made of pieces coming to gether and changing. This is a very different picture of God than Mormons use. I think if you consider it can appear that Mormon understanding God is receiving power and authority from some source which is eternal light truth etc and fits the traditional God concept except known to us only through intermediary finite person. Without that source I cannot see how Mormon conception of God would have power and authority and be viewed honestly as God.