Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle
God, being absolute and eternal, requires no cause.
Not to pass on Nicato's defences or anything, but this argument is indeed circular. Inasmuch as you use a word like "eternal" or "absolute" to describe an object, you are ascribing it properties which must then be sustained by logical argument or evidence of some kind. As it stands, God is not eternal by definition
, but by description
As in, if I call a boat "The Unsinkable" it's not like I can go around saying "it's unsinkable by definition!". Likewise, if you posit such a thing as a God whose properties are the eternal, the absolute, etc. the mere act of positing it as such doesn't make its concept plausible or logical. (unless you can provide a reasonable explanation of how it is possible for a being to be eternal, but I think we all see how that is a logical conundrum).
EDIT: What the hell? Why did the site suddenly create those hyperlinks in my post?