/lit/ - Literature

This is an argument against any conception of God that isn't divinely simple.

Any God that is non simple must necessarily be part of a genus or general pattern, even if he is the only member of that genus he can't be the first cause. The reason for that is essentially that either God would need to instantiate himself as the member of that genus or he would need to be instantiated as a member of that genus.
If you say that he needs to instantiate himself then he would need to exist before he existed which is causally impossible. If you say that he needs to be instantiated by something else then he isn't the actual first cause, that other being is that instantiated him. This would only leave a conception of God that is in no way a part of a genus but instead transcends that category of genus altogether, aka a simple God who can be described in no other way then the subsistent act of existence itself.

I apologize if I fucked this up in some way, if I did please tell me. And if there's a conceivable way out of this dilemma then by all means, embarrass me.

In the last five minutes I've heard like three people say that beliefs can only be true if they are falsifiable. Isn't this self refuting? The idea isn't falsifiable with reference to the empirical world.
Am I retarded?
What am I missing?