Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Esquilax]

...Of course it must apply to the universe itself! The universe began to exist and something else that isn't the universe made it begin to exist. Otherwise you have something that happened for no reason, this is not remotely logical at all.

Okay, stop: the point that was being made to you is this: at the time before the big bang, insofar as that concept even makes sense, the "universe" was not operating under the normal laws of physics that we experience today. Time and space weren't formed as they are now, in fact there might not even have been linear time as we understand it; we just don't know. So expecting cause and effect to follow on from one another in a setting where the only thing we know for sure is that the physical constants would have been vastly different is an unreasonable claim to make. You're imposing an answer you can't possibly justify onto an area where your experience of the universe is damn near meaningless.

Incidentally, you can't even say that the cause must be outside the universe, or that the cause must be eternal. Let me pose you a little thought experiment: in the future, let's say I invent three machines. One is a time machine, one is a machine that penetrates the planck time and let's one exist in a little bubble of reality outside the universe, and the last is a machine that makes universes. Deciding that I want to be the creator of the universe, I use all three machines to go back before the big bang and spawn our universe into existence; by doing so I've created a non-eternal cause from within the universe itself.

My question is, can you provide an argument for why I could not possibly do this, using the evidence that you have? Can you see the future? Do you know enough about the formation of the universe- in a demonstrable way you can relate to the rest of us- to exclude that possibility, and an infinity more?

The same reason you think an intelligent being made your car. It may have been made by automated robots sure but who programmed the robots? It's the same deal with the universe you can see the complex function and design of it for yourself.

Ah, the difference there is that all examples of cars or robots that make cars that we have are designed. We cannot say the same thing about universes, because we've observed a single universe in action. We recognize design via comparison and contrast, not just complexity. Your arguments here hinge on the idea that we just notice design, sight unseen, and that's not the case. Complex things can exist without a designer. I used the example of the landslide before; each individual piece of rubble is placed in a specific location against the odds of them all landing in different patterns or places, and yet despite these astronomical odds there is no design.

Ok lets have a look at the options if we're looking for a belief centred upon one creator God.

You're rather jumping the gun, here.

1) Deism, this was a God who went to all the trouble of creating us but then left us and essentially doesn't care that we exist at all. This seems like complete waste of effort so I think it's reasonable to discount this. Particularly in the light of the human experience concerning God and the influence it has had on the world we can see around us.

Whoa whoa, a little simplistic there, aren't we? Why would you think that a hugely sophisticated conscious being capable of creating the universe would have the same motivations as a human? Why do you think you can guess at these motivations at all? Waste of effort? What if we're a science experiment, and the deist creator doesn't interfere for fear of contaminating its sample?

Please stop interpreting things solely based on the conclusion you want to be true, and look at all of the possibilities equally.

2) We're looking ideally for a God that has a universal message for all humanity and not something confined within specific tribal or ethnic groups. Ethnic and national religions don't make any effort to convert you so there's no real reason for you to make the effort in considering them.

We aren't going shopping for a creator, either: what you think the ideal is has no bearing upon the actual reality of the situation. It might potentially feel nicer to think this god wants to communicate its message to all mankind, but you're trying to demonstrate the reality of this god, not just make a list of what you'd like him to do.

3) Of the universal religions that remain, the main ones being Christianity and Islam. Most of them would appear to consist of ritual and various things you must and must not do in order to get into heaven with various rules and regulations and prohibitions.

Bit of a non sequitur here...

4) Christianity stands out as the religion that appears to have the least human made fabrication as what you see demanded of followers. This is because none of this is required as we are saved by the love and grace of God and not through our own works.

I bet there are plenty of muslims, buddhists, hindus, mormons and scientologists who would tell you exactly the same thing. What does this have to do with anything?

Also I'd argue that Christianity has had the most positive/significant impact on the world and miracle of the resurrection and the empty tomb while you can argue against it happening seems like the miracle that has the most going for it given the number of people involved. And also clearly no-one simply pointed out that Jesus was still where he was meant to be which would have stopped the movement dead in it's tracks before it got started.

This argument of the empty tomb is a bit laughable, and the only thing I have to do to defeat it is point out that the entire story could be fabricated, including the people involved.

If you want to violate Occams Razor and of course all that would be due to physical laws that exist and produce an effect so you can just say all of what you describe had a cause if it's real.

Occam's Razor tends to shave off instances of magic too, you know.

Part of the laws of physics of the universe, they don't explain why universe exists they are merely part of the overall effect which has a specific cause.

Read: "That doesn't prove anything." Not really a rebuttal, more of a flat denial with no basis.

Our current scientific understanding breaks down at that scale but this doesn't prove anything, you can't draw any assumptions from what we don't know. I'm not saying "We don't know therefore God did it" either as that is a God of the gaps argument. I'm giving arguments for Gods existence based on what we do in know or can figure out.

Oh hey, you actually said it this time!

Look, the problem here is that knowledge is demonstrated and not asserted, and all you've done here is assert a number of things, sans demonstration, in an attempt to define your god into existence. It's just a word game, really. Unless you can demonstrate that the universe itself can't be eternal- not just say that it can't be- then you can't say we know any of the things you claim.

God is outside of our everyday experience of reality, though I believe we can and do experience him. But what I'm using here is basic logical deduction. Whatever is the most straightforward explanation is the one to go for even if it seems fantastical. It's fantastical that we're to begin with anyway so anything is possible. It doesn't have to be something "mundane".

Again, logic is based on premises, and premises need to be demonstrated to be true. False premises can lead to logical statements that are incorrect; my claim, and the claim of the other atheists here, is that there are numerous premises you're using here, namely "the universe requires a cause from outside it," to begin with, that have not been demonstrated, and may in fact be flatly wrong.

Please provide evidence or demonstration, not mere assertions. Flat assertions get you put on people's ignore lists, around here. If you make yourself impervious to counter arguments, you'll lose interest fast.

Look you have two possible explanations for the universe,

Since I gave a third in this very post, I'll say you're wrong here.

both explanations would describe the universe we see and observe through science equally just as well (God describes it far better imo but leave that aside) which of these explanations seems more interesting?

What's more interesting? Not what's true? Do you even care about the truth, here?

It's God isn't it? So God is what you would rationally believe in if given the choice believe something. If you're wrong (unlikely of course but just say you were) you will literally never know so you lost nothing at all. Therefore everything considered a faith in God is far more rational than atheism. To adhere to the (false) philosophy of atheism when confronted by overwhelming logic of this magnitude would be utterly bizarre!

Okay, so first off, I wouldn't be calling anything you've just said "logical," given that you just asked us what we'd find more interesting, rather than, say, compelling, or demonstrable. Secondly, tossing in a Pascal's Wager isn't helping your case.

Why do you think that literally nobody here is convinced, SoC? Why is nobody coming to your defense? Why are we all arguing against you? Just consider the possibility for a moment that the problem lies with your own argument, and not with everyone else.