queston for Atheist

[RobbyPants]

No, because in the theists mind, with the name god come so many more properties which piggyback their way in on this argument unnoticed. This alternative exposes hiw unjustified those are by doing away with the loaded name God and showing that it still works. Fleems neither have to be sentient, good, allknowing, omnipotent, bearded, there neednt be an afterlife, they don't want anything from us etc.

God has other properties, sure. But the properties that you mentioned are all identical to Gods. So we can call 'fleems' a sub category of God.

You're missing the point. The point is: without granting the theist three unstated assumptions (God exists, God can create universes, and God is eternal), then their argument doesn't prove God. It's a circular argument. They assume those things, use that assumption to prove God was the first cause, then use the existence of the universe to prove God.

All I have to do is take any non-falsifiable thing, give it those three qualities, and I've now proven the same thing to the same degree that they've proven God. I can do that with literally an infinite number of things:

• Fleems
  
• Fluums
  
• Wargarble
  
• Unicorns
  
• Almighty Dog
  
• Almighty God
  

It's not like those things are subsets of God; they just happen to have the three qualities that the theist silently assumes in their "proof".


Also, I don't know why you would think that fleems having those three properties would make them a subset of God. Can you prove God actually has those three qualities? It sounds like you're just making up a definition for God and insisting everyone use it.