Refute a first cause which most people would call G-d AKA Deism

[Minimalist]

By step 2 you mean "2. Nothing in our universe can be created or destroyed. (I'm aware of quantum fluctuation and the creation of virtual particles but I do not count that as creation because the new matter is not stable and conservation laws are still upheld.)" or is this some forum terminology idk. Anyway miracle is defined by the natural order being superseded. I'm not arguing that.

Learn to read the whole post.

[xdrgnh]

5. This thing that must be the cause of the universe existence which is not composed of matter or spacetime is commonly called G-d.

You've skipped a few steps here, like showing us why the cause of the universe is a being, let alone something conscious, let alone one that created the universe through a willful act. Perhaps it was simply a random, natural thing that happened in a pre- Big Bang universe; no matter how rare such an occurrence could be, it would only need to happen once. Perhaps the universe is metastable and has always existed in one form or another. Perhaps multiverse theory is true and we spawned off of a parallel reality.

A being is something that exists. If it exists therefore it must be a being. Because it is not composed of space time or matter it cannot have a conscious nor any thing that is associated with living being in the natural world. According to the big bang there was no time before the big bang and everything that is science only deals with time mass and space. Therefore before the big bang is not a scientific question which is why it's wrong to say the big bang is a scientific proof of G-d. It is however a philosophy question and the philosophers G-d or the Deist, first cause G-d is the only answer. Even in multi verse theory the universes are assumed to to be made up of the same stuff of our universe and we know that mass and space time cannot create itself. Therefore even in multi verse theory something which is not of space time and matter must exist to be the first cause of such a natural world.

If you cannot refute Deism then I don't see why one should call themselves an Atheist.

I call myself an atheist because I don't know what reality's first cause is, nor if it even has one, yet I recognize that I'm not justified in leaping to any conclusions about it before I do know. Yes, the deist god is a tempting thing, in an unfalsifiable kind of way, but it's not nearly as natural a conclusion as you're making it out to be; you can't prove it, nor can you disprove the alternatives I've presented above.

That's because neither of us has sufficient information. What's so wrong about just admitting that?

Because I believe Deism can be proven using simple logic and reason. In the same way Spinoza proves Pantheism using his axioms. Though as we now today some of his axioms are wrong like how the universe is eternal and that is why Pantheism is dead today.

---

By step 2 you mean "2. Nothing in our universe can be created or destroyed. (I'm aware of quantum fluctuation and the creation of virtual particles but I do not count that as creation because the new matter is not stable and conservation laws are still upheld.)" or is this some forum terminology idk. Anyway miracle is defined by the natural order being superseded. I'm not arguing that.

Learn to read the whole post.

I believe you are asking for a more detailed explanation step 4. Intrinsically the universe alone does not have the sufficient characteristic to come into existence on it's own. Before the big bang the universe did not exist and after it existed. Because we know that space time and mass cannot create itself or come into existence on it's own something else besides the laws of nature must of caused the universe. The laws of nature alone are insufficient to create a universe out of nothing. Therefore something that is not bound to the laws of nature must of been the cause of the universe's existence. Or better the cause of the existence of the natural world. This thing which caused the natural world and by necessity of being able to create the natural world is not natural itself we call G-d.

[Minimalist]

I believe you are asking for a more detailed explanation step 4

Now you've got it.

For no apparent reason you jump to the supernatural. The cartoon seemed particularly apropos.

[xdrgnh]

What is not composed of space time and matter is not natural. Therefore if it's not natural it's supernatural.

[Esquilax]

What is not composed of space time and matter is not natural. Therefore if it's not natural it's supernatural.

Or possibly some previously unknown thing we just haven't developed the technology to detect yet, and hence entirely natural. You're making connections that aren't entirely valid, here.

[xdrgnh]

How can technology detect something that is not time space or matter if that is all that exists in the universe?

---

If the technology is made in our universe and our building materials is space time and matter how can it detect something that is not space time or matter. We can't know any positive attributes of stuff that is not composed of space time or matter.

[Baalzebutt]

If one cannot refute pink unicorns, one should not say they don't exist.

How is this statement any different than your statement about deism?

[FifthElement]

Oh, noez, posts like this usually end up with theists trying to "prove" "impossibility" of infinite causal chains, which is, of course, totally ridiculous

[Esquilax]

How can technology detect something that is not time space or matter if that is all that exists in the universe?

I don't know. Do you feel comfortable in making blanket statements about the future, from now until the end of time?

We aren't at the pinnacle of technology. Just because we can't even envision how such a thing might be possible at this instant doesn't mean it's impossible. Some discovery tomorrow could make the answer to that question terribly obvious.

[Ryantology]

Intrinsically the universe alone does not have the sufficient characteristic to come into existence on it's own.

But, conscious intelligence required for there to be a designer does? If so, explain how you can know it.