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

[Violet]

I have no issue with deism or deists, personally. However, I see no practical difference in how I would personally live my live with or without knowledge or belief in a deistic god. With our current understanding of reality, god-as-first-cause seems to me to be unprovable and unfalsifiable, and it's not clear that such a being is necessarily necessary.

There doesn't have to be a first cause in the first place that never was less than all the placier place all over the place. Saukraut.

If a first cause turns out to be necessary (and this is not clearly the case, IMO), if someone wishes to call it "god", it's of no concern to me. How one could claim to know anything about such a being is beyond our capabilities (IMO) at present.

Same way they clam to know anything else

I'm content to say "I don't know" for now. Perhaps that will change.

And hopefully when it does, we find that the metaphysical isn't all that difficult to combat... for asurely awouldly awarly abely.

[The Grand Nudger]

You went completely off the rails at 3, for a very simple reason-

3. Therefore the universe which is made up of matter and space time cannot of created itself via the laws of physics alone because the laws of physics don't permit such self creation.

You mean all those laws that arose as descriptions of how the universe behaves? Yeah, it would be mystifying as to why they would hold before the interactions they attempt to describe could have occurred. That's why we say "we don't know" or "there's no reason to assume that they hold".

4. Therefore the universe was created or a better term caused by something which is not composed of space time or matter.

No, there is no therefore - there is only "we don't know". For there to be a -therefore-, there must be something to follow from.

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.

At least one person commonly calls me god as well, and?

[Ben Davis]

This generation of Atheist is to reliant on science for truth.

That's a gross generalisation which can't be used as a definition of 'atheist'. There are atheists who use science, there are atheists who don't. Their only conjoining factor is their lack of belief in theistic propositions.

Science can disprove not prove.

I think it would be useful at this point for you to define what you mean by 'proof'. Assuming a useful definition, the scientific method can be used to do both; that's what facts are for.

You can prove Deism as I have shown using logic and reason.

You have not 'proven' anything, all you've done is make an argument. As I, and others, have started showing, your argument is flawed on many points.

Are you saying logic and reason is not good enough for a proof?

Yes. They are useful to demonstrate the coherence of an argument or hypothesis but alone they are not enough to qualify as 'proof'. In a hypothesis, logical coherence is essential to show that further investigation and/or experimentation is worth the investment; from there one can work towards 'proof'.

Even mathematics uses logic and reason to prove and not evidence.

Nonsense. Maths is grounded in facts. Further, when mathematic models are proposed, they are not considered credible unless they're backed by evidence or based on other models which are backed by evidence. That's what makes maths so reliable.

[Minimalist]

You mean like when your fucking god poofed the whole universe into existence, Frods?

Tell me, did he just snap his fingers or was their a cosmic fart involved?

Min ....your one of the reasons I visit here everday.

And I just love your avatar!