I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

Really? so everyone here dismisses Stephen Hawking's view that there is no need for a god? Wow, first atheist forum I've come to which doesn't use that as a standard retort for the first cause argument.

If you have a problem with Hawkings' argument, take it up with him. Very, very few people are going to be able to adequately defend it.

I for one find his argument interesting, but I do not have a sufficient background in physics to defend it, so I won't. Neither will I assert that it is true.

Futhermore, I do not assert that there is no god, but rather that the burden of proof to establish the existence of god has not been met by those who assert existence. I also hold the position that the term "god" is so ill-defined that it's necessary to provide a definition of exactly what the term means before any meaningful debate can occur.

In one of the threads here, I presented an refutation of first cause (specifically WLC's version of the Kalam cosmological argument). If you're really interested in the subject, and want to argue against positions people actually hold, rather than offering someone else's argument as a proxy strawman, I'll make an effort to find it. You could of course avail yourself of our search function.

To summarize, WLC's KCA is valid, but not sound as it's premises are not known to be true - specifically, that it is not known that the cosmos began to exists, nor is the principle of causality certain (In my refutation, I offer a few examples where causality is in doubt). WLC himself has admitted that at least one of his premises is based upon intuition. Not the strongest of foundations to build an argument upon.

To paraphrase another regular here, to prove A then B, you must first prove A.

I will agree that the cosmological argument is the strongest argument that theists have to offer, but I do not find it compelling. It's truth value is unknown at this time.

Edited to add: Here's a post I made a while back that included my analysis of why I find the KCA flawed.

To some degree that is the issue I have with Stephen Hawkings' presenting it. He hasn't defined his argument in a terrible logical fashion, yet presents it as viable option.

No one seemingly will dare dispute what's he said, particularly given it's in the realm of theoretical physics. And as it's in this realm it becomes almost untouchable, almost an element of faith has crept into it.

I am not a believer, despite many may consider I am, I just play devil's advocate.

I will look over your link, I find it to be the strongest argument for a first cause.

Probably the biggest issue I have is some atheists seem to consider they possess the ability to assess whether a 'creator' is an actual option. I see no reason to believe this to be true, and even more strangely science is a common used warcry used to discount a creator. Why? I have no idea. The best that has come to light is science has found no evidence of a guy in a beard and robes floating about in space, or as come to explain how some things occur (e.g. the commonly used lightening) therefore science will eventually explain everything including the non-existence of a god.

I can understand why you require the definition of a god, however, the issue with this is it presupposes that a creator must be knowable, for if it is unknowable it cannot exist.

For all intents and purposes, unknowable may equate to being rendered without any purpose, however, this does not discount it by virtue of being unknowable. This is a reason why the atheist position baffles me.