Question to Christians re humility

[The Grand Nudger]

Who said anything about that, last I checked the law of causation didn't have a "power outside our natural system to serve as the catalyst for the universe" clause. Try again.

Why don't we go a step further and say, if we assume that it is a god, and that the law of causation does mean this, then what caused god?

According to our observations, all actions/transfers of energy have a cause. By deduction, the first atoms did too. Since they are the first pieces of material in our universe, the cause must be outside the universe.

Put on the brakes. The correct answer is "we don't know". You've abandoned science from this point forward (because it was only useful to you as a preamble), you've abandoned evidence (because it is only useful to you as pretext)

Where else would you get a cause for the first atoms?

Where indeed, and if you could answer this question you may actually be on to something, but clearly you cannot..judging by what follows.

God, on the other hand, does not need to be caused because he is outside of our universe and laws--He is not bound to the law of causation.

You can demonstrate this? Whose to say that whatever sphere this fairy lives in doesn't have it's own laws, complete with something very much like our own causation? That's ignoring the fact that you've simply exempted your explanation from the very question you're attempting to answer.

You could hypothesize a physical universe outside our universe, but that would need a cause too, so we enter infinite regress.

Or I could propose a fairy realm that also requires causation, like I just did.

The objective is to keep going back until you reach an entity who/which doesn't have to be caused. Christians call this entity "God".

Whose objective is that? Not mine. Do you often paste names on whatever you happen to find when your search is unfrutiful in the main? I don't know that I'd be willing to settle for such a "god", personally. Entity, btw, pretty loaded term. The farther back we go the less we find in the way of "entities" to begin with. I find it amusing that you imagine some super-entity lies at the bottom of all of this, since the demonstrable trend is the reverse.

He is by definition causeless.

he is, by assertion and endless amounts of pleading, causeless - fixed that for you.

Once we've established this unchanging, timeless (otherwise he'd be caused) entity, we can take the reasoning a step further.

Good idea.....maybe you should establish that eh?

We could dismiss He/It as something we've never imagined, but philosophy loves answers. We have to continue to say that since no physical objects existed, the cause of the universe must either be numbers or an intellectual mind.

Where's your Nobel....oh, right nvm.

Numbers cannot create—they can only guide--

What gave you the impression that numbers could even do that?

so that leaves an intellectual 'mind'. Define that as you will.

Right...because you clearly have....

Now, being uncaused, this mind has to choose to put the universe into existence.

Still asserting this exemption...and now we're doubling down, good stuff.

This is because there is no endless flow of energy running through Him/It.

You're just winging it now aren't you, where did you pull this fact from?

And therefore, assuming you actually want answers, we come up with a God being.

LOL< finally, the moneyshot. Nothing between the start and the finish in the way of support, just a steady drivel of assertions and complete bullshit. You can see why I find this unsatisfying, yes?