God's God

[Esquilax]

Also Atheists acknowledge most things require a cause. That most things are effects. I really see it more of a case of special pleading of thinking existence is not an effect, then thinking it is an effect. But that's just me.

You don't think reality might be a different kettle of fish, as opposed to other things? It's kind of... immense, dude, and has a set of theoretical underpinnings that we can't even safely assume to be correct right now.

You: Everything practically requires a cause except existence.

More like: As far as we know, everything requires a cause. Existence might too, but we don't know, so we'll hold off saying for sure until we do.

Me: Everything requires a cause and is an effect.

Which is not okay, because you can't be sure everything does require a cause. Further, even if we become certain of that, it doesn't follow that the cause is the god you want to specify. That's an additional claim that requires additional, specific proof.

Which one is special pleading?

The one that states a set of rules and then immediately demands a suspension of them for a deity. The atheist position is generally more of a shrug and a recognition that stating things concretely without all the information is silly.

Yes everything as in the Creator too, who must be his own constant cause.

Ah, there's your special pleading!

Ofcourse everything that pertains to that existence (like motion, time of it, how it forms objects etc) needs a cause from Atheist stand point, it's just it's very existence doesn't, but of course it's the Theists who are special pleading.

Well... yeah. Someone who doesn't give an answer can't be special pleading, can they? Theists, however, are providing an answer that they can't prove, that contradicts other portions of their claim.