God's God

[Mystic]

Because the answer you feel seems true and the answer that is true are different concepts.

True. I am agnostic after all.

The problem I'm having is that you're making claims based on ideas that trained physicists and scientists much smarter than you or I are still grappling with.

But this has nothing to do with physics, it's an ontological premise. Also, if science can one day prove the premise, it would not mean that we couldn't have already known it.

If you've got some scientific training that I'm not aware of then I apologize, but if not, then there's a huge gap between the things that seem to you to be true, and the things that evidence would lead us to believe.

And what evidence is there to suggest existence doesn't need a cause? I would suggest evidence shows most things at least require a cause. So I would say special pleading existence has not likely to need a cause, is what is going against the evidence.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just keeping in mind that the evidence is still coming in, and thus making a statement now would only be working with partial information.

So rely on science alone. Do you the same with belief in free-will, morality, praise, identity, without science proving these are not delusions created by millions of years of magical thinking throughout evolution with no basis, you will not believe in them?

Out intuition often leads us astray. Science is the most reliable method we have for discerning what the truth is beyond what seems to be the truth; it was once common knowledge that thunder and lightning were an expression of the gods' anger. Science showed us otherwise.

But lighting being expression of the gods would obviously be a matter of doctrine, which is matter of following religious authorities. But that doesn't disprove that intuition does often lead us astray. My only contention, is that it often leads us to knowledge and is also the basis of the most fundamental aspects of humanity.

Yup. Sorry that we don't all lean the way you'd like us to, but at least you can be happy with the idea that you can persuade us with evidence.

Well what I stated first is that I wasn't trying to persuade Atheists by this argument. I said it would only be persuasive to people who the premise "everything needs a cause" seems true.

Sure, that's true. And if you want to show me your degree in physics or quantum mechanics, I'll happily take the things you "know" a little more seriously. If not, I'll be applying my grain of salt, because you'd be claiming to know things in a subject you don't really have a great handle on.

Again, quantum mechanics won't lead to anything regarding this. It's totally unrelated. As well, even if did lead us to knowledge, it would not mean we couldn't have not known otherwise.

But those conclusions can only safely extend to "time must have had a beginning." Anything beyond that point would be conjecture.

Well, I use to think so. But then I thought about what can strengthen the cosmological argument: http://atheistforums.org/thread-18200.html

Your feedback would be highly appreciated in that thread.

Which is the premise you can't quite prove.

True enough.

I'm saying that both should be treated with equal uncertainty. That's why it's not special pleading.

It's special pleading still. Why is that we can know everything else requires a cause, but not existence? Why should we treat it 50% uncertainty.

Well at least the case is at 50% for you. That's not bad. 51% and your on my side of the fence.