Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Spongebob]

@Klorophyll  I think everyone here gets that your position is based solely on the Cosmological argument.  That's fine; it's a valid philosophical argument

Then we're done. BOOM. Atheism is flushed down the toilet.

Hilarious.  I said it was a valid philosophical argument, in that it holds together logically.  That doesn't mean it's necessarily true and certainly doesn't mean it's convincing.  It's been around for a very long time, so the very fact that it doesn't convince everyone should tell you something.  Not all logical arguments are true.  There's information missing that could be very important and of course you are making a lot of assumptions; you said so yourself.  

I am not sure what you're driving at exactly. The premise "The universe began to exist" is supported by modern cosmology, namely the BB. Although it doesn't completely preclude an eternal universe, the data we have about the observable universe suggests that there had to be a beggining and eventually some end. 

The current and most accepted model does describe a beginning, yes.  That's just about all it does.  It certainly doesn't say anything about how it began or what exited before it, if anything.  So you are just arguing that because there was a beginning, then there must have been a god to cause the big bang.  OK, so noted.  That and $6.50 will get you coffee at Starbucks.  Stephen Hawking certainly wasn't convinced of the need for a god.  What you are doing is the same thing theologians have done for thousands of years.  We don't understand X, therefore god must have done it.

The other premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is simply the causality principle. Feel free to reject the causality principle, if you're willing to go that far to dodge God's existence.

Does the causality principle say anything that exists and we don't know its specific cause must have been caused by god?  If not, then I don't have anything to dodge.

And feel free to just ignore the rest of my post because, well, we know you can't answer it.

---

I still think it's a gigantic strawman argument.  I can understand the intension but the arguments against peanut butter are incredibly lame and don't represent the arguments opposing the existence of god.  I'm guessing he worked for hours to come up with that lame ass peanut butter nonsense and it is embarrassingly silly.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning, and he compares peanut butter with God by holding peanut butter responsible that a baby died and suffered in the fire, but peanut butter doesn’t have the power to save anyone from a fire as the supposed omnipotent good God does.

The strawman is that he claims how atheists use the argument from evil to debunk God’s existence, but that is not true. That argument is "only" used to debunk the goodness of God and maybe even his omnipotence, but not necessarily the existence of God himself because there is no settled definition of what God is or what his attributes are.

Well, to me all of those arguments appear to be a strawman because he's basically saying each one represents a standard argument against god, but none of those come close to representing the actual arguments the reject god.  That's exactly what a strawman is, a propped up argument meant to analogize another argument but it fails because it does not accurately represent the original argument.

But I'm not going to lose sleep over the definition of a gigantically miserable argument.  I always find it hilarious that theists spend so much time and energy trying to convince the tiny fraction of atheists in the world that their god is real when there are literally billions more people worshiping the "wrong" god and are far easier to convert.  Why are we so special?