Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[R00tKiT]

Arguing for a god adds no explanatory power.  It is simply employing magic.  The Big Bang might've formed out of a quantum realm where time flows in loops.  Have fun figuring out whether your linear-time ideas of cause are even valid -- especially in a quantum world where random events can and do happen (they are causal only in the sense that past states determine probabilities when averaged over many events).  Even if it were, have fun showing that this cause is similar to what humans have called a god.

As I already explained to @Angrboda, a prior physical state or quantum realm can simply be concatenated to this universe, we can simply apply the same argument to the set (universe+some quantum realm). Since time seems to be intrinsically linked to space, we can simply consider the entire spacetime where these so-called time loops happen as one big element in a chain of causes. 

So, the crux of the matter is whether an infinite regress of actual causes can be ruled out or not. Al-Ghazali presented an argument for that and was adopted more recently by WLC, but I should take some time to look it up.

---

Nope, you don't get to postulate "outside the universe" just to get out of the problem of infinite regress. 

You are admitting that a "first cause" makes no sense, because the cause itself would require a cause -- so you postulate some realm where causality isn't required, and just say there is a deity there that makes universes.

If you break causality, then you break your ability to argue for or against a first cause.  This whole discussion is pointless.  "First cause" is a terrible argument for God.  A far better one is fine-tuning, and I've seen everyone here turn on that one.

Not at all, dude. It's not my position that causality breaks down outside of the universe, it's yours.