Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[R00tKiT]

You're doing it again.  No one has to shoot down any principles.  A person can grant causality in full.....and still think your god inference is poorly constructed.  I know I do.  Because they don't have anything to do with each other.

Groundbreaking insights here. Perhaps you should start publishing articles and send them to popular journals on the philosophy of religion. You can't write a more stupid assertion than causality not having to do anything with proving God's existence.

All known arguments (maybe except the ontological type) attempting to prove God's existence start by some premise about the world then conclude there is a cause or origin to whatever is in the premise. The second step is to infer properties of this cause from the observable state of affairs, when enough properties are obtained about this cause, they label it God.

Tell me again.. can you precede your mother's existence?

Unbelievable.

The evidential problem of evil directly refers to this when positing indifference.  You can be given cause, and even be granted supernatural beings - and it will then be argued that supernatural indifference is a better explanation for the state of affairs in this world than theism.

They can argue for "supernatural indifference" if they manage to rule out an afterlife or somehow prove it's inherently incoherent (flash news: nobody did it). In so far as an afterlife is a possibility, you just don't have the whole picture to say that the deity is definitely indifferent.

But sure, the door is open to the opponent to build his ((cumulative case)) against God by pointing out catastrophes, diseases and seemingly unanswered prayers -an impressive heap of arguments from ignorance. 

However, the bit at the end there is where the logical problem of evil arises. 

The logical problem of evil is, as I repeatedly pointed out in this board, a completely debunked problem. You can check that out by opening any introductory book on the philosophy of religion. You're better off arguing for the evidential variant.

 Being omnipotent has logical consequences.  The tri-omni combination also has logical consequences, compounded with every purported omni-attribute.  

All the purported disproofs of God based on its attrbutes are doomed themselves. They either demand God to do the logically impossible or point out that God "can't think" or "doesn't have free will", etc, etc. All of which are basic misunderstandings of omnipotence and omniscience.  But I would be really surprised if you have an actual disproof as you pretend here. Here is by the way a good list of this kind of arguments, pick your favorite, then.. I guess

http://www.disproofatheism.org/conceptual-disproofs/

Able, but not willing?  Not omnibenevolent.  

Basically any theodicy attempts to show that this doesn't follow. Simply because you don't take the free will parameter into account. Once you do, it's possible to derive ingenious scenarios where both evil and omnibenevolent exist in some possible world. That's what Plantinga managed to do. If there exists a scenario (even if theoretical) where benevolence and evil can coexist, there is no more logical problem of evil.

The point is that causality isn't a principle of thought. It is a testable hypothesis about how the universe works.

No, it isn't. After doing a bit of reserch on the matter I found out that causality is an axiom of Quantum theory (attempt to bring together QM and GR).

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709026
Quote : Quantum mechanics permits nonlocality - both nonlocal correlations and nonlocal equations of motion - while respecting relativistic causality.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6451
Quote : Quantum theory can be derived from purely informational principles. Five elementary axioms-causality, perfect distinguishability, ideal compression, local distinguishability, and pure conditioning.

https://archive.org/stream/naturalphilosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt 
Quote: physics has given up causality is entirely unfounded. Modem physics, it is true, has given up or modified many traditional ideas ; but it would cease to be a science if it had given up the search for the causes of phenomena. (The author is Max Born, the famous German physicist)

So no, causality is not a testable hypothesis, but an axiom embedded in the framework of all modern physical theories.