queston for Atheist

[Minimalist]

If we find more evidence to answer the questions, will they shut up then?

Rethorical question, of course they want, they'll just find another gap to cram their god into.

I have a suggestion for where they can cram it.

[fr0d0]

How do you explain the start of the big bang? there has to be and unCaused first cause.

So, what was the first cause? God?

What caused God? God is eternal/timeless?

How do you know? How do you know the universe isn't timeless?


In order for your first cause argument to work, you need to make three assumptions:
1) God exists, despite being nonfalsifiable.
2) God has the ability to create universes.
3) God is timeless/eternal.

If I don't grant you those three assumptions, then you haven't proven God. Let me show you another way:

We'll assume there is a special particle called fleems. Fleems are undetectable, they can create universes, and they're eternal. Therefore, given that everything that exists has a cause and the universe exists, I have successfully proven fleems. Why don't you believe in fleems, Spidey?

All you're proposing is another word for God here.

[Alex K]

So, what was the first cause? God?

What caused God? God is eternal/timeless?

How do you know? How do you know the universe isn't timeless?


In order for your first cause argument to work, you need to make three assumptions:
1) God exists, despite being nonfalsifiable.
2) God has the ability to create universes.
3) God is timeless/eternal.

If I don't grant you those three assumptions, then you haven't proven God. Let me show you another way:

We'll assume there is a special particle called fleems. Fleems are undetectable, they can create universes, and they're eternal. Therefore, given that everything that exists has a cause and the universe exists, I have successfully proven fleems. Why don't you believe in fleems, Spidey?

All you're proposing is another word for God here.

No, because in the theists mind, with the name god come so many more properties which piggyback their way in on this argument unnoticed. This alternative exposes hiw unjustified those are by doing away with the loaded name God and showing that it still works. Fleems neither have to be sentient, good, allknowing, omnipotent, bearded, there neednt be an afterlife, they don't want anything from us etc.

[Cato]

Sounds like someone found raiding WLC's underwear drawer satisfying.

I don't think the uncaused cause argument is convincing, because the uncaused cause appearing at the beginning of our universe seems quite arbitrary. Why doesn't the uncaused cause exist further back in the causal chain? We can imediately conjur up a chain of causes regressing from the Big Bang; all just as fictional as the idea of god considering the total absence of evidence.

I also don't think this argument does much for the God of the Bible. Even if I were to grant the idea of an uncaused first cause being directly responsible for the Big Bang I only get Spinoza's god, not the God of the Bible. This does absolutely nothing to support Christian claims.

People that find the uncaused cause reasoning compelling aren't sincerely searching for answers to our existence; they are believers trying to rationalize God's existence in the absence of evidence.

[fr0d0]

All you're proposing is another word for God here.

No, because in the theists mind, with the name god come so many more properties which piggyback their way in on this argument unnoticed. This alternative exposes hiw unjustified those are by doing away with the loaded name God and showing that it still works. Fleems neither have to be sentient, good, allknowing, omnipotent, bearded, there neednt be an afterlife, they don't want anything from us etc.

God has other properties, sure. But the properties that you mentioned are all identical to Gods. So we can call 'fleems' a sub category of God.

[Doggey75]

Can't help but think he is a troll. He hasn't responded to anyone.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

[Napoléon]

These threads always make me laugh. Entitled "Question for atheists" yet all of their questions should be directed at scientists. Kindly fuck off and go read a book.

[Alex K]

No, because in the theists mind, with the name god come so many more properties which piggyback their way in on this argument unnoticed. This alternative exposes hiw unjustified those are by doing away with the loaded name God and showing that it still works. Fleems neither have to be sentient, good, allknowing, omnipotent, bearded, there neednt be an afterlife, they don't want anything from us etc.

God has other properties, sure. But the properties that you mentioned are all identical to Gods. So we can call 'fleems' a sub category of God.

By your logic, a pile of dogpoop is a god, and a bowlingball a death star

[Rampant.A.I.]

Can't help but think he is a troll. He hasn't responded to anyone.

It's ok, he has Frodo to phone it in for him.

---

No, because in the theists mind, with the name god come so many more properties which piggyback their way in on this argument unnoticed. This alternative exposes hiw unjustified those are by doing away with the loaded name God and showing that it still works. Fleems neither have to be sentient, good, allknowing, omnipotent, bearded, there neednt be an afterlife, they don't want anything from us etc.

God has other properties, sure. But the properties that you mentioned are all identical to Gods. So we can call 'fleems' a sub category of God.

Define the properties of God in detail.

"Undetectable, eternal and can create universes" is not a placeholder for you to sneak in, heist and replace with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, all the characteristics and actions of that God in the NT and OT, and claim the bible is directly inspired by that God.

There are at least 109 other creator options.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods