My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[Minimalist]

Yes, Ma'am

[Mister Agenda]

I heard that they were doing away with the "from nothing nothing comes" principle. I guess they did then, sorry. (Or is it a mandella effect?)
I also didn't realize that physicalities were equal to abstracts like math. 
So then the universe either came from something, or it came from nothing. Sounds good.
Amazingly, it takes less intelligence to create a universe than it does a wooden chair. All you need is gravity! (wherever that came from.)
And I know the seeing is not required for the thing to be true. Just like no one needs to have heard the tree fall in the forest for it to make a sound. Truth is not dependent upon knowledge or belief.

I heard weak apologists made that 'principle' up and then started telling everyone it's a 'scientific principle'. You won't find it anywhere in the scientific method, and it doesn't exist in physics. There's nothing to 'do away with'.

I didn't realize that analogies were beyond your comprehension.

[Cyberman]

Huge sleight of hand aside:

If a creator comes into existence and no-one saw it happen, did it have a maker?

God/s do have a maker, human gullibility and their own imagination.

Absolutely true. Remember though that in this scenario nobody saw it happen, as in nobody was around.

[GrandizerII]

If your answer is that you just believe in an infinitely powerful god, then what's the point of making any sort of argument. That God could just be fooling us all. It's the ultimate cop out. You can jst use it as an excuse for everything. Why does the world look like it's old and naturally made? God is all powerful and wants it that way. What a cop out.

The argument YOU made is clearly a one for polytheism. All of the examples you gave involve not one creator, but lots of them. That's the argument you made and the examples you gave. Nothing you said supports a single creator.

To further your own argument, I can't think of a single building that was crafted by one being, or a single intelligence. It's multiple beings the whole way. So if you are going to use this argument, at least be consistent to the example that YOU gave, or find a better example.

You would think that if you believed in a singular god, you would at the minimum use examples that fit your case. But good argument for Hinduism. I'll look into that.

Also builders, watchmakers, whatever did not always exist (in the presentist sense, I mean). Therefore, God did not always exist. So yeah, these analogies fail big time.

[brewer]

It's a fact that no one knows how the universe got here (that's to say it even had a beginning).

Claiming a God did it is so lazy though, requires no logic. When the thought occurs that this God needs to have some sort of proof for existence or (besides human fairy tales) or even an origin, the excuse used is just "it's beyond human understanding" or "not of the natural world" or something to this effect.

Well yes, great to admit there are things beyond our understanding, like you know, the origin of the universe? No? not beyond theist understanding i guess

It's like theists are selectively rational. When it comes to the specific religion they were brainwashed in, their minds just switch off. But any other religion can be picked apart with amazing critical thinking.

bold mine

I'm not sure it's just/only lazy. I think that for most it fills or helps them with an emotional need. The biggest one that comes to mind is fear.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I live in shoebox in t'middle o' road.

"So, you have a shoebox...?" 

[bennyboy]

Truth is not dependent upon knowledge or belief.

hehe

The irony, though.

[Dan Brooks]

Hume criticizes the argument on two main grounds. First, Hume rejects the analogy between the material universe and any particular human artifact. As Hume states the relevant rule of analogy, "wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty" (Hume, Dialogues, Part II). Hume then goes on to argue that the cases are simply too dissimilar to support an inference that they are like effects having like causes:

   "If we see a house,… we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect (Hume, Dialogues, Part II)."

Since the analogy fails, Hume argues that we would need to have experience with the creation of material worlds in order to justify any a posteriori claims about the causes of any particular material world; since we obviously lack such experience, we lack adequate justification for the claim that the material universe has an intelligent cause.

Second, Hume argues that, even if the resemblance between the material universe and human artifacts justified thinking they have similar causes, it would not justify thinking that an all-perfect God exists and created the world. For example, there is nothing in the argument that would warrant the inference that the creator of the universe is perfectly intelligent or perfectly good. Indeed, Hume argues that there is nothing there that would justify thinking even that there is just one deity: "what shadow of an argument... can you produce from your hypothesis to prove the unity of the Deity? A great number of men join in building a house or ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth; why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world" (Hume Dialogues, Part V)?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/

So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made? Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker? Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is? 
I agree that it is scientific to make assumptions based on observations. But if the coming into being of universe has not been observed (which it has not been), how can we make any type of postulation as to its origin and call that postulation scientific? There is no observation when it comes to origin, therefore there can be no science. I don't think observation has been taken out of the scientific process yet has it? So if something has to be observed in order to make scientific postulations, then origin cannot be spoken of on a scientific basis. 
Origin can only spoken of on a basis of conjecture and belief. 
However, the belief about the origin can and should be based on observation of the things that exist. If a belief states that evolution took place in order for the things that exist today to have come to be the way they are now, then it would make sense that that belief and statement would be based on having observed such things occur. If nothing has ever been observed to have evolved (species to species, not adaptation within kind), then how can it be a scientific statement? It can still be a belief. Anything can be believed. But without observation, how can a belief be said to be scientific?
Origin has not been observed, so any statement about it is a belief. Evolution has not been observed, so any statement about it is also a belief.
God having created the universe is also a belief, since none of us observed Him doing it. But if anyone were to say that they don't believe God created the universe because no one observed it happen, and therefore there is no evidence for it, how could they also say that evolution is a scientific fact even though no one has observed that either?
Now in the biblical account, it is said that God made things to reproduce after their own kind, and that is what we do observe. Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed. So based on the observable evidence, I think it is more reasonable to believe an account that can be readily observed on a daily basis all over the world in every aspect of life, than something that has never been observed by anyone in the history of mankind.
But again, either way, it is just a belief.

[Astreja]

Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed...

*facepalm* Seriously?

Phylogeny of and related genera (compositae–lactuceae) based on analysis of 18S–26S nuclear rDNA ITS and ETS sequences

[Angrboda]

So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made? Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker? Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is? 

That's a straw man. Neither I nor Hume said or implied any such thing.

I agree that it is scientific to make assumptions based on observations. But if the coming into being of universe has not been observed (which it has not been), how can we make any type of postulation as to its origin and call that postulation scientific? There is no observation when it comes to origin, therefore there can be no science. I don't think observation has been taken out of the scientific process yet has it? So if something has to be observed in order to make scientific postulations, then origin cannot be spoken of on a scientific basis. 

Giddyup! Straw horsey!

Origin can only spoken of on a basis of conjecture and belief. 
However, the belief about the origin can and should be based on observation of the things that exist. If a belief states that evolution took place in order for the things that exist today to have come to be the way they are now, then it would make sense that that belief and statement would be based on having observed such things occur. If nothing has ever been observed to have evolved (species to species, not adaptation within kind), then how can it be a scientific statement? It can still be a belief. Anything can be believed. But without observation, how can a belief be said to be scientific?
Origin has not been observed, so any statement about it is a belief. Evolution has not been observed, so any statement about it is also a belief.

Evolution is based on inferences made from present day observations. Now you're just spinning the typical creationist horseshit about the difference between "observational science" and "historical science." Not to mention that this has fuckall to do with either Hume's points or your original argument.

God having created the universe is also a belief, since none of us observed Him doing it. But if anyone were to say that they don't believe God created the universe because no one observed it happen, and therefore there is no evidence for it, how could they also say that evolution is a scientific fact even though no one has observed that either?

Now in the biblical account, it is said that God made things to reproduce after their own kind, and that is what we do observe. Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed. So based on the observable evidence, I think it is more reasonable to believe an account that can be readily observed on a daily basis all over the world in every aspect of life, than something that has never been observed by anyone in the history of mankind.
But again, either way, it is just a belief.

*bzzzt* Wrong answer!