Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

[Immanuel Can]

First cause is poppycock....yes there is now a causal chain.

Those two statements contradict one another. Causal chains cannot be infinite. If one exists, then there had to be a First Cause. That's airtight.

[Logik]

Creating existence is a far cry from the concept of creating the universe.

Come now.

"The universe" is a collective noun. It means "All that exists".

[Immanuel Can]

No, it's what it means analytically -- that is, it's what it means to anybody who understands the two-word phrase.

You are welcome to underline it as much as you want but it doesn't make your error in reasoning go away.

I'm not underlining merely for emphasis. I'm suggesting that if one doesn't know what "analytically" means, then one is not going to get this right. That's all.

ALL means ALL.

You're stuck on that, I can see.

But no, "all" divides into necessary and contingent. A statement about "all contingent beings" does not apply to "all necessary beings."

Well, we know that there has to have been a First Cause, because we can observe causal chains. Logically, a causal chain has to have a start, and it cannot be infinitely regressive. QED

Logically, how did you determine that the "First Cause" immediately precedes the universe?
"Causes" by definition, must preceded "effects." Or else they can't be "causes" at all.

Your child cannot be your father. He arrived too late to be the explanation for your existence, and you caused his.

[Logik]

I'm not underlining merely for emphasis. I'm suggesting that if one doesn't know what "analytically" means, then one is not going to get this right. That's all.

Well, you know what analytical means and you got it wrong. So it matters not.

You used inference instead of probability to analyse the likely origin of the universe.

But no, "all" divides into necessary and contingent. A statement about "all contingent beings" does not apply to "all necessary beings."

Yes, but a statement about ALL beings applies to both contingent AND necessary beings.

Again. Gross understanding of probability.

Logically, how did you determine that the "First Cause" immediately precedes the universe?
"Causes" by definition, must preceded "effects." Or else they can't be "causes" at all.

Your child cannot be your father. He arrived too late to be the explanation for your existence, and you caused his.

Strawman.

Your Great Great Great Great ........ Grandmother is YOUR first cause.
Your Mother is your immediate cause.

[attofishpi]

First cause is poppycock....yes there is now a causal chain.

Those two statements contradict one another. Causal chains cannot be infinite. If one exists, then there had to be a First Cause. That's airtight.

Quoting me out of context as you have done above will certainly highlight a contradiction - something you ensured by misquoting me.
So here it is again in all its original glory:-

First cause is poppycock. Irrational unless one considers that anything since such a thing as 'first cause' then has some form of logic - in that yes there is now a causal chain.

Prior to this logic causal chain, must be a form where there is no logic, or indeed, a logic beyond anything that mere humans have the capacity to comprehend, something resembling what we (still using logic) consider chaos.

I don't believe one can infinitely regress through chaos - a situation where there is NO logical causality.

[attofishpi]

Creating existence is a far cry from the concept of creating the universe.

Come now.

"The universe" is a collective noun. It means "All that exists".

Yes, the universe IS all that exists, but it does not follow that a creation of existence is also ALL that exists.

[Logik]

Yes, the universe IS all that exists, but it does not follow that a creation of existence is also ALL that exists.

Naturally. That's the contradiction I am pointing out with all creationists.

For the above to be true you have to bend the conventional meaning of ALL a little bit.

God created ALL that exists. ( God ⇒ Universe )

Versus: ALL that exists ⇔ God ∧ Universe

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but a statement about ALL beings applies to both contingent AND necessary beings.

What "all" statement are you referring to?

Strawman.

Misnomer.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't believe one can infinitely regress through chaos - a situation where there is NO logical causality.[/b]

So far as I know, nobody believes in infinite causal regress. That's the point: such a thing is impossible.

[Logik]

What "all" statement are you referring to?

I am referring to the mathematical/logical meaning of ALL and its corresponding iterator∀

I am referring to the claim that.

All red roses are a members of the super-set Roses.
All contingent beings are members of the super-set Beings.

And all qualified sets (ALL roses, ALL beings, ALL universes ) are members of the unqualified set ALL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)

[Immanuel Can]

What "all" statement are you referring to?

I am referring to the claim that.
All red roses are a members of the super-set Roses.

Not a claim I made, nor one that you have made until now. How it's relevant, I can't really say.

All contingent beings are members of the super-set Beings.

And necessary entities? Where would you fit them in? It can't be your position that they are a subset of contingent ones, nor that they don't exist...unless you imagine that there was a time or place when 2+2 equalled 13. Otherwise, you'd be disposed to think of numbers as necessary entities, not contingent ones.

[Logik]

Not a claim I made, nor one that you have made until now. How it's relevant, I can't really say.

Seriously. Do I need to connect the dots for you all the time.

"First Cause" refers to all things that exist, all contingent entities.

^^^ These are your words.

The set of "ALL THINGS THAT EXIST" does it include or exclude the "First Cause" ?

Because the meaning of ALL, as I intend it to be understood is

ALL = ALl things that exist + First Cause

[Immanuel Can]

"First Cause" refers to all things that exist, all contingent entities.

I put it unclearly. What I intended to convey is, "A First Cause" refers to being the cause of all contingent things that exist."

Something necessary, something that exists without a prior cause of its existing, does not have or require any causal explanation at all. The "First Cause" is a necessary entity, not a contingent one.

I trust that's clearer now.

[Logik]

I put it unclearly. What I intended to convey is, "A First Cause" refers to being the cause of all contingent things that exist."

And I put it clearly to you. ALL means: All contingent things that exist PLUS the First Cause

To say "ALL contingent things that exist" is already saying too much.

What about the set of ALL things that exist (without the contingency criterion) ?
What about the set of ALL things (without the existence criterion) ?
What about the set of ALL (without the "things" criterion)?

Something necessary, something that exists without a prior cause of its existing, does not have or require any causal explanation at all. The "First Cause" is a necessary entity, not a contingent one.

You got yourself all tied up in set theory.

So we have the set of ALL entities, with two subsets:
* ALL necessary entities
* ALL contingent entities

P(entity) > P(contingent entity)
P(entity) > P(necessary entity)

Because
P(rose) > P(red rose)

Can you make sense of the symbolic expressions or do you want me to draw you a Ven diagram?

[Immanuel Can]

And I put it clearly to you. ALL means: All contingent things that exist PLUS the First Cause

Well, that's what you want to say. I understand.

But my point is that you can't make the same claim about necessary beings you can make about contingent ones, so they don't form an "all" (a single group) at all. You can't really predicate the same things of them. (I guess you could put them all in the class, "things that exist," but that's minimally helpful).

There are statements about necessary beings that one can simply never make about contingent ones, and the reverse is also true. For example, "They perish" cannot be said about necessary entities, and "They last forever" cannot be said about contingent ones. Likewise, "They have a cause" cannot be said about necessary entities, and "They exist without cause" cannot be said about contingent beings.