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

[attofishpi]

No. It does not mean the Universe requires its own cause, it could mean a place of NO causality - NO logic from which this God formed.

Not so. We can observe that this universe had a cause.

Oh, a 'Him' that created the entire universe by 'His' words!
...and you are certain of this because it was written in a book!

So if your hypothesis had anything to it, you'd have to say you're imagining a universe in which no causality exists (not this one, obviously)

A place of NO logic, defies scientific interrogation (obviously).

How far are we prepared to go to deny the obvious?

What? That a MAN created the Universe? That is the REAL obvious is it?

You are stating that everything requires a cause, but God does not require a cause, because 'he' is outside of the Universe, correct?

We can simplify the hypothesis even further than that. It's simply that this universe had a cause.

This 'Him' that you speak of...?

Please provide me with the attributes of this man - that you refer to in the pronoun: Him

There is NO first cause...(to clarify: intelligence and logic formed from the chaos of NO logic - then that intelligence formed our reality)

If that were so, there would be no causes now either. But obviously, there are. So there had to be a First Cause.

No. Again, you are still only appreciating things from a scientific comprehension that requires logic, this cannot be done since NO logic existed and NO causality (quite amazing from someone that thinks a Man created the universe.)

[Immanuel Can]

No. It does not mean the Universe requires its own cause, it could mean a place of NO causality - NO logic from which this God formed.

Not so. We can observe that this universe had a cause.

Oh, a 'Him' that created the entire universe by 'His' words!
...and you are certain of this because it was written in a book!

All I said thus far was "this universe had a cause." You're getting ahead of yourself there.

A place of NO logic, defies scientific interrogation (obviously).

If so, you could not know such a place existed. After all, you couldn't use logic to find out it did.

So that's pure imagination. I think we can dismiss that safely.

We can simplify the hypothesis even further than that. It's simply that this universe had a cause.

This 'Him' that you speak of...?

Point to the word "Him" in the sentence above. It's not there.

You're getting ahead of yourself again there.

[Logik]

All I said thus far was "this universe had a cause." You're getting ahead of yourself there.

Well, no - there is more to your words than you let on.

Of all the things that exist (God, Universe) 50% of them have a cause and 50% don't.

If one were to insist on consistency at this point, then one must ask the question: What caused God?

[Immanuel Can]

Of all the things that exist (God, Universe) 50% of them have a cause and 50% don't.

It's not 50-50, of course. God, being the Creator of the universe, must necessarily be greater than His creation.

If one were to insist on consistency at this point, then one must ask the question: What caused God?

No, that would not be logical to ask.

Only those things that have a beginning have a cause.

If you posit a God with a beginning, you posit a created god, a god subject to both origin and decay, which would be like a Zeus or a Thor. Those "gods" had a theogony, a "'birth," if you will. (Zeus was legendarily said to have sprung from the head of his father, Chronos, and Thor is said to be the son of Odin and Jord.)

They were not eternal. Zeus's reign would end when Olympus would fall, and Thor would meet his end at the Ragnarok, say the legends.

That's not the Judeo-Christian conception of God at all, obviously. More importantly, such legends cannot be any answer to the question, "What is the First Cause?" so the causal regression problem isn't solved by referring to such beings.

[Logik]

Of all the things that exist (God, Universe) 50% of them have a cause and 50% don't.

It's not 50-50, of course. God, being the Creator of the universe, must necessarily be greater than His creation.

Rebuttal 1:
That's not how cardinality works. The set of "ALL things that exist" contains two phenomena. God and Universe.
We agree on this much. Greatness/Proportionality is irrelevant to the argument.

Rebuttal 2: Accounting for God being greater than the Universe works against you.

99.999999999999999% of things in your set have no First Cause.
0.000000000000001% of things in your set do.

That's not the Judeo-Christian conception of God at all, obviously. More importantly, such legends cannot be any answer to the question, "What is the First Cause?" so the causal regression problem isn't solved by referring to such beings.

Then don't ask the question?

Asking the question leads to the pre-supposition that there is a first cause. Is there?

If it is possible for a God to exist without a cause, then it is also possible for a Universe to exist without a cause.

[Immanuel Can]

Rebuttal 1:
That's not how cardinality works. The set of "ALL things that exist" contains two phenomena. God and Universe.
We agree on this much. Greatness/Proportionality is irrelevant to the argument.

You're assuming two equal groups. That would be incorrect, and would be contradicted by your second "rebuttal" anyway.

Rebuttal 2: Accounting for God being greater than the Universe works against you.

99.999999999999999% of things in your set have no First Cause.
0.000000000000001% of things in your set do.

Your idea here is that the uniqueness of God works against Him?

Bad argument. God is, by definition, the only of His kind. Uniqueness is a fundamental attribute.

Then don't ask the question?

No, ask it: just don't opt for non-answers as if they were relevant.

If it is possible for a God to exist without a cause, then it is also possible for a Universe to exist without a cause.

Aristotle thought that. Many scientists, following Aristotle, wanted to believe it too. But it doesn't work after Hubble. The universe is observably a contingent and causally-dependent entity. There is no longer any reasonable scientific doubt about that.

So that thought won't work.

[Logik]

You're assuming two equal groups.

No I am not. Stop talking out of your ass and do your homework on cardinality. Elements of a set need not be equal in size, shape. The only property in common is the selection criterion.

When the selection criterion is "existence" the set has two members: {God, Universe}

Bad argument. God is, by definition, the only of His kind. Uniqueness is a fundamental attribute.

Bad argument. The Universe is, by definition, the only of a kind. Uniqueness is a fundamental attribute.

See what I did there?

The universe is observably a contingent and causally-dependent entity. There is no longer any reasonable scientific doubt about that.

I was going to come up with a counter-argument but it doesn't deserve one.

Bullshit.

That will suffice.

So that thought won't work.

It is not required to work. Scientists much prefer to admit they don't know than to come up with bullshit answers.

[Immanuel Can]

When the selection criterion is "existence" the set has two members: {God, Universe}

You're still treating them as equal members of the same predicate. But you haven't shown that the kind of "existence" that the universe has (i.e. contingent existence) is in the same set as divine "existence" (necessary existence). What you really have there is separate categories, not the same one.

The universe is observably a contingent and causally-dependent entity. There is no longer any reasonable scientific doubt about that.

I was going to come up with a counter-argument but it doesn't deserve one.

Bullshit.

That will suffice.[/quote]
It's interesting to me that in order to get away from the problem of the First Cause, an Atheist will now just deny history and refuse to believe there's anything to religious belief, but will even disavow belief in things like his own soul, the mind, and even basic, demonstrable scientific properties like causality...or even deny logic and rationality altogether.

There is no actual counter-argument anymore, actually. Planck time, the microwave background, the red shift effect, the expansion rate of the universe...everything points to a singular origin point for the universe; and a caused entity must have a cause...without an infinite causal regression being invoked. Meanwhile, there is no empirical data at all to suggest a past-infinite universe.

I'd say that when all the empirical data is one one side, that's a point of view worth considering.

[Logik]

When the selection criterion is "existence" the set has two members: {God, Universe}

You're still treating them as equal members of the same predicate. But you haven't shown that the kind of "existence" that the universe has (i.e. contingent existence) is in the same set as divine "existence" (necessary existence). What you really have there is separate categories, not the same one.

You are struggling like a fish out of water.

You are inventing arbitrary criteria so as to prevent me from juxtaposing "God" to "Universe".

They are "different categories" he says, but they ARE categories none the less. Much like the category of "blue" is different to the category of "red", yet "blue" and "red" coexist in the superset called "colors".

And so there is always a superset in which {God, Universe} can be placed into. And if you keep insisting that is "impossible", I will simply juxtapose God and Universe because I can.

It's interesting to me that in order to get away from the problem of the First Cause, an Atheist will now just deny history and refuse to believe there's anything to religious belief, but will even disavow belief in things like his own soul, the mind, and even basic, demonstrable scientific properties like causality...or even deny logic and rationality altogether.

There is no actual counter-argument anymore, actually. Planck time, the microwave background, the red shift effect, the expansion rate of the universe...everything points to a singular origin point for the universe; and a caused entity must have a cause...without an infinite causal regression being invoked. Meanwhile, there is no empirical data at all to suggest a past-infinite universe.

I'd say that when all the empirical data is one one side, that's a point of view worth considering.

No need to engage a strawman.

You point out the limits of scientific epistemology, yet you pander to both sides of the principle:
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence (when it suits you).
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (also when it suits you).

[surreptitious57]

Its interesting to me that in order to get away from the problem of the First Cause an Atheist will now just deny history and refuse to believe theres anything to religious belief but will even disavow belief in things like his own soul the mind and even basic demonstrable scientific properties like causality...or even deny logic and rationality

There is no actual counter argument anymore actually . Planck time the microwave background the red shift effect the expansion rate of the universe...everything points to a singular origin point for the universe and a caused entity must have a cause...without an infinite causal
regression being invoked. Meanwhile there is no empirical data at all to suggest a past infinite universe

Physics stops at the Big Big but that does not imply or suggest a first cause
Furthermore you are making a philosophical argument not a scientific one

A finite Universe is not evidence for God - that is a non sequitur which is a logical fallacy

The Universe is at its most fundamental level quantum but the law of cause and effect only applies at the classical level
So causation cannot be evidence of a finite Universe because it was a quantum phenomenon before it was a classical one

The Big Bang was the beginning of local cosmic expansion not necessarily the beginning of the Universe as such

It is physically impossible for an infinite mass to be contained within a point of zero volume because the mass in question
would have to be greater than the total mass of the entire Universe and the point in question would have to be invisible

However a singularity with finite mass and infinitesimal volume could exist but that would not necessarily experience time
This would allow for time to have existed before the Big Bang which would negate the notion at that point of a first cause

There is currently no empirical data suggesting a past infinite Universe but that doesnt mean that the idea is actually false
And so till it can be falsified it should not be denied and especially not for philosophical reasons rather than scientific ones

[attofishpi]

2. So you do not accept that God could be the first form of intelligence within a universe that already existed

Of course not. That would make Him "not-God."

It is pertinent for us BOTH to discuss our understanding of what we perceive as the attributes of God.

Please, explain the attributes of God the 'Him' that in your comprehension was the 'first cause' in the creation of our Universe.

[Immanuel Can]

You are inventing arbitrary criteria so as to prevent me from juxtaposing "God" to "Universe".

No, I'm not "preventing" you doing it. I'm just saying it's silly. And the reason is that God, by definition, even as only a concept, transcends the universe and does not "exist" in the contingent, material sense it does, but in a profounder sense, as necessary and timeless.

You can compare fish to fowl as "things that require oxygen." But that's really not a telling comparison. Their differences vastly exceed the point on which you propose to compare them. But "requiring oxygen" is far more precise a category than is "exist," especially when it is unnuanced by "necessary" versus "contingent."

But I see I can't make that point to you. I don't think that's because the point is wrong, but because you seem determined not to see it. And you have that option, of course.

We shall move on, I suppose.

[Immanuel Can]

Physics stops at the Big Big but that does not imply or suggest a first cause

It does, unless you believe the Big Bang itself happened with no cause. I think you'd find that a scientifically sketchy assumption, for sure. It would posit a "magic" universe.

Furthermore you are making a philosophical argument not a scientific one

Not at all. Causality is well established as a principle in science. In fact, you can try it out any day you wish...indeed, you cannot avoid doing so.

A finite Universe is not evidence for God - that is a non sequitur which is a logical fallacy

A finite-uncaused one would not be evidence for a First Cause; but as you can see, a finite-uncaused universe isn't science.

The Universe is at its most fundamental level quantum but the law of cause and effect only applies at the classical level
So causation cannot be evidence of a finite Universe because it was a quantum phenomenon before it was a classical one

Quantum mechanics is a debate about methodology of causation, but not an evidence of non-causation.

The Big Bang was the beginning of local cosmic expansion not necessarily the beginning of the Universe as such

Right. So now you'd have to presume that the causal rules of the local cosmic event (the creation of the Milky Way, say) operated by rules not present elsewhere in the universe, if you want to say the BB is not typical. Are you prepared to assert that? On what basis?

Anyway, it's clear that the entire universe is expanding, not just the local galaxy, so that line of thought will run out quickly.

However a singularity with finite mass and infinitesimal volume could exist but that would not necessarily experience time
This would allow for time to have existed before the Big Bang which would negate the notion at that point of a first cause

"...not experience time," you wrote, but "time to have existed before." This suggests you're imagining a non-time that is a time. That's obviously a contradiction.

Hawking's was the last serious attempt to use a sort of Xeno's paradox like that to arrest time. But he could not make his equations work with any real numbers in play. So it's generally accepted now that his attempt was admirable but insufficient; and that's the most we can say about it.

Anyway, you're back to an "uncaused" and non-expanding universe again. That's a non-scientific explanation -- which you can offer, I won't say you can't: but it's not one that you can provide reasons for us to accept, I think.

There is currently no empirical data suggesting a past infinite Universe

It's worse than that: there's definite data to imply a past-finite universe, commencing in a singularity called "The Big Bang." There's just no adequate explanation for the exact cause of the BB. What we do know, though, is that the BB had to have a cause, and that cause had to have a cause, and that cause...and so on, but not infinitely, or the chain never starts.

Somewhere, we are forced to find a First Cause.

but that doesnt mean that the idea is actually false

No; it only means it's both speculative and unscientific. But it's not, per se, falsifiable at all. Things that have no associated data are like that.

[Immanuel Can]

It is pertinent for us BOTH to discuss our understanding of what we perceive as the attributes of God.
Please, explain the attributes of God the 'Him' that in your comprehension was the 'first cause' in the creation of our Universe.

Right now, I'm not contending for any particular attributes. Any question of particular attributes is, at most, question #3, not question #1 or even #2. The First Cause point only gives us the existence of a first cause: whether it is an intelligent or abstract first cause is question #2 -- but we're not even that far, let alone to discussing the particular features of an intelligent First Cause. So let's not get ahead of things here.

We seem to be stuck on the very simple, deductive principle of the necessity of a First Cause within an observably causal universe.

One would think that's an obvious, common sense kind of thing. It's certainly both logically and empirically sound.

[attofishpi]

It is pertinent for us BOTH to discuss our understanding of what we perceive as the attributes of God.
Please, explain the attributes of God the 'Him' that in your comprehension was the 'first cause' in the creation of our Universe.

Right now, I'm not contending for any particular attributes. Any question of particular attributes is, at most, question #3, not question #1 or even #2. The First Cause point only gives us the existence of a first cause: whether it is an intelligent or abstract first cause is question #2 -- but we're not even that far, let alone to discussing the particular features of an intelligent First Cause. So let's not get ahead of things here.

We seem to be stuck on the very simple, deductive principle of the necessity of a First Cause within an observably causal universe.

One would think that's an obvious, common sense kind of thing. It's certainly both logically and empirically sound.

Stop being absurd. The first thing to do is define the thing one it talking about, and that means describing its attributes.