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

[Immanuel Can]

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

Then the only attribute we're debating at the moment is "First Cause." We'll talk about the rest later, when they come up naturally.

[attofishpi]

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

Then the only attribute we're debating at the moment is "First Cause." We'll talk about the rest later, when they come up naturally.

No, God by your account IS the first cause, therefore define it.

[Immanuel Can]

No, God by your account IS the first cause, therefore define it.

The uncaused cause. The prerequisite to everything. The eternal.

[attofishpi]

No, God by your account IS the first cause, therefore define it.

The uncaused cause. The prerequisite to everything. The eternal.

1. The uncaused cause:- An incomprehensible statement.
2. The prerequisite to everything:- Something that was required to cause all else.
3. The eternal:- An attribute of something that has no ending and no beginning.

Agreed?

[Immanuel Can]

1. The uncaused cause:- An incomprehensible statement.

Shouldn't be.

Something that causes things to happen...not a hard concept.

Something that itself is not caused by another thing...not hard as a concept.

So what's incomprehensible there?

2. The prerequisite to everything:- Something that was required to cause all else.

add "...to exist." Yes.

3. The eternal:- An attribute of something that has no ending and no beginning.

Yes. and in this case, we're particularly concerned with the "no beginning" part.

[surreptitious57]

There is 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

We are not forced to do anything at all

There is no scientific reason whatsoever to favour a finite first cause over infinite regression
The Universe could actually be past infinite and so your objection to it is without justification

[surreptitious57]

The uncaused cause

How can a cause be uncaused ? By defining something as a cause it logically follows
that something else must have preceded it - otherwise it makes absolutely no sense

[uwot]

You may be able to help me here with my ignorance. If I have a 'bunch' of what I see as anomalies (that can be observed by all) beyond the possibility of natural causality, in other words, something that must be at the most fundamental point of reality where only these anomalies could have formed via an entity that has the ability to control reality at its most fundamental scale - that which constructs reality - would this be called 'evidence' of some sort of probability - or wot uwot!?

Well atto, they key thing is the "(that can be observed by all)". If you can gather a bunch of anomalies that everyone agrees on, yer laughing. You can all start trying to work out what it all means. The chances of everyone reaching the same solution are somewhere between nil and not much. In practise though, there would still be some people convinced that the anomalies are equipment failures who would keep trying to find the cock up until their funding ran out. Mind you, if climate change denial is your game, the oceans will boil away before that happens.

What would be the closest term scientifically of philosophically?
..or is there no such duck?

It's called 'life' mate.

[Logik]

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.

Look! You are doing it again. Despite me telling you that I don't care in which sense you are using the word 'exists'.

God exists in some sense.
The universe exists in another sense.

I don't care about their differences - I care about their similarities and so, I shall go on to say:

God exists. The universe exists.

{God, Universe}

[Immanuel Can]

Somewhere we are forced to find a First Cause

We are not forced to do anything at all

Sorry -- "logically compelled." Of course you're not physically "forced."

There is no scientific reason whatsoever to favour a finite first cause over infinite regression

Absolutely there is. Mathematically, an infinite regress of causes is absolutely impossible. That's one heck of an obvious reason to favour some kind of First Cause explanation. In fact, you won't find a better one.

[Immanuel Can]

The uncaused cause

How can a cause be uncaused ?

A thing that causes other things to happen, but which itself is not caused by something prior to it. It's actually a very straightforward concept to grasp.

It's also a necessary one. The chain of causes, if infinite, can never start. That's a mathematical certainty, and a very easy thing to demonstrate experientially as well.

By defining something as a cause it logically follows
that something else must have preceded it

A "cause," by definition, is something that came before other things, not after. If "something else preceded it," that makes the thing in question an effect, not a cause.

A "first cause" is a thing that had nothing that came before it (nothing caused it), because it always existed -- and it produced effects in other things.

[Immanuel Can]

God exists in some sense.

Necessary existence, self-existence.

The universe exists in another sense.

Contingent existence, dependent existence.

I don't care about their differences...

You should. That's the source of the logical confusion you're having right now. Once you grasp it, you'll figure out why you've been drawn to an illogical conclusion. And until you do, you probably won't.

[Belinda]

Because they believe implicitly that existence itself, or 'nature', is ordered not chaotic.

[roydop]

God exists in some sense.

Necessary existence, self-existence.

The universe exists in another sense.

Contingent existence, dependent existence.

I don't care about their differences...

You should. That's the source of the logical confusion you're having right now. Once you grasp it, you'll figure out why you've been drawn to an illogical conclusion. And until you do, you probably won't.

The buck stops at the Self. All arises and passes within Self (not the body/mind ego).

[Immanuel Can]

Because they believe implicitly that existence itself, or 'nature', is ordered not chaotic.

Who do you mean by "they," Belinda? I think I might agree with you, especially in view of the word "implicitly," but I can't quite tell what your sentence means, as you've put it.