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

[Logik]

God exists in some sense.

Necessary existence, self-existence.

The universe exists in another sense.

Contingent existence, dependent existence.

Thank you for making my point. This is the second time you are making me explain probability theory to you.

The probability of any particular phenomenon having one property ascribed to it is HIGHER than the probability of said phenomenon having TWO properties ascribed to it.

P(A) > P(A + B)

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.

See, you have mis-identified your confusion for mine.

The probability of any particular phenomenon being red, is higher than the probability of any particular phenomenon being a red rose.

P(red) > P(red + rose)

The probability of any particular phenomenon EXISTING is higher than the probability of any particular phenomenon EXISTING AND being NECESSARY.

P(EXIST) > P(EXIST + NECESSARY)

The probability of any particular phenomenon EXISTING is higher than the probability of any particular phenomenon EXISTING and being CONTINGENT.

P(EXIST) > P(EXIST + CONTINGENT)

Once you grasp it, you might figure out that you are the condescending ignoramus in this conversation.

[surreptitious57]

Mathematically an infinite regress of causes is absolutely impossible. Thats one heck of an obvious reason to favour some kind of First Cause

Why is it absolutely impossible ? Merely stating that it is doesnt make it so - you actually need to justify your reason - can you ?
Even if infinite regression was impossible it doesnt mean that the first cause is God - thats just another evidence free assertion

[Belinda]

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.

They refers to "theists and atheists" who are the subjects of the previous sentence. This is ordinary syntax. The personal pronoun refers to the last to be mentioned.

[Immanuel Can]

The probability of any particular phenomenon EXISTING...

You're still thinking God is a "phenomenon," and as such, is governed by "probabilities" -- as if chance is a kind of comprehensive force, governing even God.

Probability calculations only apply to contingent entities, and only those in which chance is the controlling factor. That's not God.

[Immanuel Can]

Mathematically an infinite regress of causes is absolutely impossible. Thats one heck of an obvious reason to favour some kind of First Cause

Why is it absolutely impossible ? Merely stating that it is doesnt make it so - you actually need to justify your reason - can you ?

Absolutely. Let's try a test.

First, take a piece of paper, and write on it "X." But before you do, write "-1". But before you do that, write "-2". And before that, write "-3..." and so on, to infinity. No number can be written until the number before it is complete.

This exercise replicates causality. "X-1" has to come before, because it's the symbolic placeholder for "whatever causes X." But likewise, "X-2" is the placeholder for "whatever phenomenon is the cause of X-1..." and so on. In causality, the causal event must always take place before the effect it produces. If it does not, it's clearly not the cause of the event.

Now, when will you get to start writing the first number? Answer: never. Try it and see, to your heart's content. You'll never be able to put pen to paper.

Even if infinite regression was impossible it doesnt mean that the first cause is God - thats just another evidence free assertion

I haven't asserted it yet. I've only asserted the inescapable necessity of a First Cause. I haven't said that the First Cause was God...yet.

What other entity would you wish to offer up as a possible First Cause? The only rule is that whatever you name cannot be itself a caused entity...it needs to exist as uncaused, if we can say it's a candidate to be the First Cause.

Fair enough?

[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.

They refers to "theists and atheists" who are the subjects of the previous sentence. This is ordinary syntax. The personal pronoun refers to the last to be mentioned.

Ah. So "theists and Atheists" both believe that existence itself is "ordered, not chaotic"? That's what you're saying? And you say "implicitly," because they don't always recognize or say that's what they both believe?

Have I understood your claim right?

[Belinda]

Yes, Immanuel , that is what I mean, with the reservation that some atheists believe that existence , the Cosmos, nature or what have you is chaotic.

As far as I know those who believe that God is not yet made but is in process of being made by man, are not usually called theists.

[Logik]

The probability of any particular phenomenon EXISTING...

You're still thinking God is a "phenomenon," and as such, is governed by "probabilities" -- as if chance is a kind of comprehensive force, governing even God.

Probability calculations only apply to contingent entities, and only those in which chance is the controlling factor. That's not God.

The same thing happens when you make the claim that "God is an uncaused cause". The universe is a caused cause.

None the less, both God and The Universe are causes: {God, Universe} ∈ Causes

P(CAUSE) > P(UNCAUSED + CAUSE)
P(CAUSE) > P(CAUSED + CAUSE)

Probability calculations only apply to contingent entities, and only those in which chance is the controlling factor. That's not God.

Nonsense. Probabilities can also be applied when searching/sampling finite sets. The Equivalence of Sampling and Searching

Given the set {God, Universe} the probability of any element in this set being a CAUSE is 1. 100% certainty.
P(CAUSE) = 1
P(UNCAUSED + CAUSE) = 0.5
1 > 0.5

[surreptitious57]

Why is it absolutely impossible ? Merely stating that it is doesnt make it so - you actually need to justify your reason

First take a piece of paper and write on it X

This is entirely the wrong way to answer the question and here is why : if infinite regress as a physical phenomenon is impossible then you need to demonstrate that from a scientific perspective - not a mathematical one. All hypotheses have to be tested to see if they are actually true because sometimes they are false. Taking a piece of paper and writing X on it tells me absolutely nothing about whether the Universe is infinite or finite so I am none the wiser. Therefore you need to come up with a scientific [ evidence based ] reason as to why you think the Universe must be finite

But the fact of the matter is that at this point in time no one knows whether it is infinite or finite. For the Big Bang is the point at which physics breaks down. To go beyond that requires new physics - specifically a theory of quantum gravity - not a piece of paper with an X on it [ or else we would know the answer ] And so if none of the worlds physicists know if the Universe had a beginning or not its next to impossible that you would

You keep claiming there must be a first cause but all you have is an argument from ignorance - because you want it to be true - but nothing else Unfortunately for you arguments from ignorance are not a substitute for evidence. In fact nothing is as only evidence can be accepted in science

I have no dog in this fight but there is no evidence in favour of either a finite or infinite Universe any way
So a neutral position is the one that any scientist would take till evidence favoured one particular position

[Immanuel Can]

The same thing happens when you make the claim that "God is an uncaused cause". The universe is a caused cause.

The universe is indeed a caused cause. But that's why it cannot be the answer to its own origin. It requires a cause.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is it absolutely impossible ? Merely stating that it is doesnt make it so - you actually need to justify your reason

First take a piece of paper and write on it X

This is entirely the wrong way to answer the question and here is why : if infinite regress as a physical phenomenon is impossible then you need to demonstrate that from a scientific perspective - not a mathematical one.

Not so. Mathematics is even more reliable than empirical testing.

But as it is, the test I proposed for you is not really mathematical, even though it involves mathematical symbols. You can run the same test with letters of the alphabet, or by putting objects one before the other in an infinitely-regressive way. No matter what you use, it will work: simply require one thing before each of the things in the set, and you'll never get to an origin point.

So the test I proposed was actually empirical -- perfectly scientific. If you could do it...

But you couldn't. And that's an empirical fact. You won't get a more scientific proof than that. You can try it as many times as you want, and you will get absolutely the same result every time.

You keep claiming there must be a first cause but all you have is an argument from ignorance

Incorrect. You have an empirical test. You just need to try it.

[attofishpi]

The same thing happens when you make the claim that "God is an uncaused cause". The universe is a caused cause.

The universe is indeed a caused cause. But that's why it cannot be the answer to its own origin. It requires a cause.

So why do you think God does not need a cause?

[Dontaskme]

The same thing happens when you make the claim that "God is an uncaused cause". The universe is a caused cause.

None the less, both God and The Universe are causes: {God, Universe} ∈ Causes

First of all you've got to realise that there is no thing making a claim about anything here, and that any claimer is just a conceptual idea aka knowledge made of words...which are sourced in and of silence.
There is no such distinction between the word and the source of the word which is silence. All phenomena is born out of the word via the direct experience of first person singular perspective appearance, there is no knowledge of beyond the appearance or of how's or why's appearances are....they just are...digging deeper it is seen that there is no causer of an appearance. All appearances are totally without cause, and at the same time all causes are within the appearances, in that the mother is the cause of the child, yet in reality where is no division between the mother and the child...in the sense neither of them came first....the mother is the child and the child is the mother...any distinction is within the duality of un-caused causes...aka knowledge.

SO...There is nothing wrong with the claim that God is an uncaused cause...because either way, whether reality is called reality, God or the universe....this knowledge still relies on a qualifying contingent...to say it.

Here, there are effects of causes everywhere, so in essence every effect is the cause of something else add infinitum....an infinite chain of cause and effect phenomena...there is no first causer, there's just effects causing the cause of another effect, both cause and effect are interwoven phenomena that go on infinitely causing and affecting each other as appearances infinitely intermingle interact with each other.

There can be a conscious awareness of this uncaused cause and effect phenomena...when it is seen that I have no knowledge of my conscious awareness being caused ...there is only an awareness of the effect of it... what I am aware of knowledge ... cause and effect is knowledge within the realm of duality...aka the dream world.

Uncaused simply means causes without a causer...in essence there are only causes....this is known simply because there is an awareness of the causes and effects as knowledge that every cause is an effect, and every effect is only possible because of the cause ...and so every effect is the cause of something else which is an effect of the previous cause and so on and so on it goes infinitely with no actual first causer...so in essence there is only uncaused causes and their effects that cause something else.

Infinity just means no first or last, or it can mean first and last is all there is. Infinity is the first and last infinity, or there is no first and last infinity because it's infinite ..it's as broad as it's long...it doesn't matter if infinity is qualified as being an uncaused cause because that claim is already couched within infinity not separate from it.

Ultimately there is no knowledge of a causer..so there are only causes caused by the previous cause and so on infinitley uncaused causes.

''Listen to the silence inside the illusion of the world''

Both listen and silence have the same letters.

That which is silent is also the listener. That's what God is.

God is the knowing without knowing, the cause without cause.

.

[attofishpi]

Foxtrot Foxtrot Sierra

[Immanuel Can]

So why do you think God does not need a cause?

Well, what is not a matter of opinion, not a mere "I think," is this: in any credible or scientific explanation of the existence of the universe, we need to include a First Cause of some kind. This is not because any particular belief or "I think" says so, but by the mathematical certitude that a chain of causes cannot commence if we try to imagine it as having been eternal in the past. It had to start at some definite chronological point -- point zero, if you will, in the timeline. That being so, whatever began the causal chain had to itself be eternal.

So far, we have only said that much. And we can know more, but we have to establish the certainty of that first.