Ah ha! You can't explain X, therefore God!

[Lion IRC]

I didn't bring up the beginning of the universe.

I've never encountered any logical objection to God or the nature of God.

If God created everything. Who created God?

Strawman?

Then you deny that many Christians and Muslims make these arguments?

Interesting.

I didn't bring up the subject.
I've stated a couple of times that if the atheist wants to avoid the first cause argument they are free to argue that past-eternal 'things' don't need a Creator.
If you want to argue with invisible strawmen go find them at their forum and argue till you're blue in the face.

 

[abaddon]

Strawman?

Then you deny that many Christians and Muslims make these arguments?

Interesting.

I didn't bring up the subject.
I've stated a couple of times that if the atheist wants to avoid the first cause argument they are free to argue that past-eternal 'things' don't need a Creator.
If you want to argue with invisible strawmen go find them at their forum and argue till you're blue in the face.

An exception of one or a few doesn’t make his OP a straw man.

Being unconvinced by the alleged "need" for a Creator is not avoidance of the first cause fantasy. It's just being unconvinced because it's a facile argument.

I’m the one who said “bring up the subject” and while the “bring up” bit might have been an error the general point remains: if it’s ever been a concern for you, in this thread or any other, that if it’s not an eternal universe then the alternative is an eternal god, or any argument “of the sort”, then you have made the  argument from ignorance.

 

[Underseer]

I didn't bring up the beginning of the universe.

I've never encountered any logical objection to God or the nature of God.

If God created everything. Who created God?

Strawman?

Then you deny that many Christians and Muslims make these arguments?

Interesting.

I didn't bring up the subject.
I've stated a couple of times that if the atheist wants to avoid the first cause argument they are free to argue that past-eternal 'things' don't need a Creator.
If you want to argue with invisible strawmen go find them at their forum and argue till you're blue in the face.

And there you go with a shifting the burden of proof fallacy right on cue.

You have made the claim, you have the burden of demonstrating that your claim is true. It doesn't matter if you think it's unreasonable to explain the opening of flowers without pixies, if you want to prove that pixies open flowers, you have to provide evidence of pixies opening flowers. It is not my burden to disprove the claim that pixies cause the flowers to open.

If you want to prove that your invisible friend created the universe, you're going to have to provide evidence of your invisible friend creating the universe.

Just saying "Look, the flowers open, don't they?" doesn't cover you're burden of proof and it is not my burden to prove that it's not pixies.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

 

[Lion IRC]

if it’s ever been a concern for you...then you have made the argument from ignorance.

It isn't a concern and no I have not argued from ignorance.

I have never said or thought that the absence of evidence = ∴ God of the gaps

 

[Lion IRC]

I didn't bring up the subject.
I've stated a couple of times that if the atheist wants to avoid the first cause argument they are free to argue that past-eternal 'things' don't need a Creator.
If you want to argue with invisible strawmen go find them at their forum and argue till you're blue in the face.

And there you go with a shifting the burden of proof fallacy right on cue.

There is no burden of proof shifting.
If you don't accept the first premise of the cosmological argument you don't have to disprove it.

But neither can you presume its negation must therefore be the default truth.

An uncaused, past-eternal universe is the claim frequently made by people who want to try and negate the argument from causation.

I don't accuse them of making an argument from ignorance. So don't accuse me of arguing from ignorance when I take a position on the plausibility of caused versus uncaused.

...if you want to prove that pixies open flowers, you have to provide evidence of pixies opening flowers.

I don't want to prove that. Less still am I obligated to prove that.

It is not my burden to disprove the claim that pixies cause the flowers to open.

Fine. Then don't. If you don't want to persuade anyone of that you are free to remain unpersuasive for as long as you wish.

If you want to prove that your invisible friend created [there was a cause of] the universe, you're going to have to provide evidence of your invisible friend creating the universe.[that caused is more plausible than uncaused]

Fixed your post. (You're welcome)

...Just saying "Look, the flowers open, don't they?" doesn't cover you're burden of proof

I don't say that. So you can relax.
Shadow boxing and swinging punches at an invisible opponent - not a good look.

...it is not my burden to prove that it's not pixies.

Yeah. I know. So don't whine about something you aren't expected to do.

 

[Juma]

If God created everything. Who created God?

Did someone greater than God create God?

Tell me who that being is and I will worship the Maximally Great Creator.

So you mean that god created herself?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Egad, people. Where were you all during grade three science class? Everyone knows that God was farted out of the ass of a giant unicorn. That's why virgin princesses spend so much time cooking chili for unicorns - it gets them free gods.

 

[Underseer]

And there you go with a shifting the burden of proof fallacy right on cue.

There is no burden of proof shifting.
If you don't accept the first premise of the cosmological argument you don't have to disprove it.

But neither can you presume its negation must therefore be the default truth.

An uncaused, past-eternal universe is the claim frequently made by people who want to try and negate the argument from causation.

I don't accuse them of making an argument from ignorance. So don't accuse me of arguing from ignorance when I take a position on the plausibility of caused versus uncaused.

...if you want to prove that pixies open flowers, you have to provide evidence of pixies opening flowers.

I don't want to prove that. Less still am I obligated to prove that.

It is not my burden to disprove the claim that pixies cause the flowers to open.

Fine. Then don't. If you don't want to persuade anyone of that you are free to remain unpersuasive for as long as you wish.

If you want to prove that your invisible friend created [there was a cause of] the universe, you're going to have to provide evidence of your invisible friend creating the universe.[that caused is more plausible than uncaused]

Fixed your post. (You're welcome)

...Just saying "Look, the flowers open, don't they?" doesn't cover you're burden of proof

I don't say that. So you can relax.
Shadow boxing and swinging punches at an invisible opponent - not a good look.

...it is not my burden to prove that it's not pixies.

Yeah. I know. So don't whine about something you aren't expected to do.

If you insist that I have to prove there negation, then you are committing a shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

If you want to prove that your invisible friend created the universe, you have to provide evidence of you're invisible friend creating the universe.

If you want to prove that your invisible friend created the universe, you have to provide evidence of you're invisible friend creating the universe.

If you want to prove that your invisible friend created the universe, you have to provide evidence of you're invisible friend creating the universe.

If you want to prove that your invisible friend created the universe, you have to provide evidence of you're invisible friend creating the universe.

If you want to prove that your invisible friend created the universe, you have to provide evidence of you're invisible friend creating the universe.

If you want to prove that your invisible friend created the universe, you have to provide evidence of you're invisible friend creating the universe.

You cannot accomplish that by saying "Well you don't accept my claim, therefore you have the burden of disproving it" does not accomplish that.

- - - Updated - - -

And slightly changing the wording like you will not shift the burden of proof of your own claim.

I repeat: changing the word "invisible friend" to "first cause" neither satisfies the burden of proof nor shifts it to anyone else.

 

[Lion IRC]

...If you don't accept the first premise of the cosmological argument you don't have to disprove it.

...I don't accuse them of making an argument from ignorance.

...the infinite regression problem doesnt asymmetrically apply ONLY to the non-theist.

Why do you bring up the beginning of the universe?

I didn't bring up the beginning of the universe.

...If you don't want to persuade anyone of that you are free to remain unpersuasive for as long as you wish.

...don't whine about something you aren't expected to do.

If your invisible friend doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe....

That's what I just said.

I keep on saying you DONT have a burden of proof and you keep on ignoring me.

..If you insist that I have to prove there negation, then you are committing a shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

I don't insist that. So there is no fallacy.
And no more discussion with ppl who ignore what I keep saying.

 

[Underseer]

Let's review what you wrote.

But neither can you presume its negation must therefore be the default truth.

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. You can tell us all you want that I am creating a straw man, but accusing me of your own flaws are not going to get you out of the burden of proof.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The first cause argument is just that, an argument. And it's a very shallow argument because it is its own fallacy. It's that whole religious double standard again where you observe the universe and see how it works and then presume there is a magic spaceman that doesn't operate by the same rules.

If you're going to argue that everything has a cause and then presume that not everything has a cause I really don't see how the subject can be intelligently discussed.

The universe exists. Now show us the spaceman that you say made it. And if the spaceman doesn't need a cause why does the universe. Oh yeah, because the spaceman is magic and magic things don't need causes.

Very convincing if you're operating with the mentality of a toddler.

 

[Underseer]

The first cause argument is just that, an argument. And it's a very shallow argument because it is its own fallacy. It's that whole religious double standard again where you observe the universe and see how it works and then presume there is a magic spaceman that doesn't operate by the same rules.

If you're going to argue that everything has a cause and then presume that not everything has a cause I really don't see how the subject can be intelligently discussed.

The universe exists. Now show us the spaceman that you say made it. And if the spaceman doesn't need a cause why does the universe. Oh yeah, because the spaceman is magic and magic things don't need causes.

Very convincing if you're operating with the mentality of a toddler.

Yup.

The universe exists.

It would exist whether or not there was a first cause. If time began with the universe, then it is likely that the universe is uncaused. After all, the cause has to come before the effect, but if time came into existence with the universe, then there is no such thing as "before the universe," and thus no cause is possible.

Even ignoring that, the first cause argument is just the same argument from ignorance fallacy mentioned in the original post.

Even ignoring that, there is no way to get from "first cause" to the invisible friend being proposed.

So we're back at square one. If he wants to insist that Allah created the universe, then he's going to have to provide evidence of Allah creating the universe. If he wants to use "first cause" instead of Allah, then he's still going to have to provide evidence. Simply throwing your hands in the air and declaring "Well, how else do you explain it?" is not going to accomplish that. That brings us right back to Zeus and the lightning.

 

[Underseer]

The irony is that people are afraid they will look stupid if they admit that they don't know, so they make up an answer which makes them look even more stupid.

 

[Lion IRC]

The first cause argument is just that, an argument. And it's a very shallow argument because it is its own fallacy. It's that whole religious double standard again where you observe the universe and see how it works and then presume there is a magic spaceman that doesn't operate by the same rules.

I don't "presume" the existence of God. That's a shallow strawman. Why can't you argue against the actual position.
To use the word presumption flies in the face of overwhelmingly vast human experience of and evidence for theism.

...if [God] doesn't need a cause why does the universe.

God doesn't need a cause. He is a personal being not a planet or a galaxy or an asteroid.
If you think planets and galaxies etc don't need a prior cause you're free to hold that belief.

...If you're going to argue that everything has a cause and then presume that not everything has a cause I really don't see how the subject can be intelligently discussed.

I don't argue that everything has a cause. God doesn't have a prior cause.
And I assume you don't claim everything has a cause either.
So where is the disagreement?

...The universe exists.

Yep. No argument there. Now...
Can you prove it caused itself to come into existence?
Can you prove it spontaneously (mysteriously) came into existence by pure chance?
Can you prove it has always existed forever and ever? Science says it's only 13.7 B. years old.

No, of course you can't and I don't expect you to either - unless you assert that such scenarios are MORE plausible than a Big Bang which was deliberately caused.

Maybe God the great Astro-Physicist has a divine Hadron Colider and He caused something to be created out of nothing. Lawrence Krauss would be impressed.

 

[bilby]

I don't "presume" the existence of God. That's a shallow strawman. Why can't you argue against the actual position.
To use the word presumption flies in the face of overwhelmingly vast human experience of and evidence for theism.

...if [God] doesn't need a cause why does the universe.

God doesn't need a cause. He is a personal being not a planet or a galaxy or an asteroid.
If you think planets and galaxies etc don't need a prior cause you're free to hold that belief.

...If you're going to argue that everything has a cause and then presume that not everything has a cause I really don't see how the subject can be intelligently discussed.

I don't argue that everything has a cause. God doesn't have a prior cause.
And I assume you don't claim everything has a cause either.
So where is the disagreement?

...The universe exists.

Yep. No argument there. Now...
Can you prove it caused itself to come into existence?
Can you prove it spontaneously (mysteriously) came into existence by pure chance?
Can you prove it has always existed forever and ever? Science says it's only 13.7 B. years old.

No, of course you can't and I don't expect you to either - unless you assert that such scenarios are MORE plausible than a Big Bang which was deliberately caused.

Maybe God the great Astro-Physicist has a divine Hadron Colider and He caused something to be created out of nothing. Lawrence Krauss would be impressed.

'The universe' means 'everything that exists'. Either God is part of 'the universe' or God is non-existent, by definition.

If God is part of the universe, then either parts of the universe can cause the whole of the universe (including themselves); Or God cannot be the cause of the universe.

If parts of the universe can cause the whole of the universe, then what is the problem for which 'God' is the solution?

A big bang (or anything else) that was deliberately caused is BY DEFINITION not the cause of the universe, because deliberate causes require the prior existence of the causer; And any such causer remains part of the definition of 'universe'.

To refute your crazy assertion that everything was caused by a personal being who doesn't need a cause doesn't require proof of anything; if we accept for the sake of argument that a personal being who doesn't need a cause exists, then that a personal being who doesn't need a cause is part of 'everything', and as such had to cause itself to exist. Which is impossible, as it didn't exist to cause itself until it had finished causing itself.

Nobody needs to PROVE that the universe caused itself to come into existence - the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it did NOT, if you want your alternative to be taken seriously.
Nobody needs to PROVE that the universe spontaneously (mysteriously) came into existence by pure chance - the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it did NOT, if you want your alternative to be taken seriously.
Nobody needs to PROVE that the universe has always existed forever and ever - the burden of proof is on YOU to show that it did NOT, if you want your alternative to be taken seriously.

And even if you could show all of those things to be impossible, your alternative explanation still needs to have NOT been disproven by its own internal logic, before it can be taken as a possible, much less a certain, truth.

You still appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that if other people don't know how the universe came to be, your assertion that you do know about that must be correct. That's not how it works. I don't know what made that noise in the loft; That does NOT imply that I have to agree with your assertion that it was ghosts. Your absolute certainty that it was ghosts wouldn't make ghosts more likely than my unproveable guesses that it might have been mice; or thermal expansion of the trusses; or a possum; or a tree branch tapping on the roof.

 

[Lion IRC]

'The universe' means 'everything that exists'. Either God is part of 'the universe' or God is non-existent, by definition.

I don't agree with that metaphysical claim but for the sake of the argument I'll accept it.
The past-eternal, uncaused universe mysteriously exists by its own necessity and the pantheist God who is supposedly a part of that same divine universe just 'exists' as a brute reality.

Job done. .
Checkmate atheists.

Now, I'm off to worship

 

[bilby]

'The universe' means 'everything that exists'. Either God is part of 'the universe' or God is non-existent, by definition.

I don't agree with that metaphysical claim but for the sake of the argument I'll accept it.

It's not a claim, metaphysical or otherwise; I am defining a term that I am using in my argument, so that there can be no confusion.

The past-eternal, uncaused universe mysteriously exists by its own necessity

That's possible but unevidenced

and the pantheist God who is supposedly a part of that same divine universe just 'exists' as a brute reality.

That's possible but unevidenced

Job done. .
Checkmate atheists.

What job? You have demonstrated exactly nothing other than your smug sense of misplaced confidence in your unevidenced beliefs.

Now, I'm off to worship

More fool you. Were pantheism true, worship would be futile. (Of course that doesn't imply that worship is not futile, given that pantheism is false).

 

[Juma]

God doesn't need a cause. He is a personal being not a planet or a galaxy or an asteroid.

How do you even know this? Where is the evidence?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

God doesn't need a cause. He is a personal being not a planet or a galaxy or an asteroid.

How do you even know this? Where is the evidence?

And I'm a personal being too but apparently I need a cause.

Oh, forgot, god is a magical personal being, and god is not part of any universe. How do I know this? I just do.

Glad we cleared that one up.

 

[Lion IRC]

God doesn't need a cause. He is a personal being not a planet or a galaxy or an asteroid.

How do you even know this? Where is the evidence?

I was thinking of the difference between inanimate objects which lack volition and personal beings who can intentionally cause stuff.