If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[James Brown]

“If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen?

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question?

Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?”

--Carl Sagan, Cosmos

 

[remez]

Wiploc,

My last response was incredibly long. But it was a sincere effort to address everything. Now that I have, I really feel I can summarize that to a more reasonable length for easier discussion. However my time is limited for the next 48 hours. Thus I offer this alternative to you. Please just simply read my response for info sake and await for my shortened summery to respond. That way you can respond to both in your response to my summary. And potentially have 48 hours to simply reflect. I’m in no hurry. I’ll try to courteously inform you of sporadic schedule delays on my end if they will be over 48 hrs.

You of course may do as you wish and address it in part or its entirety any time you wish. I was only offering a hopeful help.

I'll wait and see what you say.

Thank you for that.
So here briefly, as I see it, is our initial concern......This is not a complete summation but breif focus on the issue that needs to be settled in order to continue. Does theism actually exist?

Your “allaverse” means God is part of the universe…….right?

If that is your view then this must logically be dealt with first. Because essentially theism disappears from the realm of discussion.
Because……
There can be no further serious discussion about theism ….if it doesn’t even exist. Here is what I mean.



The theistic worldview has always maintained that God is separate from the universe. This is common knowledge. Common accepted distinction. Has been reality for millennia.

If you are going to irrationally force by definition that the theistic God is part of the universe then you are the one denying reality as it is. You are begging the DEFINITION to your end…… to such an extent that theism does not exist at all, and yet you are trying to argue against it. Why bother. Just simply assert that it does not exist.

The link below (I hope) is a google “image” search results page for “theism charts”
Images of theisms …. https://www.google.com/search?q=the...0KHZblDPwQ_AUoAnoECA0QBA#imgrc=4w0KVco9mtS4sM

The images clearly distinguish the worldview of theism, (technically…monotheism) that God and universe are two separate entities. I offer that as evidence that your “allaverse” is pantheistic.
Further ……
This is the common accepted reality regarding theistic comparisons.

That was the point I was attempting to emphasize throughout my last response to you. Please reread. Many of your objections with theism were really effective objections to pantheism. I have used that same effective reasoning, you just used, to defeat pantheism.

Ponder this well. Because most of your presented objections of theism were forced upon a “theism” THAT CAN'T logically exist by your forced definition…… “allaverse” to include God as part of the universe. Your charges of equivocation, special pleading, begging the question, all go away if the universe and God are to separate entities.

So….Can I exist?
How do you read that evidence and my reasoning regarding your “allaverse” above?

Can our conversation continue?
Or
Does it end there?.........with you…….unreasonably defining theism out of existence with your “allaverse” and then unreasonably trying to explain why it fails “pantheistically.”

 

[steve_bank]

The peculiar thing is that Christians reject a universe with no beginning, yet based on a few ancient lines of text believe in an eternal god.

The peculiar thing is that atheists accept a eternal universe yet reject a God with no beginning.

An attempt at turning the table?

I do not believe as in a Christian belief in god, I consider it more probable based on science than the ill defined Christian god.

Science evolves with new ideas and better observation and measurement. Thought is not bound by a scripture. Christianity is stagnant.

 

[remez]

The peculiar thing is that Christians reject a universe with no beginning, yet based on a few ancient lines of text believe in an eternal god.

The peculiar thing is that atheists accept a eternal universe yet reject a God with no beginning.

An attempt at turning the table?

I do not believe as in a Christian belief in god, I consider it more probable based on science than the ill defined Christian god.

Science evolves with new ideas and better observation and measurement. Thought is not bound by a scripture. Christianity is stagnant.

Good luck Tigers!

 

[steve_bank]

Hinging onto scripture for dear life, like a puppy hanging onto a shoe and won't let go.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Science evolves with new ideas and better observation and measurement. Thought is not bound by a scripture. Christianity is stagnant.

Yes, science has the luxury of 'correcting' its own mistakes.
(Did the universe begin? Is the universe expanding? Is Pluto a planet? Is thalidomide safe?)

The bible, on the other hand still says the same thing - the intelligently designed universe began to exist.

 

[Lion IRC]

“...if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?”

--Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Science doesnt "conclude" anything. All hypotheses are tentative. Especially those without evidence.

Besides, it doesn't save a step to "conclude" that things happen without a cause.

 

[steve_bank]

“...if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?”

--Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Science doesnt "conclude" anything. All hypotheses are tentative. Especially those without evidence.

Besides, it doesn't save a step to "conclude" that things happen without a cause.

You are hiding behind semantics again . Nobody uses the term conclude to mean naything absolute.

Except literal creationists.

After hearing it on the forum often enough now you are getting it, all science subject to change. The last 300 years attests to that. Not exactly breaking news.

 

[steve_bank]

...Science evolves with new ideas and better observation and measurement. Thought is not bound by a scripture. Christianity is stagnant.

Yes, science has the luxury of 'correcting' its own mistakes.
(Did the universe begin? Is the universe expanding? Is Pluto a planet? Is thalidomide safe?)

The bible, on the other hand still says the same thing - the intelligently designed universe began to exist.

It says god created. Nothing about intelligently.

The universe is a bad design if that is true. Your response to that was it used to be perfect until evil entered the world. God changed the universe.

 

[skepticalbip]

The peculiar thing is that Christians reject a universe with no beginning, yet based on a few ancient lines of text believe in an eternal god.

The peculiar thing is that atheists accept a eternal universe yet reject a God with no beginning.

An attempt at turning the table?

I do not believe as in a Christian belief in god, I consider it more probable based on science than the ill defined Christian god.

Science evolves with new ideas and better observation and measurement. Thought is not bound by a scripture. Christianity is stagnant.

That's not really true. Christianity is in a constant state of flux. Someone holding today's Christian idea of god, the universe, and nature in 1600 would would be burned for heresy by the Christians of 1600.

 

[steve_bank]

An attempt at turning the table?

I do not believe as in a Christian belief in god, I consider it more probable based on science than the ill defined Christian god.

Science evolves with new ideas and better observation and measurement. Thought is not bound by a scripture. Christianity is stagnant.

That's not really true. Christianity is in a constant state of flux. Someone holding today's Christian idea of god, the universe, and nature in 1600 would would be burned for heresy by the Christians of 1600.

God, creation, scripture, Jesus are reliable constants for Christians. Any cracks and deviations invalidates it.
nd deviations invalidates it.

 

[skepticalbip]

An attempt at turning the table?

I do not believe as in a Christian belief in god, I consider it more probable based on science than the ill defined Christian god.

Science evolves with new ideas and better observation and measurement. Thought is not bound by a scripture. Christianity is stagnant.

That's not really true. Christianity is in a constant state of flux. Someone holding today's Christian idea of god, the universe, and nature in 1600 would would be burned for heresy by the Christians of 1600.

God, creation, scripture, Jesus are reliable constants for Christians. Any cracks and deviations invalidates it.
nd deviations invalidates it.

The Christian god of three hundred years ago was a god that was responsible for plagues, famins, directly punishing us with lack of rain causing crop failures or too much rain too late causing crops to rot in the fields or flooding. He directly punished those who displeased him by striking their home with lightning, setting it on fire. Those who pleased him were directly rewarded. He was an active, directly involved god.

Today's Christian god is an aloof god that works in indirect and 'mysterious ways' in daily lives. Reward or punishment is dealt out after death.

I have seen no mainstream Christians of today who take a drought, flood, or lightning strike as 'punishment from god' (maybe some in small cults still do) but it was a common belief of how god works three hundred years ago.

 

[Wiploc]

...This is not a complete summation but breif focus on the issue that needs to be settled in order to continue. Does theism actually exist?

Of course it exists.

You're a theist, and you exist.

My father was a theist, and he existed.

In my country, at least, theists greatly outnumber atheists.

Theism exists.

Your “allaverse” means God is part of the universe…….right?

I'm using the word universe to mean the whole ball of wax, everything that exists. So, if gods exist, they are part of the universe.

You like to use universe differently, so that it includes only part of what exists, and definitely doesn't include gods.

Your usage doesn't change the reality of whether gods exist, and neither does mine. Nobody's usage of the word "universe" prevents a discussion of the first cause argument.

Let me introduce -- temporarily -- three new terms:

1. ETE: That stands for everything that exists. If gods exist, they are obviously part of the ETE. By definition.

2. PTZ: This is the physio-temporal zone. It includes matter and time, but it doesn't include any gods. Thor is a god, so if Thor exists, he does not do so at any place or time. He is "outside" the physio-temporal zone.

3. RZ: The Remainder Zone is what you get when you subtract the physio-temporal zone from everything that exists. The RZ is where you put gods. It is where Plato puts his perfect idea of a chair. It is where some people (not me) put numbers and logic. Anything that isn't somewhere at some time is -- if it exists -- in the remainder zone.

If that is your view then this must logically be dealt with first. Because essentially theism disappears from the realm of discussion.
Because……
There can be no further serious discussion about theism ….if it doesn’t even exist. Here is what I mean.

I'm not following you at all.

View attachment 28663

In the theism column of your illustration, the blue area is RZ, the orange area is PTZ, and both together are ETE. How does this prevent us from discussing whether gods are real? It doesn't.

The theistic worldview has always maintained that God is separate from the universe. This is common knowledge. Common accepted distinction. Has been reality for millennia.

I thought Jehovah walked in the garden. I thought he used pillars of fire to get around. I thought (despite the conflict with the preceding sentence) he was everywhere.

But, though I think you are wrong about this, I don't think it's a point worth arguing. So I choose to demur. Or, if you prefer, I can stipulate (for the sake of this discussion) that the bible is wrong everywhere it suggests that gods exist in the real world.

If you are going to irrationally force by definition that the theistic God is part of the universe then you are the one denying reality as it is. You are begging the DEFINITION to your end…… to such an extent that theism does not exist at all, and yet you are trying to argue against it. Why bother. Just simply assert that it does not exist.

I don't understand. Theism clearly exists. It's a huge pain.

Your position is that the first cause argument gives us reasons to believe gods exist. My position is that I'm skeptical of your claim -- but, if your claim is supportable, then I really want to know about it.

Let me be clear: I'm not trying to force your god into the orange part of your chart.

But it will cause endless confusion if you keep referring to the the orange part as the "universe," while I use that word for the orange and blue areas together.

So I suggested using allaverse for the orange and blue together, and partaverse for just the orange part.

I don't see how that precludes our discussing the virtues of the KCA. I think it lends clarity so that we may more profitably discuss the KCA.

If you don't like allaverse and partaverse, we can use other terms, perhaps ETE, PTZ, and RZ. If you don't like any of those, we should be able to agree on other terms. We can, if you choose, be inspired by your chart, and refer to the OZ (orange zone), the BZ (blue zone), and the TZ (total zone). I don't see any reason we can't agree on terminology that suits us both.

But if we continued to use the term universe while talking past each other because we use that term to mean different things, that would make progress pointlessly difficult.

...

That was the point I was attempting to emphasize throughout my last response to you. Please reread. Many of your objections with theism were really effective objections to pantheism.

No. Not true.

I object to logical flaws in the KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) and to equivocal terminology that will get in the way of discussing those logical flaws.

I doubt that I made any objections to theism. My objections were to the KCA. You asked why I don't find the KCA persuasive, and I answered that question.

I have used that same effective reasoning, you just used, to defeat pantheism.

I can't see that, but I don't care either. I don't want to talk pantheism; I want to talk about the KCA.

Ponder this well. Because most of your presented objections of theism were forced upon a “theism” THAT CAN'T logically exist by your forced definition…… “allaverse” to include God as part of the universe.

I don't understand, but I think we can put this behind us if we simply agree to different terms.

I am not suggesting that the blue zone is part of the orange zone, or that there is no blue zone, or anything like that. I'm only pointing out that it will be confusing if you keep using my word for the total zone as your word for the orange zone, and if I keep using your word for the orange zone as my word for the total zone. That's gonna suck.

Your charges of equivocation, special pleading, begging the question, all go away if the universe and God are to separate entities.

No.

So….Can I exist?

You do exist. At no point have I suggested that you don't exist.

How do you read that evidence and my reasoning regarding your “allaverse” above?

I don't understand your question. I repeat that I am not doing away with the blue zone by definition. I am not engaging in presuppositional argumentation. I'm merely pointing out that we use the word "universe" in conflicting ways, and that it would be useful for us, therefore, to use other terms that won't confuse ourselves, each other, and our reading audience.

Can our conversation continue?

I hope it will.

Or
Does it end there?.........with you…….unreasonably defining theism out of existence

I never did that. I'll never try to do that.

with your “allaverse” and then unreasonably trying to explain why it fails “pantheistically.”

I'm not going to respond to that. I don't think I should have to study pantheism before we can discuss the First Cause argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think the illustration is a bit in error.

The atheist block should be a large orange circle for the universe containing a little stick figure (representing humans) with a thought bubble containing the word, god, above the stick figure's head.

I know of no atheists who don't realize that there are people who believe in god.

 

[Rhea]

Science (neutral investgative method, oblivious to opinions) was never a problem to Christianity. Questioning all things ...sounds about right to Christians as well (who may also be scientists).

What a bizarrely untrue and easily disproven statement this is.

 

[Rhea]

So here briefly, as I see it, is our initial concern......This is not a complete summation but breif focus on the issue that needs to be settled in order to continue. Does theism actually exist?

Your “allaverse” means God is part of the universe…….right?

If that is your view then this must logically be dealt with first. Because essentially theism disappears from the realm of discussion.


View attachment 28663

This is a cute little dance of words.

It chooses to define “Theism” as outside of its own god!
It also fails to account for a case where humans do theism, even if it is not true.

The truth is , “Theism” is a thing humans do. Humans exist. They exist in the orange parts of your diagram.
And they do “theism,” even when theism is not true.

Entertainingly, you KNOW this, because there are human heists whom you consider to be doing it wrong, aren’t there?
And so all of them have taken YOUR god out of the equation and they obviously still exist as theists.

The theistic worldview has always maintained that God is separate from the universe. This is common knowledge. Common accepted distinction. Has been reality for millennia.

If you are going to irrationally force by definition that the theistic God is part of the universe then you are the one denying reality as it is.

“Reality as it is” ?

LOL. You have not supported that claim.

You are begging the DEFINITION to your end…… to such an extent that theism does not exist at all, and yet you are trying to argue against it. Why bother. Just simply assert that it does not exist.

I ponder if you really believe this. That if someone says your god does not exist outside of the universe, you cease to exist.
You don’t feel silly saying that?

The images clearly distinguish the worldview of theism, (technically…monotheism) that God and universe are two separate entities. I offer that as evidence that your “allaverse” is pantheistic.

“I offer this internet graphic to prove that I exist...”

Many of your objections with theism were really effective objections to pantheism. I have used that same effective reasoning, you just used, to defeat pantheism.

You have “defeated pantheism,” have you?

Ponder this well. Because most of your presented objections of theism were forced upon a “theism” THAT CAN'T logically exist by your forced definition……

On the contrary. The humans who do theism exist whether or not a god

“allaverse” to include God as part of the universe. Your charges of equivocation, special pleading, begging the question, all go away if the universe and God are to separate entities.

So….Can I exist?
How do you read that evidence and my reasoning regarding your “allaverse” above?

Can our conversation continue?
Or
Does it end there?.........with you…….unreasonably defining theism out of existence with your “allaverse” and then unreasonably trying to explain why it fails “pantheistically.”

As I said, this is a dance. It in NO WAY “defines theism out of existence” since theism is the label for the BELIEF in the orange plus blue, not the EXISTENCE of orange plus blue. Making it clear that orange plus blue cannot exist has never once stopped a theist from doing theism. Not for you and not for any of the other theisms that you believe you have “defeated”.

In fact, your “defeat” of pantheism would have made millions of pantheists cease to exist!

LOL did anyone notice when you did that? I’d have noticed if you did that.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

remez doesn't seem to recognize the obvious that man created god rather than god creating man. Why obvious? Because every isolated culture on Earth created a different god. Each culture believes their creation and describing their creation is their theology.

 

[steve_bank]

The tall porcelain white Jesus with blonde hair and blue eyes I grew up seeing as a Catholic is an image created by white Europeans.

A real person in in Palestine in the day would be short, dark and provably wirey from a limited diet. Doors from 19th century USA were shorter than today.

In the 60s I was in a black family's place and saw a picture of a black Jesus. Didn't understand the significance then.

 

[remez]

So I suggested using allaverse for the orange and blue together, and partaverse for just the orange part.

I don't see how that precludes our discussing the virtues of the KCA. I think it lends clarity so that we may more profitably discuss the KCA.

OK OK we are saying the same things. I THINK. You are just making it more complicated. IMO.

So let me try to place your terms allaverse and partaverse into the KCA.

Partaverse means just the spacetime continuum, all space matter and time, not including God
And allaverse means everything…..all things that begin and do not begin to exist....God, partaverse, house, chairs, rainbows, pi etc.

Then the KCA would read as follows…………..

p1 allaverse that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 the partaverse began to exist.
c the partaverse has a cause.

Which to me with those given definitions means the same thing as

p1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 the universe began to exist
C the universe has a cause.

So your allaverse is to me is the same thing as my term “everything” in p1….both things that begin and don’t begin to exist.
And..
Your term partaverse to me means “universe” (spacetime continuum, all space matter and time, not including God) in p2.

Then the c still follows and is sound and valid. No equivocation, no special pleading, no begging the question. And quantum indeterminism does not mean uncaused, and thus is no defeater to p1.

So what is the problem? ........Well if that is established you said it would still be trivial………

If your conclusion means only that some things are caused, we agree with that trivial claim.

The reasoning is carefully stated and confirmed in our experience. Everything that begins to exists needs a cause. Where does that infer everything needs a cause? Logically the first cause needs no cause. How is that trivial?

Again my use of the word “everything” there is equivalent to your allaverse. Further the conclusion is that the partaverse needs a cause.....is in no way trivial.
Because…..
And do remember that post was very long, but brief to the effect that I was only trying to establish that the universe (partaverse) was caused. Now if the partaverse has a cause then forensically that cause must be immaterial, non-physical, spaceless, timeless, incredibly powerful, incredibly intelligent, personal…..because a choice was made to create, beyond natural, efficient cause.

So I ask again…..How is that trivial?

 

[Wiploc]

OK OK we are saying the same things. I THINK. You are just making it more complicated. IMO.

I'm after making it simpler. If you use a word with one meaning, and I use it with another, and we at times can't tell which meaning the other is using because we're quoting each other, that makes things complicated.

So let me try to place your terms allaverse and partaverse into the KCA.

Partaverse means just the spacetime continuum, all space matter and time, not including God

Close enough for government work.

And allaverse means everything…..all things that begin and do not begin to exist....God, partaverse, house, chairs, rainbows, pi etc.

Right. Anything that exists is part of the allaverse. If gods exist, they are part of the allaverse.

Then the KCA would read as follows…………..

p1 allaverse that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 the partaverse began to exist.
c the partaverse has a cause.

That isn't valid. I'm happy with P2 and C.

P1 can be something like this:

P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

Or, as you put it below:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Which to me with those given definitions means the same thing as

p1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 the universe began to exist
C the universe has a cause.

So your allaverse is to me is the same thing as my term “everything” in p1….both things that begin and don’t begin to exist.

Yes.

Though I don't stipulate that some things begin to exist and some things don't.

The allaverse includes everything that exists, regardless of whether begun or unbegun.

And..
Your term partaverse to me means “universe” (spacetime continuum, all space matter and time, not including God) in p2.

There are so many times that I'm tempted to quibble. I want to let things slide, but I don't want it to come back to bite me.

For instance, I'm told that "spacetime continuum" may be Roddenberry's coining, that it doesn't mean anything to scientists. I don't mind if you use it so long as I'm not seen as endorsing it.

The boundary between the orange zone and the blue zone is not clearly established. Many (most?) theists, including William Lane Craig, think gods exist in the orange zone, that they exist in time and space. WLK: "That's how it has to be!"

But, I don't want to go back and forth on these issues, so, now that I've mentioned my reservations, I'm happy to let this slide so we can talk about other things.

But I do want the boundary between orange and blue to be fixed, even if not precisely identified. That is, whatever's in the orange zone in premise 2 must still be in the orange zone in the conclusion. If we agree on that, then we can agree on the KCA's validity.

Then the c still follows and is sound and valid.

I can give you valid at this point, but not sound. By calling it sound, you've just assumed your conclusion without proving it.

At this point, we've agreed on what the premises are. We haven't agreed that they're true.

No equivocation,

Granted.

no special pleading,

Then why did you choose to exclude unbegun things from the scope of P1? Isn't that because, and only because, you believe in an unbegun god? That looks like special pleading to me.

Suppose Joe demands an explanation when he discovers a naked man in his wife's bedroom. Suppose his wife says the naked man's presence is unbegun, and therefore uncaused, and therefore not in need of explanation. You might think that a satisfactory reply, but to me it raises questions rather than answers them.

Charles Lindberg's plane, the Spirit of St. Louis, had a fuel tank in front of the pilot so he couldn't see forward, couldn't see the runway to land. Why was that?

I'm happy with the explanation that Lindberg had to carry an enormous amount of fuel, and putting the fuel behind him would have unbalanced the plane. I would not be happy with the "explanation" that the plane has just always been like that, that the plane is unbegun, and that it therefore requires no explanation. That would seem like an evasion, not an answer.

You argue that things need causes, but then you carve an exception for your god. This feels like special pleading to me, and this I do not let slide.

no begging the question.

You just called your argument sound, which is to say you assumed that your premises are true. How is that not begging the question?

And quantum indeterminism does not mean uncaused, and thus is no defeater to p1.

I believe it does mean uncaused. I believe the scientific consensus is that indeterminism entails lack of causation.

(I believe that, at this point, the discussion is supposed to turn to distinguishing between "uncaused" and "ex nihilo.")

So what is the problem? ........Well if that is established you said it would still be trivial………

The reasoning is carefully stated and confirmed in our experience. [Emphasis added.]
Everything that begins to exists needs a cause. Where does that infer everything needs a cause?

Our experience is that science tells us some things don't need causes, virtual particles, radioactive breakdown, tiny things in general. I don't see any way for you to get from there to everything-needs-a-cause-except-my-god.

You don't agree that virtual particles are uncaused. That suggests a worldview in which we can say that everything in our experience is caused. If we rely on our experience, then, P1 should read, "P1: Everything has a cause."

If you want to carve out a special exception for your god, that exception is not based on experience. It is contrary to experience. So you shouldn't be invoking experience as our authority.

Logically the first cause needs no cause.

If experience dictates that things have causes, how can there have been a first cause?

If you intend to abandon the requirement that causes precede effects, then, logically, you must also abandon the claim that first causes don't have causes.

How is that trivial?

All you've proved is that some things are caused. That's not news. I'm reminded of a joke a read in sixth grade:

A sailor walking thru town sees a sign in the window of the hardware store. The sign says, "Cast Iron Sinks."

The sailor says, "Everybody knows that."

You undertook to prove there's a blue zone with gods in, and that one of them is first. This is the argument we wait for.

You also keep inserting that one of these gods is intelligent, personable, powerful, and so on. I don't want to get off topic, but I will mention here that I demur; these claims are not established, and I don't believe they can ever be established. They strike me as whimsy, as wishful thinking, as begging the question.

Again my use of the word “everything” there is equivalent to your allaverse.

Agreed.

Which is why I was astounded that you thought my use of "allaverse" somehow precluded the existence of theists. If you can use "everything," why shouldn't I get to use a word that means the same thing?

Further the conclusion is that the partaverse needs a cause.....is in no way trivial.

"Some things have causes," isn't trivial?

Because…..
And do remember that post was very long, but brief to the effect that

It was a good post. I didn't have a problem with it.

I was only trying to establish that the universe (partaverse) was caused.

If you want to prove that virtual particles are caused, I'm all ears. If you want to prove that everything that exists in any place and time (including William Lane Craig's god, if that exists) is caused, then I'm for you.

So far, what you've "proved" is that things with causes have causes. This is not news. It is not significant. It is trivial.

Now if the partaverse has a cause then forensically that cause must be immaterial, non-physical, spaceless, timeless, incredibly powerful, incredibly intelligent, personal…..because a choice was made to create, beyond natural, efficient cause.

I don't see any reason to believe any of that. We can discuss one of those if you want to abandon the KCA, but I'm thinking I should just demur and let these claims slide.

So I ask again…..How is that trivial?

If we choose to ignore the science of quantum mechanics, if we choose to assume that everything we observe is caused, then we've sort of established that everything we observe is caused.

If we extrapolate a rule from that, and say that everything is caused, then that would be non-trivial. It would be a proof-based-on-assumption that everything is caused, that the allaverse is an infinite regress.

But if we arbitrarily curtail our assumed rule, saying that everything before march 3rd is caused, everything not-blue is caused, everything made by Chevy is caused, or everything unbegun is caused, then all we've got is a claim, based on special pleading that some things are caused even if other things may not be.

Our conclusion is that some things are caused. That's trivial, pointless, insignificant.