Please do your best to respond to this post. I won't insult you if you don't insult me.
Cause and effect. How can something come out of nothing? How could the very first thing that happened to start the universe not be effected by anything? It has to go back and back and back until one thing that effected something without being caused. That, I believe, was a god. Can somebody please prove this point wrong?
The idea that something comes from nothing, or the nature of "non-existence" is incapable of being observed or scientifically studied.
But it's capable of being thought about. Why bury our heads in the sand?
the problem is that the conclusions you reach in that abstraction on the matter .......cannot be generalized to reality.
we are discussing a real god who has real impacts on this universe. And that is what constrains us thus
@ Kir - I completely agree with what you say. However, it's necessary to do abstract speculation.
Not sure what came from nothing. I tend to think the 'causes' that led to us being here regress infinitely. If there is a stopping point, where there truly is nothing, except some magical being, then I would be surprised if it actually was anything like the gods imagined by men. Why do you think we came from nothing/a magical being?
I just don't understand why theists think the "first cause" argument gets them anywhere. Because even if you accept it it only gets you to a "creator." Period. Nothing about the argument gives you any basis to say anything about that creator other than that it created. So, sure, I suppose if you are a deist it is an okay argument. But if you are, e.g., a Christian who believes in the Holy Trinity and the Bible and the resurrection and sin/redemption and all that I wish someone would explain how all that would follow from merely establishing (if you could) the existence of a "creator." It would be like seeing a watch and instead of just saying that you can establish the existence of a watchmaker from seeing the watch you then go on to say that you know what he had for dinner last night, how he treats his kids, what his favorite movie is, who he took to the senior prom, who he voted for in the last election, etc, etc, etc
@ Cecilia - look at the world. Is it not a beautiful and joyful place? Sometimes? That's why people say "God is love". Jesus remains a separate issue, but as for the rest, well... it's probably a historical accident.
God then is also a vicious predator, a creeping viral infection, and the ravening maw of a black hole. I don't hear Xtians talking about that so much.
Why do you carve out a special exception for the thing you call "god"? Scientists are no different from you (in one way of looking at it) because they want an explanation. Your explanation is God. But scientists use physics and logic and deduction and math. The end result of that process is far more reliable than simply labeling "that which we do not know" as "god". So my question to you (and I mean this as a real question; by no means am I trying to insult), is this: Why do you not dig deeper?
Using your exact same argument, how can you conceive the idea of eternal infinite God coming out of nothing but not the universe itself coming out of nothing?
It's part of and proof of the circular reasoning underlying the argument. People who think this way don't understand that you can't assume part of your conclusion to be true (i.e., that god is not subject to the same rules) without having proved the conclusion first. The fact that they do assume part of the conclusion shows that they have implicitly assumed the whole thing to be true all along.
One of the frustrations of arguing about the existence of God is that their belief really isn't on the line. Even if you soundly disprove every "proof" they trot out, don't count on them admitting even that "you might have something there: perhaps He doesn't exist." The reason for this is the importance of faith to religion, especially Christianity. The more you disprove their position with them letting you change their mind, the more they are demonstrating their faith. Thus, most arguments with believers are rather pointless and doomed from the start.
This is so true which is why I find that most of these kinds of arguments are a waste of time and somewhat boring. Maybe, I suppose, you might plant a seed of unbelief in someone by demonstrating that science does offer answers to this inquiry but the truth is science will run up against the place where we do not yet understand or know and/or the place where what we have come to understand or know only leads to more questions (that is how science goes). And it is at this place that the theist jumps in with "but I do know and understand, it is god!!" So, mostly these kinds of arguments are started by theists who think they've found a brilliant "gotcha" argument to convince non-believers of god's existence. They don't and, frankly, IMO, not much worth engaging. And, as I've said a couple of times here, the kind of argument/evidence allegedly provided by Isaac's proposal that "something can't come from nothing therefore god" does nothing to support belief in any specific god. The best the theist arguing this might hope for is to get someone to say okay, I will call that which we do not know or understand about the origins of the universe "god." But it is a huge, huge leap to get someone to from that concession to "Praise the Lord, I now accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior!"
The mere fact that a theist must rely on faith or a "leap of faith" to accept or believe a particular god-universe hypothesis undermines the very plausibility of that hypothesis.