Cosmological argument.

[Lion IRC]

...if there was a creator, it had to come from somewhere

Why? 
In a forum which routinely accuses theists of making up stuff, what is the basis of your quasi-religious belief that there has to be a 'somewhere' (over the rainbow) from whence a Creator must have come?
I'm not criticising your metaphysical imaginings...Im asking you to embrace them and tell us more.

Trdsf never claimed that "there has to be a 'somewhere' (over the rainbow) from whence a Creator must have come". 

Yep. That's exactly what zhe said. 
"if there was a creator, it had to come from somewhere"

But nice try to shift the burden of proof, really nice.

Im not asking for proof. Im asking for an intelligible justification of the belief that something which began to exist had a cause...had to have come from somewhere...was contingent.

[Lion IRC]

Biblical theism / Abrahamic monotheism doesn't claim that the capital "C" Creator had a beginning. Do you need a refresher course on the Cosmological Argument?

An uncreated creator is special pleading. If your creator can be uncreated, why not the universe?

I dont assert that God is the only 'thing' which can be past-eternal...uncaused.

Do you claim that the universe is past-eternal?

[Deesse23]

Why? 
In a forum which routinely accuses theists of making up stuff, what is the basis of your quasi-religious belief that there has to be a 'somewhere' (over the rainbow) from whence a Creator must have come?
I'm not criticising your metaphysical imaginings...Im asking you to embrace them and tell us more.

Trdsf never claimed that "there has to be a 'somewhere' (over the rainbow) from whence a Creator must have come". 

Yep. That's exactly what zhe said. 
"if there was a creator, it had to come from somewhere"

But nice try to shift the burden of proof, really nice.

Im not asking for proof. Im asking for an intelligible justification of the belief that something which began to exist had a cause...had to have come from somewhere...was contingent.

That washt his claim, Thats what followed from the theist claim, jeez.

[Bucky Ball]

Im not asking for proof. Im asking for an intelligible justification of the belief that something which began to exist had a cause...had to have come from somewhere...was contingent.

There is no reason, even granting that a cause for anything was necessary, to JUMP to "ultimate cause" conclusion.
And I hope you're not talking about the universe, Preacher man.
The Big Bang Theory says the Bang was an explosion of whatever it was, which was at very high temperature, and density.
It's therefore not the beginning of anything. "Nothing" is not at high temperature and density.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Biblical theism / Abrahamic monotheism doesn't claim that the capital "C" Creator had a beginning. Do you need a refresher course on the Cosmological Argument?

An uncreated creator is special pleading. If your creator can be uncreated, why not the universe?

I dont assert that God is the only 'thing' which can be past-eternal...uncaused.

What else do you assert to be past-eternal?

Do you claim that the universe is past-eternal?

Not at all. I try to avoid making knowledge claims beyond the point that knowledge fails. Within the limits of our understanding and technology, "I/we don't know" is the best answer right now. Of course, "I/we don't know" is not the came as "I/we can't know."

[Lion IRC]

An uncreated creator is special pleading. If your creator can be uncreated, why not the universe?

I dont assert that God is the only 'thing' which can be past-eternal...uncaused.

What else do you assert to be past-eternal?

Just God. #Necessary #Sufficient 
 

Do you claim that the universe is past-eternal?

Not at all. I try to avoid making knowledge claims beyond the point that knowledge fails. Within the limits of our understanding and technology, "I/we don't know" is the best answer right now. Of course, "I/we don't know" is not the came as "I/we can't know."

Great.
In that case you don't appear to be asserting anything that contends with rhe Cosmological Argument.

[Bucky Ball]

Just God. #Necessary #Sufficient 

Not possible.
A "necessary" and "sufficient" (whatever the hell that is), deity cannot be the creator of the very reality in which you are claiming it MUST exist. Therefore it cannot be the cause of reality. According to your system, it "found itself" (if these qualities are really "past-eternal") in a reality, in which it had no choices. If it's past-eternal "necessary" it is subject to the reality you claim it exists in, and if past-eternal, it could not have created anything. Eternal means changeless. It could not even THINK or will, (or love), much less create. Yeah ... it's unexamined bullshit.

As long as your particular deity existed, it must meet the (external) standards of "just" and "necessary".
He has NOT solved Euthyphro's dilemma.

Just more theist apologetic sentimental drivel.
Sounds all nice and good, but actually is nothing but meaningless drivel.

When one studies Philosophy and Theology one learns their concept of "past-eternal" is absent. "Past" anything means time is somehow present and there are two problems with that. Space-time (there is no known quanity called "time") exists in this universe. No one knows if space-time is present in what would be "not" this universe. So that's #1. In Theology/Philosophy, "eternal" means TIMELESS ... no time. NOT "endless time". Therefore the ignorants who talk about past-eternal are contradicting themselves, as they are basically saying "time-no time".

So, um .... no. Lion's apologetic is nothing but bullshit, as per his ignorant usual.

Then of couse, as I frequently mention, one of the underlying errors in ANY of the apologetic nonsense, is (as Dr. Sean Carroll schooled William Craig about in their debate), there are many logical systems. Some, while entirely internally consistent, do not obtain, in reality. One must demonstrate whatever logic one is using, applies to what one is talking about. "Necessary" and "sufficient" are terms in a logical system that they don't bother to name, and have not demonstrated applies. They actually cannot demonstrate that. We know about what is real for about 5 % of this universe, (so basically can't conclude much about it either), but We know ZERO about the environment any deity, without time, not in this universe would exist in. They can therefore make NO CLAIMS about this deity, or conclude anything, or say anything, based on a logic they have not named or demonstrated, and until that gets done they're just up shit-creek without a paddle.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I dont assert that God is the only 'thing' which can be past-eternal...uncaused.

What else do you assert to be past-eternal?

Just God. #Necessary #Sufficient 
 

Do you claim that the universe is past-eternal?

Not at all. I try to avoid making knowledge claims beyond the point that knowledge fails. Within the limits of our understanding and technology, "I/we don't know" is the best answer right now. Of course, "I/we don't know" is not the came as "I/we can't know."

Great.
In that case you don't appear to be asserting anything that contends with rhe Cosmological Argument.

So, you are committing the special pleading fallacy. Good to know.

[Lion IRC]

How am I committing the special pleading fallacy?

The Cosmological argument doesn't assert that everything came into existence except God.

And proponents of the Cosmological argument readily accept that if the universe didn't come into existence, then it doesn't require a causal explanation. 

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.
P2. The universe came into existence.
C. Therefore...

[TheGentlemanBastard]

How am I committing the special pleading fallacy?

The Cosmological argument doesn't assert that everything came into existence except God.

And proponents of the Cosmological argument readily accept that if the universe didn't come into existence, then it doesn't require a causal explanation. 

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.
P2. The universe came into existence.
C. Therefore...

You're pleading a special case for your gawd. More precisely, the cosmological argument does. If your gawd can be past-eternal, why not the universe?

[Minimalist]

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.

Except whatever magical sky daddy you elect to believe in.  How very fucking convenient for you!

[Bucky Ball]

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.

Virtual particles ... what causes them ?
Random decay from one isotope to another ... what causes them ?

Your P1 is based on nothing. You do not have even a tiny bit of information to support that "claim".

[Paleophyte]

How am I committing the special pleading fallacy?

By requiring a law that everything needs a cause and then pleading that your deity be exempt from that law.

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.

This has never been observed.

P2. The universe came into existence.

Baseless non-sequitur. Nonsensquitur?

C. Therefore...

A bronze age storm god that got fed to a Roman mystery cult? Yeah, I totally see how those dots connect.

[Bucky Ball]

P2. The universe came into existence.

Wow.
So you *know* what was at high temperature and density.
You've been holding out on us.
Tell us troll, what was it ?

[Dancefortwo]

How am I committing the special pleading fallacy?

The Cosmological argument doesn't assert that everything came into existence except God.

And proponents of the Cosmological argument readily accept that if the universe didn't come into existence, then it doesn't require a causal explanation. 

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.
P2. The universe came into existence.
C. Therefore...

You're dancing around your theists god claim.

P1. Things which exist require a first cause.
P2.  You claim your god exists
C.  What caused your god to exist?  

Furthremore, where did all the stuff your god used to make the universe come from.  Did he just snap his fingers and everything magically materialized out of nothing?   Something coming from nothing is your god claim, buddy.

[Lion IRC]

How am I committing the special pleading fallacy?

The Cosmological argument doesn't assert that everything came into existence except God.

And proponents of the Cosmological argument readily accept that if the universe didn't come into existence, then it doesn't require a causal explanation. 

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.
P2. The universe came into existence.
C. Therefore...

You're dancing around your theists god claim.

P1. Things which exist require a first cause.
P2.  You claim your god exists
C.  What caused your god to exist?  

P1. ???

Who claims things which exist require a cause?
The Cosmological argument states that things which begin to exist - are not past eternal - have a cause. If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.

[Bucky Ball]

How am I committing the special pleading fallacy?

The Cosmological argument doesn't assert that everything came into existence except God.

And proponents of the Cosmological argument readily accept that if the universe didn't come into existence, then it doesn't require a causal explanation. 

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.
P2. The universe came into existence.
C. Therefore...

You're dancing around your theists god claim.

P1. Things which exist require a first cause.
P2.  You claim your god exists
C.  What caused your god to exist?  

P1. ???

Who claims things which exist require a cause?
The Cosmological argument states that things which begin to exist - are not past eternal - have a cause. If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.

You have no evidence for your *conditional* statement ... one way or the other, and in fact it's meaningless.  
"Have always existed" is a temporal concept.
You know nothing about space-time *other* than in this universe.
To say "a timeless being" (which is what *eternal* means) *always* existed is meaningless. Did your gods always live inside this universe before it even existed, ... as that's what you're implying.
You're just horseshit at this apologetics thing, but we knew that. You always were. You're so unconvincing, it's rather sad. You did lie. You promised not to preach unless you were asked. You have not been asked. Lying for Jebus is still lying.

[SYZ]

You're dancing around your theists god claim.

P1. Things which exist require a first cause.
P2.  You claim your god exists
C.  What caused your god to exist...  

Who claims things which exist require a cause?

The Cosmological argument states that things which begin to exist - are not past eternal - have a cause. If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.

The first cause argument is based around cause and effect. Thomas Aquinas asserted that this
cause (which is outside our world) is the first cause—that is, the one that started everything.
Aquinas argued that this first cause must have no beginning—that is, nothing caused it to exist
because the first cause is eternal.

"If God and the universe have always existed" is a major and totally absurd conflation of
science and religion.  The tenets of science have 100% supporting evidence, whereas the
dogma of religions have no supporting evidence—other than the fantastical beliefs of its
adherents.  There's no such evidence that God or gods exist, nor any evidence of the other
religions' supernatural entities.

To say even "if" God exists is an absurd presupposition.

Here's a little task for you Lion...

—Prove to me that unicorns don't exist.    

[Dancefortwo]

How am I committing the special pleading fallacy?

The Cosmological argument doesn't assert that everything came into existence except God.

And proponents of the Cosmological argument readily accept that if the universe didn't come into existence, then it doesn't require a causal explanation. 

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.
P2. The universe came into existence.
C. Therefore...

You're dancing around your theists god claim.

P1. Things which exist require a first cause.
P2.  You claim your god exists
C.  What caused your god to exist?  

P1. ???

Who claims things which exist require a cause?
The Cosmological argument states that things which begin to exist - are not past eternal - have a cause. If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.

This is the typical response theists make.  The question still stands, where did your god come from?  Don't tell me he's eternal because you have zero evidence of this.  And please don't claim he's "outside of space and time" because this is unprovable.  I have a magical donut that is outside of space and time.  Prove me wrong.  Yeah, it's a non falsifiable claim, isn't it?

In ancient times the biblical deity used to be on the top of mountains but when it was proven that he didn't reside there they pushed their god up in the clouds. When John Glenn circled the earth there was no god to be seen so Christians pushed god beyond the moon and out into space. When telescopes began to look into deep space no god was found and everything was explained by physics so theists pushed their god so far out he's now "outside of space and time".  This is meaningless crap.  When you make this claim you've admitted you really don't know.

The honest answer is that nobody knows yet what touched off the Big Bang and the expansion of space and time.  But because science doesn't know something doesn't mean you get to run in with your goddidit flag and plant it in an unknown.

[Deesse23]

If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.

If pink unicorns and God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
If pixies, pink unicorns and God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
If pink elephants*, pixies and pink unicorns and God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
...
..
.





*my new gf LOVES pink

[Bucky Ball]

If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.

If pink unicorns and God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
If pixies, pink unicorns and God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
If pink elephants*, pixies and pink unicorns and God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
...
..
.





*my new gf LOVES pink

You are a heretic.
The True™ pink unicorns are sparkly. Spah-ka-lee.
Sparkly Pink Unicorns.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

How am I committing the special pleading fallacy?

The Cosmological argument doesn't assert that everything came into existence except God.

And proponents of the Cosmological argument readily accept that if the universe didn't come into existence, then it doesn't require a causal explanation. 

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.
P2. The universe came into existence.
C. Therefore...

You're dancing around your theists god claim.

P1. Things which exist require a first cause.
P2.  You claim your god exists
C.  What caused your god to exist?  

P1. ???

Who claims things which exist require a cause?
The Cosmological argument states that things which begin to exist - are not past eternal - have a cause. If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.

(my bold)

If the universe has always existed, then there is no need for your creator gawd. The whole fucking point of the cosmological argument is to establish gawd as the special case. The uncaused cause, the unmoved mover. It's nothing more than a special pleading fallacy.

[adey67]

How am I committing the special pleading fallacy?

The Cosmological argument doesn't assert that everything came into existence except God.

And proponents of the Cosmological argument readily accept that if the universe didn't come into existence, then it doesn't require a causal explanation. 

P1. Things which come into existence require a cause.
P2. The universe came into existence.
C. Therefore...

You're dancing around your theists god claim.

P1. Things which exist require a first cause.
P2.  You claim your god exists
C.  What caused your god to exist?  

Furthremore, where did all the stuff your god used to make the universe come from.  Did he just snap his fingers and everything magically materialized out of nothing?   Something coming from nothing is your god claim, buddy.

All of their claims require at least some degree of magical thinking, the bible can't work without it.

[Dancefortwo]

If God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.

If pink unicorns and God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
If pixies, pink unicorns and God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
If pink elephants*, pixies and pink unicorns and God and the universe have always existed, neither require an explanation as to where they came from.
...
..
.





*my new gf LOVES pink

I have a magical, invisible donut that requires no explanation, has always existed and furthermore, lives outside of space and time.....so there!!

[Minimalist]

I have a magical, invisible donut that requires no explanation,

Careful.  The cops will want a bite.

Put some coffee on.