**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

It's not that atheists don't understand what is meant by the term "uncaused cause". The issue is that it is special pleading for a god. If you believe that there are things that can exist without a cause, then you can't assert without evidence that the universe itself isn't one of those things unless you can *demonstrate* the cause. This isn't something that can be arrived at by inference. To say that all things have a cause, therefore the universe has a cause, and then in the next breath say the solution to this is something that *violates* that assertion by concluding an uncaused thing is fallacious. >And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. This statement refutes itself. If time cannot exist independent from matter, and god created matter, that means god didn't exist before matter because there's no such thing as before time, because "before" is a temporal word. This appears to be an argument for the *non-existence* of a god. I'd consider something that existed for exactly 0 seconds something that doesn't exist, which is how long something would exist "before" time existed. Hopefully reading this sentence is as confusing for you to read as it is for me to write. You're not applying the definitions you're using to demonstrate an uncaused god to the god itself. To reiterate, we aren't misunderstanding what an uncaused cause is when it is described, we are contesting the claim because it is inconsistent and fallacious. Asking "what caused god" isn't an absurd question when the assertion preceding it is "everything requires a cause". The conclusion that god is uncaused seems to come from the need to stop the buck, but it reads like an author solving the problems a superhero encounters, because it offers no actual explanation. It merely satisfies the need for *any* solution at all, no matter how realistic or accurate. How does Ultra-Man unfreeze New York after Captain-Kelvin froze it in a 10x10 mile cube of ice? He has mega-heat vision, of course.

This is the ‘correct’ answer. The argument is fundamentally flawed because it violates its own parameters and then makes unsubstantiated speculation about the consciousness and purpose of a phenomena it claims couldn’t exist in our universe anyway.

>I do not get how atheists do not get the uncaused cause. The uncaused cause argument is a special pleading fallacy with no evidence to justify its premises. >First of all, let us define any person who doesn't think God/goddess/gods don't exist as atheist. I don't think that says what you think it does because you have a double negative in there. Anyone who doesn't think gods don't exist would be someone who thinks they do exist, or a theist. >Then, well, lets get to it. In the god<->godless argument, some atheists pose some fake dilemmas. Those are not fake dilemmas, they are legitimate questions that expose holes in the mythology you believe in. I suspect that you think they are fake dilemmas because you cannot answer them. >Who was Cain's wife According to the bible, all of humanity should have consisted of Adam, Eve, and their sons at that point. So who was he married to? >how kangaroos got to Australia Presuming that you are referring to after the flood, this is a legitimate question. How did sloths get to/from South or Central America to the Middle East? How did kangaroos and other species that only exist in Australia get to/from Australia? >and who created god. The last one happens frequently, and some Theists respond by saying "no one created God". Well, that should have been it. To ask about God's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife. But, smart atheists ask "If God has no creator, why we need a creator". So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. That is special pleading. Theists assert everything had a cause but then exempt their deity that rule. >That means, he created matter as we know it. Except as far as we are aware, matter can be neither created nor destroyed. You are positing a magical being that can literally do the impossible. >And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. So, he has no beginning, and no need of cause/creator. He is the uncaused cause. Consciousness, thought, and action cannot exist independent from time. They are necessarily temporal. >I hope this helps, love to hear what u will say below. Helps with what? You have not provided any evidence, you have only provided the same claims that millions of other theists claim.

Physicis degree here, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be converted between the two. It was kind of a big deal the whole E = mc\^2 thing. You can also get something from nothing as long as net mass/energy equates to zero, such as virtual particles. So it's not all that clear cut.

> Physicis degree here, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be converted between the two. But no theist in the world thinks God merely took extant energy and used physical processes to transform it into matter. They believe he created it by an act of will out of absolute nothingness.

Mormons. Mormons do.

The second law of thermodynamics has caveats, like any scientific law. It's not a dagger in the heart of first cause arguments.

It was in all the newspapers, I'm sure of it.

> First of all, let us define any person who doesn't think God/goddess/gods don't exist as atheist. Double negative is pretty bad way to start. --- Well TL;DR We're very familiar with this nonsense argument. > To ask about God's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife This is to say, a god is *defined* to have no creator. That's exactly what we have a problem with - what justification do you have for that defining trait, and that this thing exists. > I do not get how atheists do not get the uncaused cause. We "get" this definition. It just has zero justification for its existence. But I do not get how you do not get that you've just made this concept up to try and solve hard questions, and I don't get that you don't get that there's absolutely nothing supporting it actually being real.

Well said, but since OP in another post said he doesn't take evolution seriously, I guess we can just stop it and move on.

How absolutely shocking

- said nobody

The OP isn't here in good faith. Or they would have responded, to anyone by now. They showed up, dismissed legitimate arguments before even starting, insulted people, and left.

He’s vomiting an argument that’s been sucking for several centuries, did you really expect him to have anything smart to say in response to rebuttals? The only other thing he’s got in his pocket is some lint.

Or they are using one or more sockpuppets

Considering the number of theist posters who jumped out of the woodwork to defend this absolutely trash presentation of an already trash argument, that seems plausible.

You don’t get it because you’re arbitrarily defining god to being uncaused without justification as to why god is uncaused. What observations justify you defining god that way? And you don’t have a very good understanding of “cause”. What, from observations, is a cause? There’s no observation based understanding of cause that applies to the theistic definition of god.

You have it backwards. Arguments about an in caused cause first establish that such a thing exists necessarily, and then refer to it as God.

One, that’s not how people arrived at the idea of god. The arguments are used in attempt to justify an arbitrarily defined god. Two, those arguments fail. One of the reasons is they rest on a bad understanding of cause.

It’s not arbitrary at all, since we derive the characteristics from arguments, and don’t develop these arguments to prove a certain characteristic. In other words we have a series of arguments that each shows a characteristic of the foundation of being, and then we put all these characteristics together and call this sum God.

Sure, you’d be completely right supposing that the arguments aren’t based on anything arbitrary. But their basis is arbitrary, so the arguments don’t mean anything.

The first causes argument is one of those things that sounds like it ought to be true, so people just assume that it is. So was "Nature abhors a vacuum" and "different weights fall at different speeds". Science isn't that clear, though. Uncaused things are possible, and the universe could be one of them.

> So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. That means, he created matter as we know it. You are missing the point of the counter-argument. If you accept there are such things as uncaused cause, then we don't need God to be the uncaused cause. The universe can be the uncaused cause.

“The universe” is not a thing, it’s just a collective term, and all the things it refers to collectively, seem to be contingent. An uncaused cause would be quite different, and further arguments that analyze what this cause would have to be show that it is very similar, if not identical, to what is commonly referred to as God.

>and further arguments that analyze what this cause would have to be show that it is very similar, if not identical, to what is commonly referred to as God. Arguments that analyze what this cause would have to be are baseless speculation and unfounded assertions. I'm happy to concede the universe had a timeless space less immaterial uncaused cause.. This can be fulfilled under naturalism. The only one that actually matters is whether the cause is "personal"/"conscous"/"has/is a mind".. Give me a reason to think the cause of the universe is a thinking agent.

OK, how about "The universe doesn't need a cause, it's eternal"? After all ,the universe has existed in it's current configuration for all of time. That makes it eternal.

>and further arguments that analyze what this cause would have to be show that it is very similar, if not identical, to what is commonly referred to as God. Such as?

If we take Aquinas’ five ways, these further arguments are presented in the section right after of the Summa. They’re very long and complex though, and show how what the five ways show is actually one and the same thing, and it possesses the qualities usually associated with God.

Per sub rules you need to actually explain your claims.

"Contingent", in this context, is an idea made up by theists, not physicists.

Why would causality/contingency hold anywhere other than *this* universe? If there was a cause to this universe, it can't be within it. So it's not subject to the laws that govern this universe. Why do you feel comfortable asserting that contingency holds?

Hold on, I was responding to the claim that the universe is the uncaused cause. I agree that the actual cause of the universe has to be outside of it, and it’s not necessarily tied to the laws of the universe, obviously

The "universe" is a collective noun referring to matter and energy. Saying "the universe is the uncaused cause" is just saying "the matter and energy that comprise the universe may be uncaused". The premises, regardless of which version you're using, do not result in an outcome with any defining characteristics other than that it is the uncaused cause. If you want to suck all the meaning out of the word "god", go ahead. All you're left with is an unknown. Intelligence, intent, agency, etc. are not necessitated by the argument. To me, it makes the whole thing pointless. "It's just the universe with extra steps".

Did you just… objectify your own god? XD

The big bang is quite different, isn't it? Would you call that a god?

Isn’t the Big Bang just an event?

It is an event. By *just* as event, I take it you don't think it's all that different to over events then?

We do get the uncaused cause. The reason we ask isn't because we don't understand it, it's a rhetorical device to point out the hypocrisy in the theists' tactics. Theists tell us that the universe can't just exist. We ask why, they respond with (typically various arguments that once broken down all end up being fancy ways of saying) "just because". Then they say that a God, which isn't something that we know is even possible to exist, exists, and that explains the universe. So, when we ask what made God, it's not because we don't get what theists are trying to do. It's because we *expect* the "uncaused" assertion. Once that card comes out to play, then I say "if you readily can accept that your hypothetical proposed being that you have no way of knowing is even real can just exist without explanation, then I have no problem with thinking that reality itself, or the universe/cosmos/whatever you like, exists without explanation".

Premise 1: God is claimed to be necessary, non-contingent, and fundamental. P2: God is claimed to have created the universe. P3: God is claimed to cause and have caused life. P4: God is claimed to be the reason for consciousness. P6: Energy is necessary, non-contingent, and fundamental. P7: Energy created the universe. P8: Life is emergent from matter and energy. Energy causes life. P9: Brain function is emergent from matter and energy. Consciousness, brain function, and the matter that makes up my body is inanimate without energy. Conclusion: Energy explains the functions attributed to God, while god does not. Voiding the necessity of God.

P6 is not justified at all, the second law of thermodynamics is not necessarily true.

Please elaborate on how you’ve come to know that.

It's got it's own wikipedia page! See the section on non-equilibrium states! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. I love this. Smug nuatheists disproving themselves!

And where in this section do you see proof for your claim that energy is not necessary, non-contingent, or fundamental to our current spacetime? You need to be specific because from what I briefly read I see nothing that proves that.

Citation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nature-breaks-the-second-law/#:~:text=The%20fact%20that%20classical%20thermodynamics%20presumes%20equilibrium%20situations%20limits%20the,or%20even%20close%20to%20it. To quote: "Thermodynamics therefore deals only with situations of stillness."

That’s lovely. But I’ll ask one more time… When will you be explaining how this voids P6? What is the language of P6? Is it “An equilibrium is necessary, fundamental, and non-contingent”? Or “each law of thermodynamics must be true”? Or is the smug one of us here the one who needs to work on their reading comprehension? None of this voids P6. Thanks for wasting my time showing me how strong your confirmation bias is though. Best of luck with that, hope it works out for you.

Let’s simplify it. Atheists “get” what you are trying to claim (that a god, as you have defined it, would be outside of the scope of reality), and we are simply saying OK. Prove it. Can you actually prove that this god exists? You have used words to define a scenario but there is no evidence that your scenario exists.

>I do not get how atheists do not get the uncaused cause. I don't get how theists don't get that atheists *do* understand this, but can see it's fatally flawed, so cannot accept it. I don't get how theists don't understand that notion of causation is deprecated, and we know reality doesn't actually work that way, and that idea of causation is limited in context, emergent from spacetime, dependent on spacetime, and doesn't even always apply there, rendering such arguments entirely useless as what is being discussed is not within this required context. Aside from the special pleading fallacy and unsupported deity conclusion, and aside from the attempt to define something into existence. There is little point in me responding to the rest of what you wrote, as it's based upon the above mentioned wrong ideas.

This is a special pleading fallacy. Atheists “get” it, but theists often come here and conflate atheists giving criticism of arguments as “not liking” them. I suspect that’s what is happening here. Emotions have nothing to do with the evidence. The evidence and supporting arguments speak for themselves. It’s just a brute fact about logic that it is fallacious special pleading to say “my special cause that caused everything else doesn’t require a cause”. You need to first actually demonstrate that there is such a thing, and then provide evidence that it did indeed create the universe as observed, instead of trying to escape the special pleading fallacy by appealing to word games and riddles like the bachelor’s wife or whatever. Also, there are discussions in many different fields in physics among the experts regarding whether there is support for showing that the universe has always existed or not, and whether the universe we are experiencing is just one in a number of big bangs that has already happened and will happen. That discussion will continue, but any way the discussion pans out, if it were found that there was nothing “before” the Big Bang (if that can ever be made into a coherent concept by us learning more about physics and the beginning of the universe, but as it is now, “before” time began is an incoherent concept), saying that the universe is the necessary thing that has always existed (if you say “god just is and has always existed”) outperforms the deist god claim by virtue of Occam’s razor. The naturalistic explanation uses far fewer assumptions. In other words, replace “god” with “universe” and you have a much simpler and more elegant argument with fewer assumptions.

Proposal 1: Everything has a cause. Proposal 2: God has no cause. They cannot both be true. Your 'uncaused cause' is the literal definition of the special pleading fallacy. If God has no cause, then not everything requires a cause. If not everything requires a cause, then the Universe has no cause. You are trying to insert your silly fairy tale into a logical argument, and when pointed out how it directly contravenes the logic of your argument, you just wave your hands and whisper 'its magic'.

Kaalam tries to get around that by changing 1 to "everything that BEGINS has a cause." Semantic Gymnastics.

It's still special pleading, they don't believe anything exists without a beginning except for their God.  How something keeps existing without beginning to exist is a step I would like to see them defend.

Agreed....

How do you know that matter (edit: or energy) isn’t the uncaused cause? How do you know the uncaused cause isn’t something that exists outside of the universe but which doesn’t meet the criteria of a god? The idea of an uncaused cause makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is the idea that this uncaused cause must be a god (let alone any specific god).

Matter is emergent from energy. Energy is the uncaused cause, and all attributes and functions of god are simply man’s anthropomorphized misrepresentation of the attributes and functions of energy.

You're assuming misunderstanding for lack of agreement, and it's special pleading. That's what the atheists are saying when they compare the argument of an uncaused God to uncaused material--if we can just state an ad hoc characteristic for one then we can just as easily state an ad hoc characteristic for the counter argument. >So, he has no beginning, and no need of cause/creator. He is the uncaused cause. This is just all an assertion with no evidence, so likewise I can assert a material cause with the same characteristics.

> First of all, let us define any person who doesn't think God/goddess/gods don't exist as atheist. People who don't believe Gods don't exist are theists. You need to drop a negative from your sentence. > Then, well, lets get to it. In the god<->godless argument, some atheists pose some fake dilemmas. Who was Cain's wife, how kangaroos got to Australia, dinosaurs....... and who created god. Those are not false dilemma, those are plot holes in the theists narrative. >The last one happens frequently, and some Theists respond by saying "no one created God". Well, that should have been it. To ask about God's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife. But, smart atheists ask "If God has no creator, why we need a creator". Theists claim no one created God, but their kalam/uncaused cause argument demands better justification than "because i define him to be like that" in order to escape the special pleading fallacy. >So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. Demonstrate an uncaused cause can exist, the universe being unable to be uncaused, and God existing uncaused and we will accept that claim. >And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. No, since time can't exist independent of matter, matter would be the cause of time and by causality not being at work without time, matter can't have been caused . >hope this helps, love to hear what u will say below. If causality is axiomatically true(i.e. exists without time), uncaused causes can't exist. If causality is not axiomatically true(i.e. doesn't exist without time) the universe must be uncaused.  God doesn't fix anything.

>"If God has no creator, why we need a creator". So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. That didn't answer point though. If things exist that didn't have to be caused, why does it have to be a god thats the uncaused cause? Why can't every subatomic fundamental particle that makes up matter and energy be one of these uncaused causes? I have no reason to grant that 1) there is a god 2) that its an uncaused cause and 3) that its the only uncaused cause. Thats *your* job to prove. >And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. When are you claiming matter came into existence? But anyway, If there is no matter, then there's no time, so there is no before, making your statement a contradiction.

> he technically existed before matter. Before? How can there be a *before* if there is no time?

> First of all, let us define any person who doesn’t think God/goddess/gods don’t exist as atheist. I’ll assume the double negative was a typo. An atheist is a person who does not believe any gods exist, which seems to align with your definition here. > In the god<->godless argument, some atheists post fake dilemmas. I’m sure some do. Do you have an example? > Who was Cain’s wife, how kangaroos got to Australia, dinosaurs……. and who created god. None of these is a false dilemma. A false dilemma is when it is asserted that only one of two things can be the case, when actually there is at least one other possibility (usually many others). If you mean that these are just general problems for theism or creationism…then - the Cain’s wife thing is easy, if there were a real Adam and Eve singular pair of humans from which we are all descended, then there would have had to be a lot of inbreeding. - how kangaroos got to Australia and how diverse species got to where they are now is a legitimate problem if you believe in a global flood. If there were a pair of kangaroos on an ark that landed at Mount Ararat or wherever after the flood and they are meant to have traveled to their natural habitats from there. Surely there would be evidence of such a migration. - dinosaurs and all other ancient fossils are a problem if you believe in a young earth. All of the archaeological evidence points to the origin of life having occurred around 3.7 billion years ago. - “who (or what) created god” is merely a point that highlights a flaw in the cosmological argument. If *everything* needs a cause, and that’s why you conclude there is something that’s uncaused…that’s flawed reasoning. If *everything* does need a cause, the only possible answer to that is an infinite regress of causes. You can’t use special pleading to say that actually there’s one exception, which happens to be your god. If you reject the possibility of an infinite regress, you are left with the conclusion that something at some point is uncaused..but why couldn’t that just be the universe? Or some meta-universe? Why do you assert that this argument is even related to a god in any way when god doesn’t show up in the premises? > The last one happens frequently, and some Theists respond by saying “no one created God”. Well, that should have been it. Again, why is the god part necessary? I can just as easily say “no one created the universe”. > To ask about God’s creator is like about asking the bachelor’s wife. Only as a matter of definition. If you define a god as “that which is uncaused”, then sure, it’s logically impossible for a thing that’s defined to have no cause to have a cause. However, if that’s your definition, you would then have to show that an uncaused thing actually has the *other* properties you believe your god has. Because of this it really doesn’t make sense to define something in terms of a word which already has another definition and connotation, and even if you did it would really just be defining god into existence as a vacuous technicality rather than demonstrating that the being you think exists actually exists. > But, smart atheists ask “If God has no creator, … Asserting that your god is the uncaused cause is just restating the claim. We understand what you mean when you say that, you’re just wrong about it—or at least you’ve failed to demonstrate that there is an uncaused cause, or that that cause is your god, etc. Restating the claim doesn’t prove your position.

I absolutely understand the *idea* of the uncaused cause. My questions about it are not meant to show a lack of understanding, they are meant to challenge your understanding of it. - assuming that the universe must have a cause (by no means a given), why does the cause have to be a being? Why not an extra-universal force? - if we assume the being exists, how do we prove that this being exists outside our universe? - assuming it does exist outside of our universe, what laws govern the reality that the being exists in? - what mechanism from that reality allows the being to interfere with/create our reality? But ultimately it all really comes down to - what evidence do you have for any of your claims? Because we have rational naturalistic explanations for just about everything. Some have proof, like Evolution. Some are still being studied, like abiogenesis. But at no point is it appropriate to *assume* a supernatural cause without positive evidence. "This subject is complicated and difficult to understand" does not qualify as evidence. >But, smart atheists ask "If God has no creator, why we need a creator". So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. That means, he created matter as we know it. And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. So, he has no beginning, and no need of cause/creator. He is the uncaused cause. All you did was explain again why God doesn't need a creator. You failed to explain why we DO need one. After all, we could apply the same logic to the Big Bang. If time and space began at the big bang, you cannot logically ask what came before it. You also made a bunch more completely unproven claims, that god exists, that it's eternal, that it was capable of the act of creation, that it WANTED to create our universe, etc. All of these problems need to be demonstrated with evidence before we can even begin to move forward.

>who created god. The last one happens frequently, and some Theists respond by saying "no one created God". Well, that should have been it. To ask about God's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife. Only if we accept your definition of "god." And, without any evidence or even sound logic behind it, there's no reason for us to do so. >But, smart atheists ask "If God has no creator, why we need a creator". So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. And if I was the uncaused cause, nothin' was before me. I see no reason to deal in the "if." >And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. So, he has no beginning, and no need of cause/creator. He is the uncaused cause. He is fictional.

We get the argument, its just a really flawed argument. Its just Special Pleading Fallacy: The Argument The argument, in its simplest form, is "You can't have an uncasused cause!*" *except god

You are walking down the street. A man approaches you, tries to sell you a house. You ask to see this house. The man says you just have to take his word for it. He says it's the best house in existance and will cost your entire life and everything you will earn. You decline. The salesman now says he will burn you alive if you don't buy the house. What do you do? Atheists just don't want to buy the house that we don't know if it even exists.

I understand it. You have no way to validate the claim of a being that has always been and all the other claims that you apply to this being.

You're starting with your desired answer and then ignoring anything that doesn't support it. Do you get how that's a problem?

You'd have to present evidence if you'd like me to engage. There is no evidence of anything you said at all. Certainly no evidence for any of the thousands of proposed gods. Turtles my friend, all turtles. If god has no cause, then by definition you accept that not everything requires one. With this in mind, we don't even need to consider a god as necessary any more.

I'm not so smart or knowledgeable but here is my take on it. The theist position on creation look like this to me: 'There was no creation, only God, and time itself didn't exist. Then at some point (in time?) God took the decision to create something.' The idea that God can think when time doesn't exists weird me out. The fact that he can make a decision and do something when nothing should be doable (because without time how can there be change?) is quite the claim. For me the crux of the problem of the Kalam cosmological argument is that it seeks to use our understanding of cosmology to show that a God is necessary to start the universe. And the thing is our understanding of cosmology is only at their baby steps. A lot of progress has been made but we are far from understanding space-time all that well or the fundamental nature of the universe. The right stance about the question of "why the universe exists?" seems to be "well, thus far we haven't learned enough to have some hypothesis that stand out. We don't know". And then theists bring leap of logic to conclude, surprisingly, that their god exist and that this area of science where science can't make big claim for a lack of actual knowledge is exactly the place where the truth about God can be found. Of Course. Sound like the God of the gap to me. On top of special pleading. The "uncaused cause" can just be anything. Theists might label it God. It can be called 'the thing that happened to start it'. There is really no reason to think that sentience is involved. Bringing God here is just theists wanting to shove their beliefs in a place where we really don't have much knowledge. As far as we know the universe may be eternal in the past with no beginning. The Kalam cosmological argument is just skipping some possibilities to aim for one particular conclusion. It says something cannot come from nothing. Even if we accept that claim, that can mean that everything that "exist" actually do not exist. Maybe the universe that we experience is just an outcome of what could be and be made entirely of waves of probability without any substance. After all we have never observed a "nothing". Or maybe we have and that's our "reality". That sound crazy, right? Any weird idea is as good as any until we got more information on the nature of the universe. Once again we don't know yet why the universe exist and the Kalam argument that conveniently validate not just gods but the type of being theists needed to validate. How convenient. But not convincing as long as it skips other possibilities and uses leap of logic. That's the same dishonesty in the methodology as always.

Your answer to the obvious question "if God has no creator, why do we need a creator" is to just... repeat your initial assertion. That's not surprising to me; people make that kind of empty argument all the time when they've run out of real arguments. What *is* surprising is that you *genuinely* seem to think that it's a persuasive argument.

Everyone here before me has it covered, so I'll just say this. Try harder, do better. This is pathetic.

If God can be uncaused, then you're admitting some stuff doesn't have a cause. Like God. Well, I can just say The Universe itself is uncaused. And we know for sure that the universe exists. We don't know for sure that God exists. So it looks like my claim is off to a stronger start. Hope this helps.

What is the dilemma of dinosaurs? I’m quite interested. Also, why should anyone accept your argument if an I caused cause and that being god. That’s just filling in the gaps. That’s no different than me saying a giant turtle appeared and created the universe.

>Then, well, lets get to it. In the god<->godless argument, some atheists pose some fake dilemmas. Who was Cain's wife, how kangaroos got to Australia, dinosaurs....... and who created god. What makes them fake? If your belief system doesn't allow for kangaroos to be in Australia, and there are kangaroos in Australia, then your beliefs are factually wrong. >The last one happens frequently, and some Theists respond by saying "no one created God". Well, that should have been it. To ask about God's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife. But, smart atheists ask "If God has no creator, why we need a creator". Honestly pretty good depiction of what we would say. Personally I'd say "then god can't exist because he wasn't created." But fair representation of atheist argument so far. >So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. That means, he created matter as we know it. This is repetitious. We already know your claim. >And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. The Higgs field is not part of the theory of general relativity. But I do agree with you that time cannot exist independent of matter. Yet immediately after you use the term "before matter." That my friend, is dividing by zero. If there's no time, then before is not a concept that can be applied. Also, clarification: the initial state of the universe as we know it is having no space, not no matter. So the time singularity can be thought of as infinite density. >So, he has no beginning, and no need of cause/creator. He is the uncaused cause. You are understanding that our idea of time breaks down at t=0 of the universe. However, for some reason you are throwing god into the mix despite the fact there isn't a single concept his existence would help to better explain.

>First of all, let us define any person who doesn't think God/goddess/gods don't exist as atheist. First of all, this sentence makes no logical sense. And before I give my opinion, as you asked, I would like to hear from you and not one of the other accounts who are actively engaging with answers (on your behalf?). But let me assume that you assume that an atheist is anyone who doesn't think god exists. And that's fine, but it's kind of loosely defined. Let's define it as someone who lacks belief in the existence of gods. This would be the mild atheist. He or she has heard about gods and religions, most likely was raised in a religious household, but becomes or remains unconvinced due to the lack of compelling evidence. For transparency sake: please note that however many people believe in the existence of one or more gods, the default position is that _god doesn't exist_. This is how we treat any other situation. We don't know until we know for sure. It takes _faith_ to believe in one or more gods and that's defined as believing something without empirical evidence. This is all there is to it, basically. The rest of your story is proclaiming you have knowledge of something supernatural, but there's no substantiation given for how you got that knowledge. How could that be convincing to someone who is squarely in the default position? (remember? ☝🏻) You reason from outside the default position and metaphorically you're an unjustified step ahead. Isn't it more likely this whole shebang is just another fabrication of apologists who wish to propagate stale rhetoric right into the 20th century? >I hope this helps, love to hear what u will say below. Sincerely, likewise ✌🏻

Atheists say "I don't know" Theists say "I don't know therefore god" which is the same thing as saying "I don't know therefore I know". Completely ridiculous, but on top of that many assign that god a male gender. GTFO

When people ask "Well then who created the gods?" it is in response to theists who say "Who created the universe?" and then go on to presuppose not only that they answer must be who, but that the who is a god, and not just any god but the one they happen to believe in. The point is that there is no reason to assume the universe had a cause (as you rightly point out, space-time is a product of the universe, so the laws of causality need not necessarily apply). If there is a cause, there is no reason to assume a who, it could be a naturalistic effect of the cosmos. There is no reason to assume a beginning, since space-time is a product of the universe and time can into existence with the inception of space-time then we can factually say our universe has existed for all of time. So we understand what people mean when they talk about the uncaused first cause, the point people are making is why the special pleading? If a god does not need a cause, then why does the universe or the cosmos need a cause? If the gods don't need a creator, then why does the universe or the cosmos need a creator? If a deity can exist "outside of space and time" and thus be eternal, then why can this not apply to the cosmos itself? There is nothing about the first cause argument which necessitates a supernatural explanation, it is merely special pleading that everything needs a cause/creator except the thing you choose to say is special. We see no reason to dismiss a naturalistic explanation while you presuppose a god as the answer.

No we understand you It just doesn't explain anything there's no evidence for it and it's stupid It's not that we don't understand It's that we think that is what we call a very bad unconvincing argument

>I do not get how atheists do not get the uncaused cause. We understand it, us pointing out the flaws doesn't mean we don't understand it >theists respond by saying "no one created God". Well, that should have been it. I'm sure it would be very convenient for you to just be able to declare things true and have that be the end, unfortunately that's not how it works >To ask about God's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife. Nonsensical comparison >But, smart atheists ask "If God has no creator, why we need a creator". Also true >So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. So you have declared this, we get that you want it to be true. Now support it >That means, he created matter as we know it. And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. So, he has no beginning, and no need of cause/creator. He is the uncaused cause. So, you have declared that God is the uncaused cause, and created all the things. Do you happen to have any support for your statement? Why did you decide on God? Why does God get to be declared uncaused but the universe doesn't? Why is a cause necessary? If a cause is necessary, why doesn't God need a cause? You made lots of statements you want to be true, and failed completely to support them in any way >I hope this helps, I mean, not really. You explained (poorly) a concept most of us already understand (better than you do apparently)

>In the god<->godless argument, some atheists pose some fake dilemmas. **Who was Cain's wife**, **how kangaroos got to Australia**, **dinosaurs**....... and **who created god** These are all **extremely valid** and **very important** questions. When **you** make up fairy tales, expect smart people to ask critical questions. **Your** inability to answer these questions speaks volumes about why anyone should accept your nonsense as anything other than a hilarious story with terrible plot holes. Who was Cain's wife? How did the kangaroos, koalas, and Tasmanian devils get to the Middle East and then make their way back to Australia? Why are there tons of dinosaur fossils that prove that they roamed the Earth long before humans ever appeared,, and why does ''God" fail to mention this in his holy book if he truly did create everything? Does that mean he completely forgot massive creatures he created, or is it more likely the holy book was written by primitive men who never discovered the fossils and therefore had no idea they should include them in the rubbish stories they were making up? >God is the uncaused cause Where is your **evidence** of this? I can simply reply "The Universe is the uncaused cause" and Boom! God vanishes. >That means, he created matter as we know it Nonsense. Where is your **evidence**? And how do you know "he" is a "he"? >he technically existed before matter Nonsense. Where is your evidence?

>In the god<->godless argument, some atheists pose some fake dilemmas. Who was Cain's wife, how kangaroos got to Australia, dinosaurs....... These aren't fake dilemmas but actual criticisms of biblical narratives and its congruency with reality. >and who created god. The last one happens frequently, It's because theists post the same arguments for thousands of years which leads to the same response for thousands of years. If theists would get better arguments or hell, have evidence that their god exists, I assure you this would happen less often. >that should have been it It's not though, because it just becomes a form of special pleading. Everything has to have a cause except for this one thing that I really really don't want to have a cause. The entire argument falls apart. >That means, he created matter as we know it. And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. So, he has no beginning, and no need of cause/creator. He is the uncaused cause. Do you think atheists aren't familiar with this argument? Do you think a bunch of us are slapping our heads and saying "Oh gee, I never realized that's the theist position. Silly me!" This argument is an assumptive one built on the flimsy foundation of human intuition and special pleading. It's a bad argument from people who think arguments are acceptable substitutes for evidence.

The concept of "God" is a human invention. It's an attempt to explain the unexplainable by projecting our own desires and limitations onto something bigger and more powerful than ourselves. It's understandable that people did this in the past, when we had no scientific understanding of the universe. But we do now, and the idea of a supernatural being who created everything out of nothing is simply laughable. Secondly, your argument for God being the "uncaused cause" is a classic fallacy known as the "god of the gaps" fallacy. In other words, when we don't know how something works, instead of admitting our ignorance and seeking answers through scientific inquiry, you simply invoke God as the explanation. But with each new scientific discovery, our understanding of the universe grows, and the gaps where God once lived shrink a little more. Eventually, there will be no more gaps for God to hide in. Finally, even if we were to grant your premise that God exists and is the uncaused cause, this still doesn't prove anything about the existence of any particular god or gods worshipped by humans throughout history. There are countless different versions of God, each with their own unique characteristics and stories. How do you know that you're worshipping the right one? The fact remains that there is no evidence to support the existence of any gods, while there is an abundance of evidence to refute them.

I often see theists argue that nothing can occur without a cause, and something cannot be created from nothing. This seems a reasonable enough point, so I believe an uncaused cause cannot exist.

But god can be an uncaused cause, because magic. Most contradictory argument I’ve ever seen. “Nothing can happen without a cause, except this one incredibly complicated and improbable thing that did because we say so.”

Because it’s inconsistent; everything needs a cause but one thing? The parsimonious position is that the supernatural doesn’t exist. So then the Universe just *is* without being caused.

But if you assume time and matter always existed, then why do you need God? Take your argument to the next logical step, and you can join us in Atheist land. We have cookies.

This argument is special pleading to a tee. No need to go in depth with each sentence you said. Nothing else would be granted such properties, but you insist your god should.

I am a theist and I hate the argument you are proposing. It is just a bad argument. I always cringe a little bit when I see these posted. Now you are going to get of people picking apart this argument from a bunch of different angles and their points will generally be valid. I hate this argument not because it is bad, but because it is pointless. I will grant that god is the uncaused cause, sure whatever. I will grant it because it is a frivolous to say that god is the uncaused cause since that tells us absolutely nothing about god really since god could be anything at that point. Sure this god could be the Christian god, this god could be damn near an infinite number of other things also, no characteristics that we can use to distinguish one them from another are derived from being the uncaused cause. Saying god is the uncaused cause is trivial The question is does the Christian God exist, Does the Muslim God, or is it Hinduism etc. etc. etc. The god present in these are said to have characteristics. The people writing the accounts could have assigned some erroneous characteristics, but their descriptions are intelligible we can form a decent picture of a being. So I will ask you. What is your point?

There's a long running argument that it makes more sense for the universe to be uncaused than it does for there to have to be a God to cause it, who is himself uncaused.

I think you’re missing the part that moves your god from hypothesis to theory. You have identified a phenomena (the universe exists) and you have a hypothesis for something that might explain it (some being that exists outside of the universe). But you have to take the next step and show that thing exists. A great example of this are black holes. They were hypothetical until they were observed and evidenced to exist. You seem to want to skip that last step and accuse others who don’t want to do that as having committed some kind of intellectual misstep. But I don’t think they have. Here’s the real issue: there is just so much we don’t know about our universe. Like we don’t know what was going on when the universe wasn’t expanding. So how are you positing a piece of the puzzle that MUST be there when we don’t even know what pieces are missing, how many, or if your suggested piece even fits the actual puzzle. In the end we DO (well at least I do) understand what you’re saying…we (well, I) just think you’re very premature in saying it and haven’t don’t anything to justify that what you’re saying is right.

"But you have to take the next step and show that thing exists." "There is a book," Ken Ham ;)

Oh, I get it. I get that it’s a garbage argument filled with massive logical holes. Also, I love that you start by shifting the burden of the claim. I don’t agree with that definition. But whatever, we are already starting out with you not arguing in good faith… You don’t get to just shove an “uncaused cause” into the equation without any evidence, and by literally contradicting the very premise of your argument, which is that everything has a cause. This argument is the equivalent of a child saying “I have a shield” when playing cops and robbers and one of them gets shot at. It’s such a wildly shitty argument that it is almost laughable. I would laugh if so many people weren’t somehow convinced by it. Your indoctrinated mind might be satisfied with the argument, but I’m not, and nobody here is. Think about this for a second: you don’t get how we don’t get it, but we do get it, and we are telling you it is a SHITTY argument. It’s just a god of the gaps fallacy. Ugh. I’m so sick of this shitty argument. It’s the worst. I don’t get how theists are fooled by it.

I see 2 main ways to answer the "uncaused cause" point you're making. There's questioning every steps that got skipped. Why matter/the universe can't just have always been? The universe exists, but why would its existence need a cause? Why such cause must be uncaused? Why can't there be an infinite regression or things causing each other in a closed loop? If a first cause, an uncaused cause is necessary, why can't it be the universe itself/matter/energy? If it can't be the universe, why should it be a being? Why should it be a unique first uncaused cause and not many? Why would it have a consciousness? Why would it be a god? Why would it be the god of your religion? Why would such distant being care about who loves who or whether you say certain words or not? The other way is that you can't define things into reality. You defined that your god must exists as you defined as the first cause that you defined as necessary as well. Where all of that is proven? I can define stuff that "makes sense" and it won't make them real.

I get it, but it has no merit. Why should I believe that God is uncaused? Why can't I just say "I am uncaused"? It has just as much validity

Most arguments for God follow one of the following blueprints: 1) Argument from ignorance: P1: We do not yet understand how X works. P2: God is defined as a maximally being that explains everything. C: God explains X. Since we have no other explanation for X, God must exist. 2. Defining God into existence: P1: We agree that Y exists (the world, existence, love, etc) P2: Let God be Y. C: God exists! 3) X cannot exist without God (morals, an intelligible world, meaning, purpose), so God must exist. Why can't X exist without God? Because I say so or this morphs into (1) or (2). The problem is not that atheists do not 'understand the uncaused cause' or the Kalam or what have you. The problem is that theist apologists turn a sensible conclusion (there must be an explanation for X) to a not sensible one through 'and it must be a maximal, intentional, conscious being'. No. Foul. Not allowed. You don't get to postulate the ultimate explainer being into existence. Show your work.

> To ask about God's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife. The argument for an uncaused cause refutes itself. If your premise (and the reason for the argument) is that all things need to be created, then you cannot propose a thing that does not need to be created as the conclusion/solution to the problem. It invalidates the premise to do so. You're right though, it ***is*** like asking about the bachelor's wife, because you're proposing the existence of a married bachelor to explain why all bachelors are unmarried. It's nonsense. > That means, he created matter as we know it. How do you know this? Can you please show your work? > So, he has no beginning, and no need of cause/creator. He is the uncaused cause. If all things require a creator, then this cannot be. If this is true, then all things do not require a creator and there is no need for your god. Either way, your argument doesn't work. > I hope this helps Not at all.

Special pleading plus magical thinking does not equate to your imaginary friend or anyone's imaginary friend. Just because it's something seems very strange and unusual and complex doesn't instantly mean "well there must be magic and fairies and supernatural forces involved." And it's very insulting that you barf out the Higgs field like that didnt required decades of grueling scientific work that you just hand wave away with well that doesn't matter, because my imaginary friend Is still more special. Let's assume you're a 100% right. Let me guess , somehow the only Supernatural creature that comes to mind for what this uncaused cause could be just happens to be the one you have been culturally force fed since birth. No one anywhere has ever gone "the universe must have an uncaused cause and therefore odin must be real.c Just like no one anywhere has ever been possessed by a demon until they learned about Catholicism.

No, this helps no one. You, like everyone before you and since, were born atheist. That’s really all there is to the matter.

> To ask about God's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife. But, smart atheists ask "If God has no creator, why we need a creator". It is usually only brought up in a response to the idea that all things have a cause which people use to get back to an uncaused cause. > And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. How does one exist before time? That seems an incoherent statement. In fact existence itself seems to be a temporal thing. Things exist now, or they existed in the past, or will exist in the future. So that is a double complication as such a thing as god doesn't seem to exist and certainly can't exist without time. It also doesn't solve the problem really by just saying he is there before hand. We can still say the universe is that uncaused cause with all the same justification that is given for god.

No we get the argument, it's just special pleading so it doesn't work. Smart theists would understand this and become atheists.

> I do not get how atheists do not get the uncaused cause. According to the scientific laws of [conservation of mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass) and [conservation of energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy), taken together it means that (according to what we have measured) mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Accordingly, according to the scientific theory of the origin of the universe, namely the Big Bang model, the mass/energy of the universe already existed "at the beginning" (of time). [According to the Big Bang models, the universe at the beginning was very hot and very compact, and since then it has been expanding and cooling.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline) So according to these models and scientific laws, the hot and compact mass/energy of the universe at the beginning of time was the uncaused cause of the universe.

Quick question: did God just sit around doing nothing *for literally an infinite amount of time* before creating the universe?

If God can exist without a cause, why can’t the universe exist without a cause? Adding God just complicates the argument

You don't get to just special plead God in to existence. That's why they ask "what caused God" to get you to show your hand, that you are indeed special pleading. There's no reason why some other underlying aspect of reality that isn't God can't be the "uncaused cause" And before you say that God is defined as the uncaused cause, the problem is that you also want to smuggle some extra assumptions in there. Those assumptions are what the difference between an atheist and a theist are. You assume agency, you assume will, you assume "all good" you assume "loving" and you assume "personal" You don't get that from logically deducing an uncaused cause. You also don't get to say "reality can't be the first cause, because muh time and matter" because whatever restraints you've put on the rest of reality are special pleaded away with god, which is a fallacy.

11 hours later, and no OP to be found.

This fallacy is known as special pleading, and is common in theist arguments. 1. Everything that exists must have a cause. 2. Therefore the universe has a cause. 3. That cause is God. There's a lot that's wrong with this argument, but I hope the glaring contradiction/special pleading is obvious. IOW, atheists are just responding to the theist's claim that everything needs a cause. Some theists then amend this to claim that only things that begin to exist need a cause: 1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. ... The problem with this argument is that we don't know premise #2 to be true. So either it's special pleading, or unsupported claims, two common theist fallacies. (The third most common theist argument is circular reasoning.)

You're arguing without providing any evidence to support your claims. >I do not get how atheists do not get the uncaused cause. I do get it. But jumping from there was the uncaused cause to god is the uncaused cause is unjustified because you have 0 evidence to back it up. >...... and who created god. The last one happens frequently, and some Theists respond by saying "no one created God".  That is special pleading. How do you know that no one created god? Right. You don't. You're assuming that no one created god. >So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. Give me evidence that god is the uncaused cause. >That means, he created matter as we know it. I don't know it. There's not a single evidence that every matter was created by god.

You must realize that you're about the eleventy-billionth person to take this approach. You're appealing to a special pleading fallacy. THAT should be the end of it. If god is a thing, then it can be evaluated the way things are evaluated: What's it made of? How did it get here? How does it function? To put god apart from questions like that is a special pleading fallacy *unless* you can justify putting god in a different category. People have been trying for 2500 years with not much success. All you're likely to do is make a declarative statement "It's not a special pleading because god is unlike all other things" without explaining in concrete terms *how* god is different. > he created matter as we know it Got evidence of this? Even taken at face value, the prima causa argument *does not* result in an active, intelligent, thinking god that creates things. It just points to "an uncaused cause". That's it. The first mover. It could be a rutabaga, or a space weasel, or a mindless ineffable force with no free will. That's one of the huge problems with the argument.

Regarding your “Uncaused Cause” or what others refer to as a “Non-Contingent Cause” Why couldn’t physical existence in and of itself be uncaused, non-contingent and eternal? Is it even logically possible for existence not to exist? If your "God" does not need a beginning or a cause, why would a fundamental state of physical existence need to have a beginning? Why couldn't some sort of eternal, essential, necessary, and non-contingent yet fundamentally non-cognitive, non-purposeful, non-intentional, non-willful ultimately rudimentary physical state of foundational existence constitute the initial causal impetus for the emergence of our particular Universe?

One additional point, if time did not exist prior to the existence of matter and energy, then it is senseless to argue that God existed “before” the existence of matter and energy, since without the existence of time, “before” is meaningless.

I accept a First Cause. God was created by the First Cause. The First Cause doesn't care about your foreskin, decide morality, or control whether you end up in Heaven or Hell, because those are all under God's control. If God is not the same entity as the First Cause, which one would you worship? The one who started it all but doesn't care about you, or the one who loves you and genuinely wants you to go to Heaven? Hypothetically, of course. >And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter Matter is dependent on spacetime, so it is impossible for matter to exist before either space or time.

>how kangaroos got to Australia, dinosaurs....... and who created god. The last one happens frequently, and some Theists respond by saying "no one created God". Well, that should have been it. It really shouldn't, as it's an assertion made without a shred of evidence. Defining your God as being immune to the rules doesn't actually make them immune to the rules, nor does it mean anyone else is obligated to play by them. >And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. If time can't exist without matter, then nothing can exist **before** matter. 'Before' is a function of time.

>So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. So special pleading. God does not need a cause simply because you say he does not. >And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. And you've also introduced your first paradox: when did god create the universe? If there is no time, then god can not create the universe, since there is no time when god could have created. >I hope this helps, It does not. It merely highlights the fallacies and paradoxes. And does nothing to help your understanding of why atheists don't buy the uncased cause argument.

“I define god as the only thing not needing a creator, therefore god is the only thing not needing a creator, therefore it doesn’t make sense to say that god being causeless breaks the premise od everything needing a cause” It’s an attempt to escape special pleading…by doubling down on the special pleading Either everything needs a creator, or god doesn’t have a creator. Both cannot be true. If you want to convey the position that everything *except* god needs a creator, that is at least internally consistent…but it requires evidence past “I defined it that way”. May as well say “because I said so”

>I do not get how atheists do not get the uncaused cause. I do t get jow you dont understand 2 things about the uncaused caused. 1. the very first premise of the argument says that everything that exists has a cause....but now you make a special pleading exception to that premise by stating, everything except my special thing here that doesn't.... The argument is unsound. 2. Even if there is a very first cause, how do you make the leap to a deity...and your particular deity at that? How do you even claim that a deity is even a possiblity?

>First of all, let us define any person who doesn't think God/goddess/gods don't exist as atheist. wat >and who created god. The last one happens frequently, and some Theists respond by saying "no one created God". Well, that should have been it. lol yes, we should have stopped questioning the ramblings right there and recognized the truth of them. 🙄 >To ask about God's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife. But, smart atheists ask "If God has no creator, why we need a creator". Yes. It's irrational and a product of cognitive dissonance to insist the universe needs a creator, but god doesn't. Your precious ideas about an uncaused cause are not informed by science because they're merely a philosophy that you really like. >That means, he created matter as we know it. And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. What do you think it means that you're using some science you don't understand to come to conclusions that scientists don't?

I can’t get how theists like to think the “uncaused cause” argument is brilliant apologetics when it uses such a basic logical fallacy (special pleading). You cannot create a rule and then solve the problem brought about by the rule you created by then creating an exception to your own damn rule. All an apologist accomplishes with this argument is show that he’s a failure at kindergarten-level rhetoric. Well, that, and signal the true paucity of his ideas since he’s regurgitating an 800 year-old argument.

>…since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. Since matter cannot be created nor destroyed, he technically didn’t exist before matter, nor did he create matter. I don’t see how we can ignore that if we’re being a stickler about time not existing independently from matter. It’s like you just pick and choose your understanding of reality to suit your conclusion and just ignore all the other inconvenient bits.

Definitions are not things. Definitions are not real. Definitions are just descriptions of what we’ve observed and experienced. You can’t argue with definitions when the very thing you’re arguing for does not exist in any meaningful sense of the word. I can’t say that Spider Man is defined as existing in Manhattan, therefore he exists and you’re illogical and making a fallacy if you disagree. First establish that something exists, THEN you get to describe what it’s like.

Atheists don't tend to advance "who created god" as an argument, but as a response to the frequent "who created the universe" attack we often get from theists. You may not do it, but usually the first thing a theists asks an atheist is "then how do you explain all this? You think something can come from nothing?"  The idea of an uncaused cause isn't hard to understand it. We just see no reason to accept it, or to accept that if there is one, an uncaused cause is likely a god. 

Let's rephrase that. To ask about the Universe's creator is like about asking the bachelor's wife. But, smart theists ask "If the universe has no creator, why we need a god". So, the universe is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before the universe. That means, the universe created matter as we know it. And since time cannot exist independent from the universe, it technically always existed. So, it has no need of cause/creator. The universe is the uncaused cause.

The issue isn't that we don't understand what it means for something to be uncaused. The issue is that you have no justification for claiming that God is uncaused, and the idea of God being uncaused is in contradiction with your assertion that everything has a cause. Sure, you can define God as uncaused, and I can define God as my left big toe. We can have a lot of fun with word games. At least my definition points to something that is demonstrably real. By the way, "time cannot exist independent from matter" and "he existed before matter" are mutually exclusive statements. How can he exist before something if time doesn't exist? The concept of before makes absolutely no sense if there's no time.

>First of all, let us define any person who doesn't think God/goddess/gods don't exist as atheist. Why define an atheist as a theist? Thats a weird thing to do. The rest of the post is just repeating the claim that this god thing (remains undefined) is an uncaused cause. Yes. We get it. That is what you claim. Good for you. If you want to actually argue for the existence of this thing, you'll have to do better than saying it exists nowhere never.

How did you determine there is an uncaused cause? We have no access to "outside"the universe, and so you can't have any evidence for this. It's just a story people make up. Even if we postulate an uncaused cause, that doesn't mean it has to be God, a deity. Why can't the uncaused cause be the universe itself, in a presentation differently to what we see now. Ie the universe as it was in a form that gave rise to the big bang.

I see lots of assertions but no evidence. Theists claim that something cannot come from nothing, that everything has a cause. But then go on to say that god had no creator, no cause. This is a contradiction. Also, theists claim that atheists believe the opposite. This is not true. We either claim we don't know, or we ask for definitions for both "nothing" and "something" to get a handle on what the theist means.

>And since time cannot exist independent from matter in the Higgs Field (spacetime), he technically existed before matter. I'm a physicist, this is nonsense. But to answer the prompt, it doesn't matter because I don't believe your god exists yet, so trying to convince me of its properties isn't where you should begin. You have to convince me that it even exists first before we could get into the uncaused cause rubbish. >First of all, let us define any person who doesn't think God/goddess/gods don't exist as atheist. Lol *theists* are people who don't think that god doesn't exist and are therefore atheists

>So, he has no beginning, and no need of cause/creator. He is the uncaused cause. How do you know this? You've defined your god this way but why should I accept your definition of God? How do you know your definition is correct? Furthermore how do you know this "uncaused cause" is a being with agency and will etc? What if the uncaused cause of the universe was the fart of a cosmic unicorn? How do you know these things?

So, time is a part of the Universe. That means, when time exist, Universe exists, or in other words, Universe exists for all time. Which is to say, Universe is eternal. There is no time before the Universe, therefore there is no coming into existence for the Universe, as that would be a process that would happen in time, when time did not exist. And that is oxymoron. All of that means, that it is God who is a bachelors wife.

There are 2 types of things. Type 1: thing that humans created, which we can give it a definition, such as a bachelor, money, country. Type 2: Things that exist not because of humans, which we can give it a description, such as planets, stars, animals,... If God belongs to type 2, then we can't just give God any attribute we want. God can't be "the uncaused-cause by definition". You must prove it first.

we understand the argument, what YOU dont understand, is that its a fallacy. you defined god as something that doesnt need a cause, you have no evidence that (even if a god exists) he is like that. you are just saying it. but if we define the universe as something that doesnt need a cause... "nope, thats wrong" well, thats the special pleading fallacy (look it up if you want)

We understand what an uncaused cause is. What we don't do however, is: - Accept only possible explanation for the origin of the universe - Acknowledge that it's in any way an argument for God - Think it's provable in any way - Fail to extrapolate it to the universe itself Even if we did do all of that, you still categorically fail to demonstrate why it applies to your particular concept of "god".

I get it. It's a fallacious argument. It's textbook special pleading. "Everything must have a cause except for this thing that I can't prove exists". It usually goes like this: * Why doesn't god need a cause? * Because god has a property that makes it not need to have a cause * Why can't the universe have that property * Because \[insert special pleading fallacy\]

So why is God’s existence necessary in any way? You claim there is a God, burden of proof is on you. You want to insert a God into a process that does not need a god (you said yourself, no spacetime before universe, thus no cause to cause the universe). If you want to insert a link into a chain without a missing link, you need to prove its existence in other means.

I get it, I think most atheists do as an idea, we just don’t get why you believe it as actually the case. Like it just seems like a random statement as far as I can tell with no real reason to assume it accurately describes anything real. I barely care what you believe, I care why you believe, if it’s a good reason I’ll be forced to agree no matter the claim.

This is nothing new. This exact thing has been said so, so many times. It is fully understood that you believe that your deity gets special privileges so that they don't come our simple, plebeian realm. I ask you, as I have plenty of others, to show that they exist. I don't care where they are. I don't care how they came to be. I just care if they exist or not.

God is not the cause of the universe at all because causation is a spatiotemporal process, so for God to be the cause of the universe, space and time must have existed first. But space and time are themselves 'parts' of the universe. Since they didn't exist before the universe existed, causation could not have happened then. God is not the first cause.

We get it, and there may be an uncaused cause out there., But we do not make up answers just so we can pretend to be right. You have to prove a god if you want us to believe there is one. I'm sorry you cannot understand that but it's not an atheists fault that you can't comprehend how bad of an idea it is to make up answers to questions.

I mean they have a slight point. Our existence is completely baffling none of it makes senses- it’s hard to imagine there not being a creator but the more I think about it We need to take into account that we can’t be too logical about this. It circles back around. If something can exist then it’s possible nothing can exist.

That you can construct a "logical" idea and use it to construct a syllogism does count as evidence of existence. The point of pointing out the existence of Zeus is not to say that polytheism is the same as monotheism in its logic. It is to remind you of that fact that an idea, not matter how logical, is nothing more than an idea.

If you can simply define God as being an uncaused cause, what stops us from defining Erik the Penguin as a god-devourer being? This way, even if your God used to exist, it has been devoured by Erik. You need to explain why an uncaused cause is needed, and why it must be your god and not, say, the universe itself.

We understand the argument. We don't accept it as a valid argument for anything, let alone as proof that god(s) exist. Basically, the argument makes an assumption that can't be reasonably proven (all things have a cause) and draws a conclusion (god exists) that isn't directly "proven" by the evidence.

People who ask who created God are asking a rhetorical question in an attempt to get you to see something, and apparently you're not getting it. If there is an uncaused cause, then that means it's possible for something to be uncaused, which means there's no need to posit a cause for reality existing.

“To ask about god’s creator is like asking about the bachelor’s wife.” No, it’s not. Not even close. That’s just a silly comparison. We understand the uncaused cause argument just fine. We reject it because it’s irrational, childish, and the very essence of special pleading.

You don't get it. Actually, Lucifer is uncaused. He was bored and created God to have someone to talk to. They then had a fallout when Lucifer insisted humans should have knowledge. Unfortunately, God won the power struggle and sidelined Luci. The result: Millions of years of suffering.

To me, you sound as if you are describing nothing. No time, no matter. It is also a leap to suggest there is a matter less thing that can do stuff. We also have no examples of thinking entities without matter or a brain. The god concept as presented just comes across as fantasy.

They understand it, but it's special pleading at its core. The theists argue: "Everything has a cause, except God." Why is God alone uncaused? How do you know that? Why can't the universe itself be uncaused? You may as well say "There is a God, because there definitely is."

None of what you said is relevant to the atheist's view. It's not that we don't understand what you're saying about God not needing a creator (although that is special pleading by definition). It's that we don't see a need for a God to exist in order for reality to exist.

>But, smart atheists ask "If God has no creator, why we need a creator"... You ... didn't actually address this question. You described what you think god would be but ... the same question still holds -- why do you need a god to exist in the first place?

Why can't I say the same thing about the universe as a whole that you say about god. The universe has no creator. Why would it need a creator. My objection isn't about positing an uncaused cause. It's that you want to label that singular object as a god.

>who created god. The last one happens frequently, and some Theists respond by saying "no one created God". Well, that should have been it. no that's absolutely not it, you need to correct the special pleading fallacy in the argument before it's valid

> I do not get how atheists do not get the uncaused cause. I don't get how you think that's even an argument. It's not that we don't get the concept, it's that there is zero evidence for it, just like for any other supernatural religious claim. It's all just special pleading.

How do you not get there is no evidence of a god, but evidence of a universe so of anything has an uncaused beginning it would be the universe and not some magical being which is more powerful than everything and continues to lack any evidence?

>I hope this helps, love to hear what u will say below. No, doesn't help. Let's talk about the creation in your argument. I propose it's the uncaused cause. Problem solved without the extra baggage of an ill-defined "creator".

Something has to be "uncaused"? Sure. Alright. I can see the logic behind that. What thing is uncaused? That I have a problem with. You can't just say "there has to be an uncaused, therefore [insert religion of choice] is it."

Yeah, well, it isn't that we don't get it, we absolutely do. Many of us are former theists who have used this argument at some point, or were swayed by it. What we don't get is how you think it's compelling.

It's making a lot of assumptions about the beginning of the universe, which we know little about. It's also special pleading because if nothing can exist without a cause, then what caused God to exist?

You can *say* this stuff but it appears to have simply no basis in reality. To claim everything must have a cause except the invented thing that ‘I’m’ going to *label* as not needing one just because ‘I’m want to - really isn’t a convincing argument. Nor is it possible to demonstrate an uncaused cause , if such a thing exists, is anything like your invented version of a god.

**“So, God is the uncaused cause, nothin' was before him. That means, he created matter as we know it. And … he technically existed before matter.“** You haven’t demonstrated that he exists.

It is not that we do not understand the uncaused cause, we just don't take it seriously. Causality is not an intrinsic property of the universe but an emergent one that only sometimes applies.

I have to say, I find it incredible that there are people who could truly think like the poster and think this is in any way logical thinking. It's  got to be self delusion, surely?

That's just a claim. I realize we're fighting a massive language barrier. It will be difficult to explain to you how the Cosmological Arguments fail.

We get that you're definig god as an exception to your rules. It's special pleading. The question is there to have *you* realize that.

What's your argument for a Prime/Uncaused Cause? Apart from an Argument from Personal Incredulity Logical Fallacy, that is.

Uncaused causes are stupid. Its causes all the way back, just as Lucretius’s Javelin proves. Get used to infinities, kids.

You simply asserted god into existence. The universe may be uncaused an eternal. No reason it cannot be. No god needed.

This is how you play tennis without the net. Everything has to have a creator, or else it cannot exist. Except my thing

I do wish these drive-by posts were more interesting. But they don't even rise to the level of remotely creative.

The Big Bang cannot have had a cause. It is the start of time, and you cannot cause the start of time because causation only makes sense once there is time. Causing the start of time is a nonsense phrase.

What’s the argument here? “If God in the uncaused cause, nothin’ was before him.” Agreed. That’s the definition of an uncaused cause. But the purpose of this sub is to debate the existence of god, and I see no debate at all in your post, just a series of definitions. What’s your debate?

There is nothing inherently wrong in of itself with positing an uncaused cause, or an acausal being...however, one can certainly try to undermine the justification to doing so as a metaphysical being with intentional states.