We, as humans know only that THERE is something instead of nothing.
As far back as Planck time there is something.
This is what we know. Perhaps in the future, various measurements and maths; other cosmological evidences may shed “light” or open doors of thought we cannot yet fathom…
Hehehehehe - I will. I love using all types of words and operating at all sorts of levels.
Pretentious prick. Ah - a new nickname for our young student 
There is a little known caveat: that there is only one thing that isn’t allowed to travel faster than light: information. In this context, expansions don’t carry information, so it isn’t a violation of Special Relativity. There are many weird examples like this.
Since my response has gone unanswered, and the thread author is still claiming his first cause argument is rational, I shall list the known logical fallacies he’s used, and quote the text as evidence.
A false dichotomy fallacy, since there might be other options. Just as one example, the universe might have existed in a non physical and non temporal state. Though I don’t claim this, I’m not seeing any rational reason for your assumption we’re limited to the two choices you desire.
Another false dichotomy fallacy, since you’re talking about natural physical causes we understand to have occurred within the temporal physical universe, you can’t possible know that other options are not possible. How many non temporal states did you test for example?
An argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, or are you claiming to have rigorously tested “nothing” to evidence this assumption?
Again an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and for the same reason stated previously.
A special pleading fallacy, since your argument first creates a rule to insist on a cause, based on the fact they are always physical in every single instance of causes we have evidenced and understood? And no non physical cause ever being evidenced or accurately explained even once? Then immediately and without evidence insists this rule changes to create an exception here. And that ridiculous contradiction seems like a rational deduction to you?
A begging the question fallacy, since it contains unevidenced assumptions about the very deity you are arguing for.
Calling the deity you choose to worship a “creator” in this context is also an argument from assertion fallacy.
So your argument is demonstrably irrational, riddled with unevidenced assumptions and contains no objective evidence for any deity at all.
You might as easily claimed pixies did it using magic, and then simply assume they have the same characteristics you arbitrarily assigned to a deity you imagine is real.
It just gets tiresome. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. You can lead theists to knowledge but try as you might, you just can’t get them to think!
I hope this individual now understands that if he storms into a forum like this and makes wild and unsupported assertions and spouts wierd crap that he will be pressed hard to back up his statements.
Home school = being raised in a bubble with minimal real world experience and a filtered world view.
Kinda like a goose in a long neck bottle? LOL
Would you care for me to take you to task on this assertion? Would you care to reframe it first?
I apologize Whitefire.
SOME home schoolers.
I was wrong to put all under one umbrella.
However - I do concede that most homeschool for religious indoctrination reasons.
That premise has an even bigger problem! Take another look:
Formally that is:
Premise A: If x, then NOT x.
Which can be replaced with simply NOT A.
Or in other words, this is a very rare bird; in that it is a premise so bad, we can actually use the premise to prove itself false. Logically, simply because of its form; it MUST be false! Normally we are stuck expressing skepticism at someone’s premises, in this very limited example, we can be sure it is false!
Sorry to break in here.
I find the growth of the universe as it expands more very fascinating. I love learning about the cosmos and how things started. How and why it started I don’t know. I do know that it doesn’t appear that it needed a higher power to cause it.
Anyways I love how it can expand as fast or faster than light, but still doesn’t break any laws of physics. I’ve saw a clip on it as it is explained how the universe is 13.8 billion years old but much larger than its age.
I also love learning as much as I can but wont read the bible anymore. There’s mostly only fiction there, especially when it come to the Jesus Christ story.
A good loving god wouldn’t flood the earth in my opinion.
Anyways here’s the video clip I love watching for some information.
Later. 
Edit; Posted before on this thread… DOH!
No. The god of Christians at least is spirit, no mass.
That has not been established.
No. As I’ve said before, logic is poor tool for determining truth. Plus so far no one has managed to argue god into or out of existence. That’s called an unfalsifiable claim and so far refers to all claims made about god(s)
Mate, I’ve posted some links to help you with logic. Might be a good idea to have glance.
Rashkolnikov,
You wrote:
Why can you not measure God? I believe you can, in a way. If you can believe Newton’s laws of Thermodynamics, that all things are caused, then it is just logic and deduction that leads you to God.
I’m just here for what I hoped would be conversation. If you’re bored, that’s fine. I thought this would be kind of fun, to have some intellectual sparring with fellow cosmologically minded people. Instead I have walked into a massive dogpile, lol.
For the record, it is not my intention to dogpile, insult, or use calumny with anyone on the Forum, including you and other Theists. I just read your argument and simply didn’t think the premises and logic passed the muster of Reason.
I’m definitely not against homeschooling or autodidactics. My best lessons (including study of Atheism/Naturalism/Secularism/Reason/Science) have all been self-taught and self-directed. Goodness knows, logical, critical thinking are not taught in Gummint Skoolz and was mostly taught as a possible Humanities fulfillment for most who took Logic 101 in the Philosophy Department of my alma mater.
Anywho, there’s nothing personal from my end, just strictly the business of logical, sound argument.
Home schooling it depends. Autodidacts, I’m afraid I do have a problem going by the ones I’ve run across(including myself)
I once had the privilege of staying with friends in BC who home schooled their four girls. No formal lessons. Even I helped the younger ones with reading. Both parents were extremely bright . When the girls went to high school, it was found they were ahead in every subject except math, in which they were equal.
Self taught people don’t know what they don’t know. This is not so bad in the humanities, although it can be irritating. Not so fine with more technical things such as mechanics, electricians and plumbing. Then being self taught can be dangerous.
I’m self taught with my PC, Imac, Linux OS Laptop ,Android phone, tablet and TV. This means from time to time I discover an area of ignorance .Luckily, I have a geek friend who can help with everything except Linux and Mac. Otherwise such ignorance can quickly become very expensive.,
Even if one constructs a logical argument for the existence of a god, that is not proof because it has not been tested. Why this high standard, why more than a sound logical argument?
In 1900 astronomers had a lot figured out, but there was one huge anomaly that puzzled many. Based on the best knowledge of that time, calculations of Mercury’s orbit did not match the observations. This led the best mathematicians and astrologers to sincerely initiate a search for another planet, named Vulcan. This was how Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were discovered.
But as diligent as they were in their search, no one could find Vulcan. But when Einstein had his “amazing year” in 1905 and published his papers on relativity, the rules of relativity were incorporated into the orbital calculations, and suddenly, Mercury matched the calculations and vice-versa.
Additional information, namely “relativity” stopped the search for Vulcan.
This an example of a logical argument backed up with the science of the time being wrong. New knowledge filled the gap, and it was from an unexpected direction.
So even if someone presents a logical and consistent argument, it is still not proof.
Even assuming such a creator exists (which I’m not), why should it be worshipped?
Welcome from sunny South Australis, where it’s early summer and a balmy 30C
Great first post.
Yeah, there is no way of knowing if a first cause would even be sentient, or that if it was that it would be benign.
For all I know a god could be a monster like YHWH of the Torah. Or one of many and not possessing infinite attributes.
It finally dawned on me some years go that that the ancient Israelites were literally god fearing. IF I believed in him I’d be terrified.–Walking on eggs lest I offend him. Plus that first commandment :
Exodus 20:2:6 " I am Yahweh your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
That reads as if he isn’t even the only god, just a very cranky one.
Can I come out from behind the sofa now? I need a drink of water… I think I wet myself . Whew! That was a close call!
Boomer47,
Results of homeschooling, of course, vary with the curriculum and how well children take to it. My point, though was that education is not always synonymous with formal, institutional schooling and that much useful learning is possible without it. In fact, for an active, thinking mind, all of life should be a learning experience.
I should clarify something about autodidacticism. By this, of course, I don’t mean learning from a complete blank slate from whole cloth with no help. I mean learning in a self-initated, self-directed way from experienced, expert sources authored and offered by others, ideally a variety of sources and media, and building on whatever previous knowledge I possess.
This is how I like to learn. I also like to compare sources to see which one expresses ideas most clearly, which ones cover the most, which ones provide citations, tables of content, lists, precise instructions, tables, photos, videos, illustrations, indices, useful appendices, references, bibliography, etc.
And if there is a question no source can answer, especially one involving great expense or risk to life and limb, then I defer to a one-to-one expert e.g. Doctor, Attorney, Law Enforcer, Mechanic, Technician, etc. and then learn what I can from them.
It’s got me this far and I hope it gets me further.