When it gets this ridiculous I start getting more amused than irritated.  I'm actually going to bust out laughing if he still doesn't get it.

It's like watching the movie Idiocracy but in real life.

I wonder what Lee would be like as a doctor...

To ask where someone who is eternal, someone who had no beginning, came from is like asking "To whom is the bachelor married?" It's an irrational question.

Since God is eternal that solves the problem of infinite regress. The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material / natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes i.e. infinite regresses. The cause of the universe's beginning must have been super-natural, non-material or spirit. A cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. The cause had to be eternal spirit. The cause of the universe had to be incredibly powerful. The sheer size and energy seen in the universe together speak of that power. There had to be a cause. That sounds like the God of the bible to me.

Even the simplest single-celled life is stupendously complex. The cause must be incredibly intelligent, far beyond our intelligence.

How else would you explain how the universe came into existence? Those who reject the Creator not only have to believe that matter came into being without any cause; they also have to believe that life itself popped into existence without an adequate cause. That is utterly foolish. Brian, you continue to suppress the truth.

So if it is possible then that something can have no beginning all you are proving is that yet still a God is not required. A cognition is not required.

You are falsely inserting a needless complexity as a cause. And completely missed my point about what problems are caused by inserting an infinite god.

Infinite regress IS a valid objection to a god claim. It causes you to back off "everything has a creator" bullshit argument.

If everything has a creator, to be logically consistent you have to apply that to your god claim as well, otherwise you are cherry picking what is or is not "created". If not everything needs a creator, then the universe doesn't either.

The claimed cognition of an "all powerful" infinite being CAUSES problems because you blindly stop at "god is" without considering the implications of such a naked assertion.

If an all powerful l infinite being can have no cause, then the less complex universe wouldn't need one either.

CUT IT EITHER WAY,

There is no need for an invisible friend, be the universe caused or uncaused. Cognition did not cause the universe EITHER WAY.

Furry is Jewish, she too has a pet god and tries to argue science too. But you are not Jewish.

You want to lead me to magic babies and zombie god claims, and she wants to pull me into Kosher superstitions.

So just because you argue for a Christian myth as the cause of the universe is hardly impressive. You both could be arguing that Yoda started the universe and it would make as much sense.

Both you the Christian and Furry the Jew, accept, or should at least, accept that an ocean god named Neptune is not responsible for hurricanes. Hurricanes start out as less complex smaller parts that are not cognitive, but the conditions that lead to the hurricane produce a complex storm. There you have an example of non cognitive event leading to more complexity without the aid of Neptune.

Our universe is complex, but all that complexity arose out of a simple and smaller singularity. I would simply view the unknown as to before being just as much a non-cognitive process as the simple weather conditions that lead to a complex hurricane.

None of nature needs a thinking being to cause it, nor does the universe. If you can accept that the sun is not a god, then you should be able to accept that the sun and the universe and everything in it is a result of a WHAT, a non thinking process of conditions.

Otherwise every god claimed including the Jewish one, the Muslim one, the Hindu one, and the sun being a god as a cause should fit in just as well as your magic baby super hero claim.

Try understanding why you reject all other pet god claims besides yours and you'll understand why I reject your pet god claim as well.

Both you and Furry insert an invisible friend claim needlessly into nature and the universe. And whats worse is that these myths were started when we didn't have the scientific knowledge of the universe we do today.

Please tell me HOW thermodynamics justifies a magic baby who was born without a second set of DNA?

"Poof, abracadabra, God did it", thats all you got, you back up a naked assertion with another naked assertion

Would you buy a Jew's argument of thermodynamics if they were arguing for a Jewish god and not yours? Would you buy this thermodynamic argument if a Muslim were claiming it proved Allah to be the one true god?

So the "super natural" has to exist. Who says that science, even if it proved that the super natural were possible, why would it automatically lead to your pet diety". How convenient that it just so happened in this world of 7 billion that lucky you found that science proves magic baby claims despite all the various god claims humans invent. Despite the universal science of DNA that we can all learn puts a damper on magic baby claims in the SCIENTIFIC FACT that it takes two sets of DNA to make a human baby.

Try some Occam's Razor and law of probability on for size.

Your god is actually real.

Or

Just like the Muslim god and Jewish god and sun god, humans are merely superstitious sugar pill gap fillers who allow their emotions and egos to fill in nature with their wishful thinking.

Which of the two choices fits reality more? An actual invisible friend BY ANY NAME, exists. Or, humans invent gods?

Thermodynamics does not lead scientists to defaulting to the Christian god. Faith is not a litmus test in scientific knowledge and does not require belief in Jesus or Buddha or Vishnu or invisible pink unicorns.

To bad an infinite regress can't occur in a space-time-matter universe. There can't be an infinite series of births and deaths because each cycle must have less energy than the one before it. If this had been happening for eternity the death of everything would have already happened. So, infinite regress IS NOT even valid conceptually.

I guess you don't read very well or you conveniently left out the word "beginning." I said everything that "has a beginning has a cause." God is ETERNAL therefore logically He has no cause.

No!! The universe had a beginning = cause. God is eternal = no cause. It's a very easy concept. You just choose to suppress the truth because you don't want there to be a God that you are accountable to.

Where is your scientific evidence?

And what rights would these be? Actually, atheist's have killed more human being's in the 20th century than all other religions combined since we've been on this earth. Where is the bible verse that teaches society to hate people because of their sexuallity?

No, I read fine. You however seem to be the one lacking reading comprehension.

I would assume by proxy of the standard omn-god attribute claims people like you and most monotheists typically make, that this alleged god critter would be infinitely more complex than the universe it allegedly started.

If we are going by that assertion, for argument's sake only, and your alleged god critter needs no cause, surely something less complex than this infinitely complex god wouldn't need a cause either.

I am not going to let you get away with trying to have it both ways.

If the universe had a beginning and thus has a cause, then an infinitely more complex thing such as your alleged god critter would beg for even more explanation, which IS what the problem called "infinite regress" address in this pet god claim of yours as a claim.

Now all this claptrap can be solved in short order by refraining from compiling a gap with a huge monster of an argument, but looking at the universe as not a manufactured thing, but a non cognitive process. No needlessly complex unexplainable god critter needed to explain it.

Occams Razor is a philosophy still used today as part of good science ethics. It demands that you problem solve with simplicity first. Just like if your car doesn't start you don't default to taking the engine apart first. You check the battery, then the battery cable, then the starter, and work your way up.

Your logic is ass backwords in that it assumes complexity is needed as a starting position and if such is the case something as complex as the fictional omni god claim you fawn over needlessly, that would beg even more complex answers to solve.

We simply do not know IF the universe was the product of a prior event(I personally lean that way), or if it simply came out of nothing. BUT either way the Omni God claim simply is use of bad logic and cannot fill that gap. It is adding needless baggage. And not only that your myth was not even written way prior to when scientists finally formulated the FACT of the big bang and proved it.

You are ultimately trying to defend a horrible myth written over a 1,000 year period by unscientific people.

Stephen Hakwins would know a little about science I'd think. Neil Degrees Tyson who studies the stars for a living would know a little about science and BOTH of them would say YOU got it wrong.

And not to mention DNA puts a damper on your magic baby claim. And rigor mortis puts a damper on the zombie god claim.

So even IF, which I dont, but even if I agreed that some sort of omni god was possible, which I dont, you are still stuck with denying that you are still trying to pull me into those two dedbunked myths you hinge your beliefs on. But on the alleged birth and death of Jesus you cant cop out to metaphor or allegory. The only way I can see Christianity surviving is if future generations re write these myths/

So if you want to make a better argument, start from scratch, dump your myth all together, and say something like "a super natural being is possible" because that, although still BS, would have less baggage than your ancient comic book.

Both inside the bible and outside the bible you have nothing. If you think I am being unfair to you I am not. I think it would be equally absurd, for example, to claim that the universe itself, is a thinking entity as some pantheists with their modern superstition claim.

Trying to solve gaps with even bigger gaps that require even more explanation IS NOT how good science works. It isn't even good logic on a basic level.

Here is how you are trying to sell your poison pill of bad logic.

You know damned well you can come out and say "Jesus existed and he was the one true god"

So you try to avoid the bible at first to try to eventually lead people into that comic book.

Now I would see no reason whatsoever to be a Christian if it did not require you to believe that he was born of a virgin. Back peddle away from that it is mere metaphor. It is mere metaphor then it is no different or special than the other stories believers cherry pick selectively as being possible. If a virgin birth is not possible then why would the creation story or garden story be either? We are talking about "all" in "all powerful" which should, in theory allow this being (to be consistent in logic) to do anything it wants. If it cannot, then logically speaking, it cannot be described as "all powerful".

But if God is all powerful like you'd like to believe and created thermodynamics then "poof" magic baby should be possible and you should be able to defend it. And talking snakes and bushes should be because "all" would also allow this fictional character the ability to defy it's own laws of nature.

So was Jesus a magic baby? If not, then who did Mary fuck? Because all you got is "poof" god did it.

The point being thermodynamics do not justify magic babies. Thermodynamics does not justify surviving rigor mortis and it doesn't even justify a non material cognition with a magic wand.

Where did you get that?

Nothing in that statement said "I believe that the universe could have either come from nothing, or could have come from a prior event.". He's simply listing the possibilities.

On the other hand Lee, you claim to know that the God of the Bible exists because you believe in it.

Is it possible that a creator god exists? yep. Is it the God described in the Bible? The Bible itself provides evidence against that. 

Brian is an atheist, so he believes the universe came from nothing.

Lee, just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they believe the universe came from nothing.  An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in deities; this doesn't imply any beliefs about the origin of the universe, life, morality, etc.

You are a Christian and believe in a God that you have no evidence that you can cite for his existence.

I don't think that you've stated Brian's position correctly. He may not know where the universe came from but I don't think he'd claim it came from nothing.

If he did, though, that would make your belief and his identical. 

If you believed the universe came from nothing (never said you did) your belief and Lee's would be identical.  Read stuff before you go off - it's better for you.