I was an atheist and weirdly enough Dawkins' interview with Joe Rogan made it impossible to maintain "no belief" Once he said Jesus was real I had to start thinking and considering what I believed and no longer could claim "I lack beliefs" I accept evolution on the same grounds as Jesus.
Dawkins is calling Piers Morgan naive? That’s his defense? All Christians are not naive. Dawkins simply doesn’t listen. He interrupts, insults the interviewer, and puts God in the “impossible” box. Personally, I believe that Dawkins is angry with God. Very hurt and angry with the God of the Universe. When he can admit this, as well as the reason God has hurt him, Dawkins will begin to heal from that grief. I would like to see that happen.
I just dont get Dawkins argument at all, it is like there is a blocker that stops him from thinking outside of the scientific realm. he says he detests people who believe in things with no evidence, but then believes in aliens, despite having no evidence. Wat?
@@Basilisk4119 RD and his clueless followers ignore evidence. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns for the sake of conversion yes. but expressing the two worldviews, it would have a use. the more atheists and Christians talk to each other, the more progress os made in the God question.
@@omnitone The problem is that Dawkins doesn’t talk with serious philosophers of religion who are theists. He either ignores or, if there’s talking, he’s talking AT them without listening. I agree though. It would be nice if Dawkins had more humility
@@LPStarsoverstalingra Dawkins is more interested in condescending nastiness at Craig than actually engaging the serious arguments. The fact that Dawkins STILL thinks his book engages the arguments is appalling.
I always chuckle when he says “ it’s silly to say that God did it when we clearly don’t know” yet his entire career and life work is convincing people it isn’t God. He’s so self contradictory. Isn’t it just as silly to attribute it to Nothing??
@@therick363 hey clueless being, do a search with 'Dawkins, literally nothing' and see the various vids of him saying the universe came from "literally nothing." Too bad you're too clueless to look up such things. Then there's...Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.” Yep. again..."The title means exactly what it says."
I would pay a significant amount of money to see Dr. Craig debate Richard Dawkins. Granted, Dawkins is far from the most intellectually sophisticated opponent in the atheist sphere, but it would certainly be entertaining. Unfortunately, Dawkins is a sophistic coward.
dawkins said, "i despise people who believe something without evidence then go out and take action which damages other people"..... WHAT???? isnt that EXACTLY what he does??? example: "we dont know how evolution started but we "pretty much" understand".... further more: "there MUST have been a (dna) molecule before dna that gave rise to the "high tech" DNA molecule.... 5 mins in and i can watch any more. i have always been able to smell dawkins' agenda like shit on a shoe.
Yes, beliefs, outside of opinions, should have evidence. God has all of it and atheistic types have none. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@therick363 let's start with the creation of the universe. You show with evidence the natural causes for it. I don't see it but somehow you do. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block sigh. I would be happy to discuss this topic, the problem is your second paragraph is incorrect. You have been corrected on this many times with your copy paste posts that you do. When you ADD things like you did it shows either -lack of research -blatant dishonesty So which is it? Because why would I discuss and answer your question when you did one of those? Why would I answer your question when also added misrepresentation and assumptions about me without asking and learning? So which is it? You didn’t research or you’re lying? And don’t go to the next part of your script. Actually answer for once
Dawkins was "justified" (not epistemologically) to espouse Scientism because he ignored almost everything about Philosophy. However, today he knows best, he knows about Epistemology... so he should change his mind, but he does not. Why? Egomania?
@@therick363 Why is the naturalist atheist position an empty one? It strips life of all meaning & value. If all life is just a complex chemical reaction, which came about by accident in an indifferent universe, destined to die along with the rest of the universe…well, nothing really matters then, does it? Why is the naturalist atheist position an inconsistent one? To be a naturalist is to posit that every effect has only a “natural” cause which preceded it, right? Natural, in this sense, meaning a cause which originates within the universe itself and which can be explained by the universal laws. But what about the universe itself? How can the universe be explained by “natural” causes? As of yet, no theory is able to come close to explaining this. And closely related, what about the cause of the universal constants and quantities which make up the universal laws - ie the “fine-tuning” of the universe itself? What natural cause can explain that? Or how about the specified, instructional information found inside DNA and biological cells? What natural cause can write out instructional information of the sort found in DNA? What about morality? Do you believe there are objective standards of morality? Objective, meaning, these moral values & standards are true & binding regardless of one’s belief in, or acceptance of, them. In a naturalist worldview, there can be no objective moral standard. And yet, most naturalist atheists in my experience - Dawkins included - live as if there is some sense of objective morality. How do you explain that on naturalism? Naturalism is full of holes of the sort that can’t be filled with “natural” explanations.
@@chrispark2698 we can and do create and give meaning to our lives. Nothing wrong with that. It seems like you’re using a different or incomplete definition/explanation of naturalist. Also, the rest of the paragraph seems to come off like god of the gaps. Let me know if these work or don’t for you. -naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation. Although naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the supernatural, provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly-that is, that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a detectable way. Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd. Man’s endless search for concrete proofs of his beliefs is seen as a confirmation of naturalistic methodology. Naturalists point out that even when one scientific theory is abandoned in favour of another, man does not despair of knowing nature, nor does he repudiate the “natural method” in his search for truth. Theories change; methodology does not. Now this is a basic definition I found for naturalist. -A naturalist is someone who studies the patterns of nature. Naturalists seek to observe the interconnected relationships between plants, birds, trees & ecology so we can understand the past, present & future of our local and global environments. Morality. So far it seems that morality is subjective. Those who criticize others and say morality is absolute never seem to understand they have to demonstrate where the morals come from. On a side note-naturalism is used when conducting scientific investigations and research. Is it perfect? No. But is it “full of holes of the sort that can’t be filled with “natural” explanations”….not like you’re claiming.
@@therick363 "We can and do create & give meaning to our lives." If by 'give meaning', you mean, a person can be personally satisfied in their life, then sure, I agree. But I'm referring to something grander. If all life is destined to die along with the universe - then none of it has any deeper meaning, right? Whatever impact one may make on the history of this planet ultimately matters not - all life will eventually die on this planet, the sun will burn out, the galaxy will freeze, and eventually the universe itself will sort of fade out in what's known as the eventual "heat death" of the universe. No purpose, no meaning. I also disagree with your definition of 'naturalist' used in this sense. It's much too broad for this type of discussion. A naturalist as you describe it could be any person with any level of scientific understanding and any religious belief system. If all it means to be a naturalist is to study the patterns in nature, then every person is a naturalist. While this may be a suitable, broad definition for everyday type conversation, in this scientific/philosophical sense, I would insist upon my earlier definition, which specifically defines an ATHEIST naturalist - meaning one who believes that every effect has a cause which originates within the universe itself and can be explained by the universal laws - but perhaps the longer paragraph you left about naturalism says roughly the same thing? You accuse me of God of the gaps, but I never posited any explanation for the conundrums I presented. I simply presented issues with the naturalist explanatory scope & power of certain scientific inquiries. Do you truly believe morality is subjective? Rape, slavery, murder - they aren't actually evil or wrong? Finally - you said naturalism is not full of holes, but if we agree to my definition of atheistic naturalism, can you demonstrate why not, by responding to any of the dilemmas I brought up?
@@chrispark2698 we don’t know if the heat death is a certainty. Why and where is this “ATHEIST naturalist” coming from? Is it something you created or in a dictionary? But I don’t agree with your definition that’s the thing. Sure we can. Should we pick one or two?
@@therick363 well, you tiny brain, you never can deal with basic science. You love being absurd and showing that. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@therick363 It does not provide a harmonised view of how our human dignity fits in to the world but christianity does. Since naturalism doesnt do that the person engaging in it denies his own value. Dennying your own value is not sustainable and therefore the beleif dies out in the end, defeating itself.
I'm going to say it again guys, there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, for God, that's why we refer to the 'faithful'. Dawkins was never a great debater and is an easy target in his later years
@@patman142 Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, The universe began to exist, and Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. What is the most-plausible example of a creator of time and space? Other arguments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God P.S. What are you mean by evidence?
@@jozefk8948 First, the “first cause” argument merely suggests the possibility that the universe itself must have had a cause to exist, but this is not demonstrably the case. The argument asserts that everything (including the universe) must have a cause, but we don’t actually know that the universe had a cause since our universe is unique in our experience and we have never observed one come into being. Maybe the laws of causation we observe within the universe simply don’t apply to universes themselves. Also, we don’t actually know that the universe definitively had an actual “beginning”. The so-called “big bang” theory only describes period of rapid expansion from a dense state some 13.8 billion years ago, but it doesn’t require that the universe suddenly popped into existence prior to that change of state. Second, even if it were true that the universe did have some sort of cause, there is no justification whatsoever to call this cause a god of some sort (and especially not the specific “God” worshiped by any religion). Remember - the first cause argument was first formulated by an ancient Greek philosopher named Aristotle who most definitely was NOT talking about the God of the Christian Bible. But beyond that, there is no justification to even claim that this purported “cause” must be some sort of intelligent being at all.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent answers, Dr. Craigh ! From Sao Paulo, Brazil !
We just opened another Reasonable Faith chapter in Sao Paulo! - RF Admin
Dawkins is a narcissist. He will never be wrong in his own mind. At this point we should just commit him to prayer.
First commit him to a sanitarium
Dawkins is some sort of hero for atheists except atheists who know how to make a good argument
As a former devout atheist I fully agree. I cringe to think I used to listen to his terrible strawman arguments.
@@SteliosMusic Same, from a fellow former atheist.
i would say more than a hero. and idol, high priest, etc etc...
you have a way with words Matt M.
Dawkins epistemology is based on knowable data. The Christian god is based on the unknowable… so it is unreasonable. Sorry folks.
I think Dawkins will always be remembered for avoiding debating William Lane Craig
I was an atheist and weirdly enough Dawkins' interview with Joe Rogan made it impossible to maintain "no belief"
Once he said Jesus was real I had to start thinking and considering what I believed and no longer could claim "I lack beliefs"
I accept evolution on the same grounds as Jesus.
Dawkins is calling Piers Morgan naive? That’s his defense? All Christians are not naive. Dawkins simply doesn’t listen. He interrupts, insults the interviewer, and puts God in the “impossible” box. Personally, I believe that Dawkins is angry with God. Very hurt and angry with the God of the Universe. When he can admit this, as well as the reason God has hurt him, Dawkins will begin to heal from that grief. I would like to see that happen.
Don't we all...
Unhealthy anger and spiritual blindness are two sides of a coin. Dawkins needs a miracle.
@@DartNooboHuh?? What do you mean
@@SahihChristian don't we all wish for Dawkins to be healed spiritually
I just dont get Dawkins argument at all, it is like there is a blocker that stops him from thinking outside of the scientific realm. he says he detests people who believe in things with no evidence, but then believes in aliens, despite having no evidence. Wat?
Maybe he detests himself?
@@discobunny4eva759 It's hard to say without evidence
@@Basilisk4119 RD and his clueless followers ignore evidence.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
read the title thinking that wlc interviewed richard dawkins ;-; that would've been interesting
Would have been a waste of time. Dawkins hasn’t learned much since his God Delusion book was published. Sad
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns for the sake of conversion yes. but expressing the two worldviews, it would have a use. the more atheists and Christians talk to each other, the more progress os made in the God question.
@@omnitone The problem is that Dawkins doesn’t talk with serious philosophers of religion who are theists. He either ignores or, if there’s talking, he’s talking AT them without listening.
I agree though. It would be nice if Dawkins had more humility
Unfortunately the closest we'll probably get to the two of them talking directly is their team vs team debate in Mexico.
@@LPStarsoverstalingra Dawkins is more interested in condescending nastiness at Craig than actually engaging the serious arguments. The fact that Dawkins STILL thinks his book engages the arguments is appalling.
I always chuckle when he says “ it’s silly to say that God did it when we clearly don’t know” yet his entire career and life work is convincing people it isn’t God. He’s so self contradictory. Isn’t it just as silly to attribute it to Nothing??
Did he saying was nothing? Did I miss it?
@@therick363 hey clueless being, do a search with 'Dawkins, literally nothing' and see the various vids of him saying the universe came from "literally nothing." Too bad you're too clueless to look up such things.
Then there's...Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.”
Yep. again..."The title means exactly what it says."
I would pay a significant amount of money to see Dr. Craig debate Richard Dawkins. Granted, Dawkins is far from the most intellectually sophisticated opponent in the atheist sphere, but it would certainly be entertaining. Unfortunately, Dawkins is a sophistic coward.
dawkins said, "i despise people who believe something without evidence then go out and take action which damages other people"..... WHAT???? isnt that EXACTLY what he does???
example: "we dont know how evolution started but we "pretty much" understand".... further more: "there MUST have been a (dna) molecule before dna that gave rise to the "high tech" DNA molecule....
5 mins in and i can watch any more. i have always been able to smell dawkins' agenda like shit on a shoe.
I would love for “Dr.” Craig to debate Mat Dilahunty. Where religion goes to die, reasonably. Lmao
@@mikeymikedabeast1793 that'll never happen. Dilahunty only talks to idiots never anyone with any intelligence.
@@mikeymikedabeast1793 My dog could win a debate against Matt Dillahunty.
@@josephvlogsdon is your dog an imaginary being that started everything off by snapping his fingers and then vanished without a trace? Then probably…
"I came from space aliens" - Dawkins and company will secretly giggle, and say 'we have successfully brainwashed a person.
It's a pity that we will never see W. Craig and R. Dawkins in a public debate. I still hope....
This is gold
Narcissism is a hellavu drug.
Yeah just like WLC 😂😂😂😂
I guess he despises his own belief that the past and the future exist, or that aliens exist, since he has no evidence for either.
Got into the TCG recently with my kid and it's been freakin awesome. (I may be a little more into it that my kid.) Keep up the hits!
Would it not be a properly basic belief to believe that belief's require evidence?
Yes, beliefs, outside of opinions, should have evidence. God has all of it and atheistic types have none.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block copy paste lying in your second paragraph.
@@therick363 and this is how you give evidence to back you up with...
(blank)
Your tiny brain shooting blanks.
What if the extraterrestrial intelligence Dawkins is looking for turns out to be... the God he denies?!
What evidence is there that God does NOT exist?
I guess someone could say that we keep finding natural causes, events, phenomena and explanations for things and no God was needed.
@@therick363 That's absolutely right, but it doesn't prove that God does not exist.
@@skeebo6885 correct. And the same way no one has proven a God does exist
@@therick363 let's start with the creation of the universe. You show with evidence the natural causes for it. I don't see it but somehow you do.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block sigh. I would be happy to discuss this topic, the problem is your second paragraph is incorrect. You have been corrected on this many times with your copy paste posts that you do. When you ADD things like you did it shows either
-lack of research
-blatant dishonesty
So which is it? Because why would I discuss and answer your question when you did one of those?
Why would I answer your question when also added misrepresentation and assumptions about me without asking and learning?
So which is it? You didn’t research or you’re lying? And don’t go to the next part of your script. Actually answer for once
Dawkins was "justified" (not epistemologically) to espouse Scientism because he ignored almost everything about Philosophy. However, today he knows best, he knows about Epistemology... so he should change his mind, but he does not. Why? Egomania?
At this point I am certain that God uses Dawkins to highlight the emptiness & inconsistency of the naturalist atheist's position.
Only Dawkins maybe. But as far as other atheists that use naturalism? Nope.
How is it empty and inconsistent?
@@therick363 Why is the naturalist atheist position an empty one? It strips life of all meaning & value. If all life is just a complex chemical reaction, which came about by accident in an indifferent universe, destined to die along with the rest of the universe…well, nothing really matters then, does it?
Why is the naturalist atheist position an inconsistent one? To be a naturalist is to posit that every effect has only a “natural” cause which preceded it, right? Natural, in this sense, meaning a cause which originates within the universe itself and which can be explained by the universal laws. But what about the universe itself? How can the universe be explained by “natural” causes? As of yet, no theory is able to come close to explaining this. And closely related, what about the cause of the universal constants and quantities which make up the universal laws - ie the “fine-tuning” of the universe itself? What natural cause can explain that? Or how about the specified, instructional information found inside DNA and biological cells? What natural cause can write out instructional information of the sort found in DNA?
What about morality? Do you believe there are objective standards of morality? Objective, meaning, these moral values & standards are true & binding regardless of one’s belief in, or acceptance of, them. In a naturalist worldview, there can be no objective moral standard. And yet, most naturalist atheists in my experience - Dawkins included - live as if there is some sense of objective morality. How do you explain that on naturalism?
Naturalism is full of holes of the sort that can’t be filled with “natural” explanations.
@@chrispark2698 we can and do create and give meaning to our lives. Nothing wrong with that.
It seems like you’re using a different or incomplete definition/explanation of naturalist. Also, the rest of the paragraph seems to come off like god of the gaps.
Let me know if these work or don’t for you.
-naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation. Although naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the supernatural, provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly-that is, that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a detectable way. Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd. Man’s endless search for concrete proofs of his beliefs is seen as a confirmation of naturalistic methodology. Naturalists point out that even when one scientific theory is abandoned in favour of another, man does not despair of knowing nature, nor does he repudiate the “natural method” in his search for truth. Theories change; methodology does not.
Now this is a basic definition I found for naturalist.
-A naturalist is someone who studies the patterns of nature.
Naturalists seek to observe the interconnected relationships between plants, birds, trees & ecology so we can understand the past, present & future of our local and global environments.
Morality. So far it seems that morality is subjective. Those who criticize others and say morality is absolute never seem to understand they have to demonstrate where the morals come from.
On a side note-naturalism is used when conducting scientific investigations and research. Is it perfect? No. But is it “full of holes of the sort that can’t be filled with “natural” explanations”….not like you’re claiming.
@@therick363 "We can and do create & give meaning to our lives."
If by 'give meaning', you mean, a person can be personally satisfied in their life, then sure, I agree. But I'm referring to something grander. If all life is destined to die along with the universe - then none of it has any deeper meaning, right? Whatever impact one may make on the history of this planet ultimately matters not - all life will eventually die on this planet, the sun will burn out, the galaxy will freeze, and eventually the universe itself will sort of fade out in what's known as the eventual "heat death" of the universe. No purpose, no meaning.
I also disagree with your definition of 'naturalist' used in this sense. It's much too broad for this type of discussion. A naturalist as you describe it could be any person with any level of scientific understanding and any religious belief system. If all it means to be a naturalist is to study the patterns in nature, then every person is a naturalist. While this may be a suitable, broad definition for everyday type conversation, in this scientific/philosophical sense, I would insist upon my earlier definition, which specifically defines an ATHEIST naturalist - meaning one who believes that every effect has a cause which originates within the universe itself and can be explained by the universal laws - but perhaps the longer paragraph you left about naturalism says roughly the same thing?
You accuse me of God of the gaps, but I never posited any explanation for the conundrums I presented. I simply presented issues with the naturalist explanatory scope & power of certain scientific inquiries.
Do you truly believe morality is subjective? Rape, slavery, murder - they aren't actually evil or wrong?
Finally - you said naturalism is not full of holes, but if we agree to my definition of atheistic naturalism, can you demonstrate why not, by responding to any of the dilemmas I brought up?
@@chrispark2698 we don’t know if the heat death is a certainty.
Why and where is this “ATHEIST naturalist” coming from? Is it something you created or in a dictionary?
But I don’t agree with your definition that’s the thing.
Sure we can. Should we pick one or two?
"I despise people who believe things without evidence"
So you despise yourself, Dawkins?
Naturalism eats itself
How’s that?
@@therick363 well, you tiny brain, you never can deal with basic science. You love being absurd and showing that.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@therick363 It does not provide a harmonised view of how our human dignity fits in to the world but christianity does. Since naturalism doesnt do that the person engaging in it denies his own value. Dennying your own value is not sustainable and therefore the beleif dies out in the end, defeating itself.
👍👍
I'm going to say it again guys, there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, for God, that's why we refer to the 'faithful'. Dawkins was never a great debater and is an easy target in his later years
Dude, Craig devoted all his work to showing evidence for God, make an effort.
@@allafleche yeah, and what have we got? Kalam, boom, God did it
@@patman142
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, The universe began to exist, and Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
What is the most-plausible example of a creator of time and space?
Other arguments:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
P.S. What are you mean by evidence?
@@jozefk8948 First, the “first cause” argument merely suggests the possibility that the universe itself must have had a cause to exist, but this is not demonstrably the case. The argument asserts that everything (including the universe) must have a cause, but we don’t actually know that the universe had a cause since our universe is unique in our experience and we have never observed one come into being. Maybe the laws of causation we observe within the universe simply don’t apply to universes themselves. Also, we don’t actually know that the universe definitively had an actual “beginning”. The so-called “big bang” theory only describes period of rapid expansion from a dense state some 13.8 billion years ago, but it doesn’t require that the universe suddenly popped into existence prior to that change of state.
Second, even if it were true that the universe did have some sort of cause, there is no justification whatsoever to call this cause a god of some sort (and especially not the specific “God” worshiped by any religion). Remember - the first cause argument was first formulated by an ancient Greek philosopher named Aristotle who most definitely was NOT talking about the God of the Christian Bible. But beyond that, there is no justification to even claim that this purported “cause” must be some sort of intelligent being at all.
@@patman142 oh yes universe just pop out of existence, containing everything, so you don't have to bother with a creator. fine.
So logical.
He must despise himself then