Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

[Logik]

How do you "test" me?

This is a rather grave misconception of empiricism.

I don't test "you" anymore than you can test "gravity" or "energy" (the questions you dodged a while back).

We test for the consequences of things, not the things themselves.

The consequence of "you" is the question above. This is a hypothesis. It's falsifiable.
Because the question above could be a consequence of a cat bashing the keyboard.

[Immanuel Can]

The consequence of "you" is the question above. This is a hypothesis. It's falsifiable.
Because the question above could be a consequence of a cat bashing the keyboard.

It's not falsifiable to you. It's only falsifiable to someone with knowledge you do not possess, and cannot expect to possess.

[Logik]

The consequence of "you" is the question above. This is a hypothesis. It's falsifiable.
Because the question above could be a consequence of a cat bashing the keyboard.

It's not falsifiable to you. It's only falsifiable to someone with knowledge you do not possess, and cannot expect to possess.

It's falsifiable to me.

Your requests to this forum have an IP address. Your IP address corresponds to a physical location somewhere.

I can make my way to said location and observe a human; or a cat bashing the keyboard.

Given enough time + give-a-fuck, it's falsifiable to me. On the balance of probabilities though, I expect to find a human behind the keyboard, so unless you insist that you are a cat. I don't give a fuck

[Immanuel Can]

It's falsifiable to me. Your requests to this forum have an IP address.

I can see you have a lot of faith in the reliability of such things.

[Logik]

It's falsifiable to me. Your requests to this forum have an IP address.

I can see you have a lot of faith in the reliability of such things.

Naturally. I build such systems. I know how they work.

I know where the line between "possible" and "impossible" is...

[Immanuel Can]

It's falsifiable to me. Your requests to this forum have an IP address.

I can see you have a lot of faith in the reliability of such things.

Naturally. I build such systems. I know how they work.

Then you also know that the mere existence of an IP says nothing about the nature of the entity on the other end...

[Logik]

Then you also know that the mere existence of an IP says nothing about the nature of the entity on the other end...

Strawman. I never made any such claims. The mere existence of an IP is a mechanism to locate the entity on the other end.

So that I can determine if it's a cat or a human.

[Immanuel Can]

The mere existence of an IP is a mechanism to locate the entity on the other end.

So that I can determine if it's a cat or a human.

So you have no knowledge of what a VPN is? And you have confidence (for a reason you'll have to explain) that if you locate an IP, then that number in itself is proof positive that no bot, no cat, no fish and no rock await you on the other side of that digit?

[attofishpi]

I can see you have a lot of faith in the reliability of such things.

Naturally. I build such systems. I know how they work.

Then you also know that the mere existence of an IP says nothing about the nature of the entity on the other end...

Actually it does, that there is an entity capable of transmitting data via the internet protocol.

[attofishpi]

Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

If "God" means "First Cause," then the answer is self-evident. If it means something less than that, such as a created "god," not the First Cause, then it doesn't mean "God."

BUT! God does NOT mean first cause.
Exactly where are you getting this idea that God created the universe from?

The very first verse in the Torah / Old Testament. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." That's "where."

1. That statement does not support the concept of a UNIVERSE being created. At best it merely presents the creation of what we perceive as reality.

2. So you do not accept that God could be the first form of intelligence within a universe that already existed, and then formed us and our reality such that we intelligent beings can ALSO comprehend it?

[Immanuel Can]

Actually it does, that there is an entity capable of transmitting data via the internet protocol.

Could be a bot. Could be a cat walking on the keyboard. Could be a random product of time + chance + computer. It doesn't say more than that, unless you have criteria to show that it does...which you can suggest, if you wish...

[Immanuel Can]

Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

BUT! God does NOT mean first cause.
Exactly where are you getting this idea that God created the universe from?

The very first verse in the Torah / Old Testament. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." That's "where."

1. That statement does not support the concept of a UNIVERSE being created. At best it merely presents the creation of what we perceive as reality.

2. So you do not accept that God could be the first form of intelligence within a universe that already existed,

Of course not. That would make Him "not-God." It would also create the infinite-regress problem, because the universe itself is manifestly a contingent entity, and thus requires its own cause.

God is by definition, in both Jewish and Christian thought, the First Cause of all things. That's analytic, and so it's not capable of being debated. You can say, "I don't like your definition," or "I don't think God exists," but it's fruitless to try to say, "The Judeo-Christian concept of God isn't the Judeo-Christian concept of God."

The concept is the concept. You can take it or leave it, but you can't make it not-the-concept.

[attofishpi]

Actually it does, that there is an entity capable of transmitting data via the internet protocol.

Could be a bot. Could be a cat walking on the keyboard. Could be a random product of time + chance + computer. It doesn't say more than that, unless you have criteria to show that it does...which you can suggest, if you wish...

Yeah, it's simply the definition of an entity - in this case a piece of electronic hardware with a processor that can transmit binary packets of information.

[attofishpi]

Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

The very first verse in the Torah / Old Testament. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." That's "where."

1. That statement does not support the concept of a UNIVERSE being created. At best it merely presents the creation of what we perceive as reality.

2. So you do not accept that God could be the first form of intelligence within a universe that already existed,

Of course not. That would make Him "not-God." It would also create the infinite-regress problem, because the universe itself is manifestly a contingent entity, and thus requires its own cause.

No. It does not mean the Universe requires its own cause, it could mean a place of NO causality - NO logic from which this God formed. You are stating that everything requires a cause, but God does not require a cause, because 'he' is outside of the Universe, correct?

God is by definition, in both Jewish and Christian thought, the First Cause of all things.

Whose thought? Oh, the flock of simple sheep! WHERE are you getting this information from?

There is NO first cause, there was a point (not in time because that still pertains to logic) where there was NO logic - ergo - NO causality.

When they baptized you, they did remove the top part of your skull so they could truly brainwash you...

I feel sorry for you, you must have been raised and surrounded by simple folk that feared to question the sermon of the SAP that was preaching, and worse still you probably worship God all the time, and you all do it - Y? Because you want his special appreciation, you want something in return!

[Immanuel Can]

No. It does not mean the Universe requires its own cause, it could mean a place of NO causality - NO logic from which this God formed.

Not so. We can observe that this universe had a cause. So if your hypothesis had anything to it, you'd have to say you're imagining a universe in which no causality exists (not this one, obviously), but which is nevertheless capable of being the prior cause of this universe...a sort of "nothing that made something."

How far are we prepared to go to deny the obvious?

You are stating that everything requires a cause, but God does not require a cause, because 'he' is outside of the Universe, correct?

We can simplify the hypothesis even further than that. It's simply that this universe had a cause. Since infinite causal regress is impossible -- for if it were true, then no caused event would ever have had a chance to take place -- this cause had to itself be uncaused.

Afterward, we can talk about what makes most sense: to posit an impersonal first cause, or to posit God as the intelligent First Cause. But we don't even need to address that question until the necessity of some kind of first cause of all causes is firmly established...which really, it is.

God is by definition, in both Jewish and Christian thought, the First Cause of all things.

Whose thought? Oh, the flock of simple sheep! WHERE are you getting this information from?

Torah, chapter 1 verse 1.

There is NO first cause...

If that were so, there would be no causes now either. But obviously, there are. So there had to be a First Cause.

That's not even a religious hypothesis. It's basic science, actually. Science deduces that whatever began to happen had a cause, and all causes must precede their imputed effects. You don't need to be one bit religious to see the good sense of that.