Totalitarianist

Wait a minute. I thought the laws were God now?

The laws = God
and the laws happen to be omnipresent and non-sentient.

We also exist because of our parents, and an incredible string of coincidences that lead to their meeting. By your logic, our parents and these coincidences themselves would be our "ruler". Give it up.

You give it up. How can one's parents govern our thought? Gravity seems to affect us. Gravity is universal. Just one of the many unescapable, supreme laws that fits the [omnipresent, non-sentient] definition of "God".

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Tin Tin ]</p>

Totalitarianist

... which just-so happens to fit the definition of an omnipresent non-sentient God.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Tin Tin ]</p>

Automaton

Oh, please. First cause is wrong. Atheism, in itself, (you're probably thinking of naturalism, which you believe in anyway) cannot be contradictory in any way. Your "pantheism" not only can, it is.

Totalitarianist

You haven't answered my questions (which cannot be contradicted).

Atheism cannot be true because of the first cause theory. You have to be a complete idiot to deny cause = effect. Tell me how it's "wrong".

The first cause theory, oddly enough, contradicts both theism and atheism.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Tin Tin ]</p>

Automaton

The laws of physics just so happen to fit the definition of a "great gary" too, because I define the "great gary" as the laws of physics.

Totalitarianist

never mind this post

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Tin Tin ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Then the "great gary" is synonymous to an omnipresent non-sentient "God".

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Tin Tin ]</p>

Automaton

Fine, I'll answer your "questions" (which were actually affirmative statements, but anyway.) And hold on there slick, don't be too fast in declaring your notions "unable to be contradicted." As we shall see, they very much are able to be contradicted.
Actually, it is effect = cause. The universe is an effect, we are told, therefore it must have a cause. No support is given for the premise that the universe is an effect, only the fallacious argument from composition, and the equally fallacious equivocation between modally contingent and causally contingent. And even more damning, "first cause" in no way equals God. It is simply a prior condition that may or may not be God, so we are right back where we started and neither atheism, nor naturalism, have been refuted.
No, it is a bad argument that contradicts the conclusion it is trying to reach. That doesn't mean both A and ~A are false, it simply means the argument itself is false.

And, even if the perceived alternatives were also contradictory, it still would not be rational to believe in a contradictory notion!

Totalitarianist

Actually, it is effect = cause

That was a rushing error.

The universe is an effect, we are told, therefore it must have a cause. No support is given for the premise that the universe is an effect, only the fallacious argument from composition, and the equally fallacious equivocation between modally contingent and causally contingent.

It has logical evidence. Your birth had to be caused by someone, which had to be caused by someone else, which had to be caused by something else. There had to be first cause. There's no other logical answer. Someone (I think you) mentioned that the universe is finite. A finite universe without a beginning is a contradiction. If you believe in a finite universe, you have to believe in an intial cause. That is the only logical answer.

And even more damning, "first cause" in no way equals God. It is simply a prior condition that may or may not be God

It equals a creator in a finite space-time continuum. Calling this creator "God" is acceptable.

No, it is a bad argument that contradicts the conclusion it is trying to reach

The first cause theory, yes, is a self-refutation to the conclusion the original theorists were trying to arrive at. It was originally used to refute atheism; but if a creation had to occur, then the creator had to of been created. Hence, it contradicts both atheism and theism.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Tin Tin ]</p>

Automaton

No, he would not be a "God", because as I explained above, the notion of "God" conflicts directly with the laws of physics. As just one example (extraneous to my above exposition anyway), that gods are necessarily non-physical, whereas the laws of physics are an aspect of the physical world.