iano writes:
I don't agree. Belief in something else (natural) is a positive case against God. God cannot be, if there is something else which explains it all. The person has another belief so cannot believe in God. Fine, if the other belief was sound. Which it is not when it comes to the issue of 'first cause'. And first cause is the very place where God would be most necessary if he existed. So, no case one way or the other.
Iano, it would be nice if you could debate in good faith and realise that your reasoning for 'first cause' is flawed. There have been abundant posts detailing to you why there is no need for a 'first cause'. I realize though, that this idea has become a central tenent of your faith and you're unlikely to look rationally at it's dismaissal. Therefore I am holding the vague hope that I can help you look at this issue from another way.
As I understand it, you believe in the idea of God being 'first cause'. Perhaps you could sit back and detail to me why you believe "God" HAS to be the one who is the 'first cause' (I mean this figuratively.) It is just as likely to have been any one of the gods that humans have in their pantheon. Why should we believe that it HAS to be YOUR god. Why not any other? Perhaps because you were indoctorinated to believe it was YOUR god (ie. You had limited access to the idea of some other god('s).) If we follow along your reasoning, it could be any god at all. You have no solid evidence it has to be your god. Your 'book' doesn't count, because there are quite a few other religions who have their own special 'books', detailing their own gods special place in the universe.
If you continue along your path of reasoning, you would realize that there is no valid reason why it could not have been even multiple 'first causes'. I mean, why not? It could have been the whole Greek pantheon for that matter all working together, all there as 'first causes'. It just happens that while you dismiss other 'first causes', we dismiss just one more, namely "yours".
™ Version 4.2
