Clearly you are desperate to shift the burden of proof because you have no evidence.
Perhaps you do not understand what an evidence is. Pity!
That's rich from someone who thinks evidence = bald assertions. Your only evidence to date is the universe. The universe exists there for god-did-it (or whatever?). Talk about pot kettle black.
I don't need contrary evidence until you back up your claims with evidence first and the universe does not back up your claims.
So, how was the universe caused to exist if it could not have caused itself to? You cannot escape from this one because the universe exists and since it could not cause itself to exist, some thing did it and, only something of the "size" of the Primal Cause could have done it. That's an evidence, mother of all evidences, and you won't have a second one until you come down from your high horses and deliver to me your guns.
So where exactly did your Primal Cause come from? You seem to be suggesting that "once" there was this "nothing" and then up popped your Primal Cause, that always existed even though there is no always in "nothing", and poofed the universe by supernatural magic. I have to assume the latter since you don't go into detail about how this Primal Cause might have done it, or what power source it used or where its creation factory is. Just because the universe had a beginning doesn't mean existence also began at the same time. You have been pointed to various hypothesis regarding the formation of the universe that do not suggest the almighty theory of poofism. It is not my purview to produce an alternative, just to show the faults in yours. And boy is yours lacking.
I don't know what caused the universe to exist and neither do you. Wishful thinking is not evidence.
I do, the problem is that you have a neck stiffer than the Rock of Gibraltar. I wonder why so much fear to give in or to find a possibility for me among all your stupid guesses.
Lol! You need to watch that video about the Dunning Krugar effect. You might just learn something, though I doubt it, sadly.
I saw this coming. They usually do. It means desertion from the battle field.
What are you talking about. You attributed to me a phrase I've never used, rightly or wrongly. That's called beating a straw man.
I don't know what caused the Big Bang event and neither do you. The state of pre Big Bang existence is not known by anyone, least of all you.
Don't mind if I don't. I don't care to. It is to me just another of your guesses or hypotheses whatever you like it.
Then you should forward your paper for peer review. A Nobel prize awaits
What you proposes isn't even original. It's a variation of the Kalam God-of-the-gaps argument. You don't know what caused the universe so you rename your god Primal Cause and claim that he did it. Evidence required, Got any?
You yourself is a live evidence for the Primal Cause which I KNOW caused the universe to exist. Evidence? The universe itself. The evidence is before your own eyes but you are too afraid to open them.
And your Primal Cause came from, where again? Oh that's right, it always existed but existence itself couldn't have always existed because that would invalidate the need for a Primal Cause. And we can't have that because you "KNOW"? See Dunning Krugar effect.
Well if your claimed Primal Cause isn't a god then what is it? A smart alien with magic powers?
It is the Entity that caused the universe to exist.
Yet you haven't explained what this entity is/was if not a God. Or are you not aware that the argument you employ here is a variation of the classic Cosmological argument for God. I think you are just fooling yourself.
this mess is what I was referring to. I would have thought that was obvious.
I was not the one who woke up the "mad dog" but you. Now, you have got to have stronger legs than my words to flee. If you can't deliver, the only way out is to ignore.
I'm sorry if you still don't get it. I cannot explain what was meant by "formatting" any clearer.
Desperate as you are to shift the burden of proof, it's not going to happen. No one is denying the presence of the universe. You are the on claim to know its origin so it's your place to back it up with evidence. Clearly you have none or you wouldn't keep trying to shift your burden of proof.
And your place to acknowledge the mother of all evidences I have provided but things have turned bad because of your fear.
And once again the universe is not, in anyway, evidence for your Primal entity thingy, whatever that is if not a god. The universe is evidence for a universe. Evidence for what "caused" would require knowledge regarding pre Big Bang existence of which there is none at this time and all your braying is not going to change that.
Oh it's common sense you are using, is it? Would that be the same common sense that showed us the Sun going around the Earth?
You can take that to the religious people. I am not one of them.
I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously. That comment was referring to your use of the term "common sense". Science does not rely on common sense or intuition. Often in science the evidence is counter intuitive.
The only thing I have learned of you in this dialogue is the strong paranoia atheists have about god or gods. You act worse than Christian missionaries. The more I try to escape them the more their "gods" chase me. You might want to change that tactic next time. Not too good for atheistic credibility.
And there is is finally. When you see how poor your argument is you resort to attacking the person instead.
Ad hominem fallacy
From the link
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Well I see no point in continuing with this. I've already had to repeat myself several times. Have last word if you must. If you think you "KNOW" what is clearly unknown then good for you.
