Hate Mail - First Cause Faux Pas

The drool of dunces at Duncan's who made the remarks about me in regard to "first cause" proofs of the existence of God, of course, never read anything I said because the only time I posted anything about those, I said "proofs" of God's existence were not very interesting to me.  I said it the only time I posted something from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about one such proof , that of Dun Scotus, which I didn't endorse or even claim I found persuasive as a "proof".  

The atheist snark "what caused the first cause" only proves they don't understand that the Hebrew tradition, of which Christianity is a apart and apart from which you can't really be a Christian holds that God is eternal and created time and the universe in the act of creation, including the network of causation.  God didn't have a cause and the "turtles all the way down" argument into an infinite regression isn't a Jewish or a Christian claim, God has no cause.  God is uncaused, the agent of creation would have to be.  As I pointed out last week, they don't understand the difference between what the Hebrew scriptures said about God and their movie, TV, pop-culture equivalent of Bulfinch's Mythology.   Theirs is more Bullshit Mythology. 

Because they're lazy and ignorant - lolling their days and nights away rehashing ancient and aging pop music, movies, TV show and cat pictures, mixed in with occasional recitations of the kind of nonsense that has made liberalism anathema among normal people - due in no small part to the snob content of it, they aren't aware that atheist cosmologists, Larry Krauss, Sean Carroll, even the great Stephen Hawkins are the ones in a pickle because current science points to an absolute and finite beginning of the physical universe in the Big Bang and have had to go through all kinds of gyrations to try to avoid that fact because, when considered in terms of what cause the Big Bang, saying God willed the universe into being out of a physical nothing isn't an unreasonable speculation.   

One after another come the parade of the cosmologies proposed by atheists to avoid even the merest implications of a finite beginning of space-time, of causation at the Big Bang, fluctuating universes that go in and out of existence (why that doesn't imply the dream of Brahma model, I don't know.  Maybe it does among Indian atheists) into an actually logically incoherent infinite regress of the kind Bertrand Russell made fun of (he did it during the time he held the universe, itself, was past eternal, before the Big Bang was accepted as sound science).  or jillions of universes in which every possible universe must be held to exist (which may - or may not- pop into existence continually with ever event in our - every? - without any evidence of their existence, whatsoever, and that's what is called science, now) so that atheists can get over the problem of why the Big Bang happened - and it doesn't because you have to explain where the multiverse came from and why the God of this universe couldn't have created all of the imaginary atheist universes.    Stephen Hawking's' claims that cosmology doesn't need to do any testing of their claims in his book, The Grand Design, was about the most decadent claim about science I've ever read.   He called for science to be reduced to accepting the standards of science-fiction writing except writing it in equations instead of bad pulp level writing, rejecting the need for theory to be tested and verified in actual physical evidence.  Why not dispense with the math as well?   

I don't need a "proof" of God because I believe in God, I don't hold God to be an hypothesis susceptible to proof in the way that physical phenomena of sufficient simplicity and susceptible to sufficient observation, measurement and studied analysis might be.  All of that is the creation of God,  God isn't the God of everything that can't be explained, God is the God of everything, what can and what is yet to or never will be explained but which exists.  

So, no, Duncateers, I've never resorted to arguing "first causes" that's a product of your hopeful imagination because you think in your third hand knowledge of a rather dubious fable that Bertrand Russell told, you've got it covered.  What you've got is an inapt slogan that serves as a cliquish shibboleth of  ignorance and snobbery.  It's what you guys rely on because atheism is a symptom of lazy snobbery.   Tlaz is an idiot savant, apparently she can do some kind of needlework and input data into a spreadsheet.   Freki is just a malicious liar, the rest just comprise the drool of dunces at Duncan's Daycare for Dotty Duffers,