An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

Stop. Your first conclusion is invalid. Thermodymanics applies within our Universe, not necessarily outside of it.

I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion. My reasoning (based on the premises that you have posted, here) goes something like this:

1. The physical laws that we are able to describe do not allow the existence of the Universe.
2. The Universe exists.

Therefore, our understanding of the physical laws is incomplete.

I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion. My reasoning (based on the premises that you have posted, here) goes something like this:

1. The physical laws that we are able to describe do not allow the existence of the Universe.
2. The Universe exists.

Therefore, our understanding of the physical laws is incomplete.

Quote:

Stop. Your first conclusion is invalid. Thermodymanics applies within our Universe, not necessarily outside of it.

...And my conclusion was that there must be something outside our own universe. What's your point?

My two nitpicks would be this: It is logically possible that the universe is neither infinite yet wasn't created. Existence could just be without a creator in the same way that a God would just be without a creator -- In essence, existence itself would be the "greatest cause" you're looking for. The metaphysical conception beyond that just mucks things up.

My second nit-pick is in your conception causality -- every effect is thought to have a cause, but that doesn't mean that every cause has its own effect, or that every effect must be greater than or equal to its previous cause. I don't question the existence of causality, but I do question the conception of the Cosmos as deterministic machine. I also think it's hard to determine what "greater than or equal to" means when dealing with something as qualitative as causality. In a sense, the notion of cause is the notion of be-cause, in that it explains why something is -- so cause is the statement which satisfies curiosity, rather than an over-arching efficient cause that creates a machine universe. While I think such a cosmos possible I don't think there's a good basis for this inference either deductively or inductively.

Those are my 2 pennies, anyways.

No, I don't find all that interesting. Give us a break.

No, you're point is that my first point would lead to my conclusion, which it does.

My conclusion is that there is something outside of our universe, because thermodynamics applies within our universe, but not necessarily outside of it. So naturally there's something out side of it. So you're actually saying that my conclusion is supported, not that my first point is unsupported.

First: ... we must acknowledge that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, without acknowledging that there must be something else out there.

I agree that the Universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time. But you cannot conclude that there "must be something else out there" by any means, and certainly not by invoking thermodynamic principles which only apply within our Universal framework.

But anyway, matter does not do anything at all. It is completely inert, passive. The word itself is derived from the same root as 'mother', as in 'mother earth'.