If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.

Don't you understand that the Big Bang changes everything?In order to have a cause you have to have time for that cause to occur. There was no time before the Big Bang. There cannot be a cause for a cause before the Big Bang. If you want to call God something else, feel free. You can call the First Cause leprachaun if you want.No special pleading involved here.

What things exist that are not the results of effects? If your only answer is "God", that's what he's talking about - special pleading.

By the same logic, though, there cannot be a cause for the Big Bang, either. As that cause would have to preceed the effect (the Big Bang) but there's no time for that cause to occur.Ergo, the Big Bang is uncaused.

Are you telling me that nothing caused the Big Bang?Does that seem reasonable to you?

Sure. Why not? It's a matter of assumption, anyway, that the Big Bang has to be caused, in the first place. For all we know, it's impossible for the Big Bang not to have occured.

Define "reasonable."Is it reasonable that the Earth is a sphere rather than flat? Why? Is it reasonable that heavier objects fall at the same acceleration toward Earth as lighter objects? Why? Is it reasonable that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a subatomic particle at the same time? Why? Is it reasonable that chimps are closest to humans regarding genetics? Why?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

If it "occurred" then something caused it to occur.That is the First Cause.Whatever that is, that is God--by traditional definition.It can't be something physical because there was no physicality.It can't be something that is in time, because there was no time.Sounds like a good definition of God to me.

"flat" and "sphere" are not necessary logically (they might be, but I don't know enough to say).I am talking about what is logically necessary.

That's the point. The fact of the matter is we do not know what's what regarding the big bang and before that. You are trying to use logic (really bad logic at that) to talk about the big bang. I was trying to demonstrate that your method is the same as trying to determine these things (sphere nature of the Earth, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc.) using your logic.It doesn't work that way.

Where's the bad logic?I'm just saying that the Big Bang had a cause.Is that illogical?

It is illogical because you are using our very very limited guess-timate of the big bang and apply common sense (derived by day to day experience) to it.A: Everything/every effect we know of has a cause.
B: The big bang is thought to be an effect.C: Therefore, the big bang must have had a cause.Now, consider the following.A: No mammals that we know of lay eggs.
B: Animal "X" is a mammal.C: Therefore, animal "X" does not lay eggs.Of course, we know that premise A is false because we know that there are mammals that lay eggs (take the platypus for example). However, premise A would seem to be correct if you were living in Europe in the 1600's.Catch my drift?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Your analogy does not apply. You are talking about something that is not logically necessary. It is not logically necessary that mammals do not lay eggs.To show you how strict logic is, I can tell you that it is not logically necessary that I have a body. It may be an illusion.But it is logically necessary that 2 + 2 make 4. And that every effect have a cause.

This ain't even close to what you called "logically necessary." Quantum mechanics shows that there are things that happen without cause.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Quantam mechanics proves no such thing.You are confusing expected data with logic.

Ok... then tell me, from logic, why is it necessary that every effect must have a cause.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!