Lawrence Krauss has given many excellent lectures on how the universe could have plausibly come from nothing. In his model he shows that time had no meaning before the universe's beginning and therefore it posits no contradiction. Unlike the god hypothesis, which works backwards by postulating a more complex entity to account for a simpler one (the universe), Krauss' model shows how complexity can occur as a product of something very simple--vacuum fluctuations. He even debated WLC on this point and had to correct him multiple times for citing erroneous information. Ascribing a god used to be excusable, but not anymore.
To be honest, I sincerely wish I were wrong, but I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).
What a crock... How can you be so intellectually disinginuous.
I can't choose what to believe (technically speaking, I hold no beliefs).
Then you are compelled by something/someone outside of yourself to believe something? It sounds to me like you doubt your own free will.
Of course time had no meaning prior to the existence of the universe. Time exists only from a reference. Time is not eternal. What caused vacum to fluctuate? If there is a reaction, there must have been an action. You would be hard pressed to explain how what came from nothing (your vacum) became something. No explaination can escape the chicken before the egg problem. The premis you propose is not novel and has been hashed around for some time. Then of course you would deny the Ontological problem of design. There is too much complex design for EVERYTHING to be just accidental.
Just because (if you're assuming for the sake of argument) god created everything, it doesn't mean that he has to be an absolute authority.
Obviously, because you have narrowed the definition of a god to something super human and not an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity. The bias you have chosen to accept (there is not god) is the starting point of your argument. Your hypothesis might begin from a different point but it only exists in argument of your bias. My bias is my belief in God. I can admit that.
My whole point is the fact that there are absolutes is strong evidence of a standard for those absolutes. If anything is relevant it is only relevant because of our perceptions. Standards don't exist by accident. They are created. They exist outside of our perceptions. The creation of absolute standards demands for the creator to also be absolute. You might be able to identify absolute standards but you nor I can create them. They are already in existence. How they got here can by no means be explained by a vacume of standards. There is a logical break in that premis.
Good luck trying to disprove God. I'm sure He's not ammused. Perhaps we can argue how many angels can stand on the end of pin while your at it.
I'll summarize a few problems I found in your response:
1.) My inability to choose what to believe shows that I, by nature, can only follow logic. This has nothing to do with free will. Moreover, your suggesting that it does shows that your thought processes lack continuity (That's not a personal attack; it's just what I've observed.).
2.) Discounting the god hypothesis doesn't mean that you have to impute chance. Quite the opposite, in fact. Without god you rely on change over time through natural forces and selective pressures. Your use of the word accidental shows that you do not understand simple biological concepts (i.e., evolution).
3.) You implied that the problem of infinite regression that god poses is just as consequential as the "problem" of the origin of vacuum fluctuations. This is not true from the simple premise of differences in complexity, which I mentioned in my first post. Again, your response suggests that you've missed key points in my argument.
4.) You're accusing me of first identifying an outcome that I'd like to reach (atheism), and then trying to find some form of logical countenance. This implies that I
want there to be no god, which explicitly contradicts what I said earlier.
5.) "Good luck trying to disprove God." I've already said that I can't do this.
In summary, you seem to be a very emotionally motivated person (most are), so you're really just appealing to an emotion that I do not have. That being said, I feel compelled to tell you, again, that nothing I said should be construed as a personal attack. I've provided reasons for all of my conclusions. I'm sure that even Shadowhawk, despite his conflict of interest, would have to agree with most of them (There's one point in particular that I know we disagree on.).