No proof of god.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's obvious that you haven't a clue what you meant, but let's see ...

So, as we see, you argue:

IF

we accept the premise that everything [natural] has a beginning
​

THEN

God [a presumably preternatural agency] would need a beginning as well
​

So, either,

• you do not understand or intentionally distort the argument's premise, i.e., that the natural order had a beginning and that causation is an attribute of nature, or
• you've argued a truly stupid non sequitur, i.e., that what applies to the natural must necessarily apply to the preternatural.

Or...

c. we recognize the special pleading and illogic involved in assuming that the universe as a whole has no preternatural aspect to it apart from God.

In denying the possibility that the universe can exist uncaused, the first cause arugment assumes that the universe itself is of the same sort of stuff as the things within it.

That there kind of scares me that you can say that....if I could give it to yuo like this....OK say your right and theres no judgement and we just die oh well were just dead and nothing after that...right...But what if I'm right....you go to hell and burn for eternity it just doesnt seem to fit on your end....A half life I'd say that my life is better now that Im saved then when I was in the world and i've only been saved 5 years so i know both sides....what your saying to me is you'd rather risk going to hell then just submitting to God... Look at it like this really what do you have to loose ya know....nothing.... but you gain eternal life...the last thing I wanna see is someone go to hell because they would rather "risk" it...... wouldn't you rather have the "fire insurence".........

God's Love

If you want me to give you a point-by-point breakdown of why Pascal's Wager is a bad argument, I can... but I have a feeling that a good proportion of theists would take issue with your reduction of God's love to mere "fire insurance".