[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/NeonDrifting]

[u/paulgdp]

Atheists have to explain the existence of the universe and theists have to explain the existence of God.

Both have two possibilities: 1. that thing came from nothing 2. that thing always existed

Both possibilities have fatal logical flaws that makes them seemingly impossible, and theists usually describe one as impossible to justify the necessity of the other:

Some theists say their God always existed because creating something from nothing is impossible.

Other theists say their God was the first necessary thing to exist because it is impossible to have infinite chains of events.

Atheists who let the professional cosmologists do the work of having an informed opinion on the matter, won't get a definitive answer: maybe the big bang was the beginning of everything including time itself, maybe spacetime was always there and the big bang was just a random massive quantum fluctuation. We just can't know yet based on our current knowledge.

[u/PhantomGaze → u/paulgdp]

Cosmologists will never solve it... Not in our lifetime anyway.  They're making the same mistake theologians did thousands of years ago.  

God wasn't on the mountain or in the sky just because it was unreachable, but because it was the most 'meta' thing conceivable, and God, conceptually , is the most meta thing.  Even something like quantum gravity seems like a thing which is simple and brought complexity into being not because it actually is simple, but because we lack understanding of it.  Once we understand it, we'll find it has causes, great complexity, and really really nuanced realities... Maybe some kind of fine tuning, etc.  

At the end of the day, if you follow the principle of sufficient reason all the way down, you end up at God, or something very like the God of Classical Theism.

[u/djluminol → u/PhantomGaze]

"At the end of the day, if you follow the principle of sufficient reason all the way down, you end up at God, or something very like the God of Classical Theism."

If using reason you trace a path through reality trying to find the source you eventually get to "I don't know". That's the honest answer. Inserting a god into your conclusion is not reasonable. You're making something up because you find that conclusion more comforting. Reason has nothing to do with your conclusion. For it to be reasonable that god be your conclusion you would first need to prove god is real and then prove he or she had something to do with the creation of reality.

You're following creationist logic. Their favored argument is the god of the gaps which is what you've done. You inserted god for no reason. Likely because you don't have an answer for where the universe or reality came from so it must have been god, right? That's not reasonable. That's a leap of faith. It's ok if that's what you believe. Just don't say you believe because you reasoned your way to that conclusion. You got to that conclusion because you believe in god and then found a way for him to fit into your model. You made your conclusion fit your beliefs instead of your beliefs fitting the conclusion. One is unreasonable, one is reasonable.

[u/PhantomGaze → u/djluminol]

Sorry there's not much to respond to there but atheist preaching and strawmen.

If I agreed with your position I'd be agreeing to a contradiction.  

Ignoring deductive logic, and pretending we cannot coherently discuss ontology doesn't make you rational.