Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

[Peh]

WolfpackN64 said:

Peh said:

But it doesn't, at least not by logic. 

What is the logical justification to jump from first cause to god. 

There are different depictions of the cosmological argument, which the simplest is this one: 

1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.  

How do you jump from 3 to 4? 

Even if this is just how the argument is being presented, I still don't get how they came to this conclusion. The only thing is being bias towards god's existence and being ignorant of any other options during it's creation. I know this argument has been already debunked and the criticism it gets is in my eyes also justified. But still.. how do you make such a jump?

I see it the same as that one from South Park: 

Stealing socks
???
Profit

And everyone is ok with it. 

  

1. The argument isn't debunked. It receives criticism, but it is quite sturdy.

2. Your presentation of the Cosmological arguments is too simplistic.

A good short explanation would be (and note this is only one abridged form of the cosmological argument, there are many others):

1) Everything is caused and everything that causes is caused itself (these are contingent beings and events, who can cause and are caused).

2) These events of cause and effect happen in a chain (one is caused and causes further).

3) We can follow this chain backwards in time, since in the future, it goes on for eternity.

4) To start the chain, in the beginning, there must be a necessary being. One that causes but is naut caused itself.

5) This necessary being is necessary since if the chain could not begin with a contingent being or event (since it cannot cause itself)

6) This necessary being is God.

I can see people being critical of the jump between 5 and 6, but as you can see the argument is quite a bit more refined then what originally stated. The problem is many lay people have a wrong conception of the cosmological argument and attack it with the wrong arguments. The argument is still well debated up to this day.
 

That's why I said "There are different depictions of the cosmological argument, which the simplest is this one:"

1-3 is simply causality. 

4 is where it makes an illogical jump. Here it goes for a necessary being that is explained in 5. And that's what I have a problem with and see the start of a logical fallacy ending with 6. It presumes a being, because it can't present something else. And that's the part where I call it an argument from ignorance.

The argument is probably well debated, so is the Watchmaker argument, but I don't see much use in it, nor does it proves anything. It argues, IF there is a being determined as a first cause, than that being can be deistic as well as theistic, nor necessarily known to humans, at all. Also, if the necessary being can be uncaused, so can our universe be. 

It's not helpful. That's my take on it.