Comments by epeeist

1701. Fleabytes

Comment #134822 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #134820 by Quetzalcoatl

I'll see it...let's play...what are we playing again?

I honestly have no idea.

In that case - Tottenham Court Road.

I think irate_atheist has the next turn.

1702. Fleabytes

Comment #134811 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 8:25 am

Comment #134793 by steveroot

I'm sorry. That is just fucked up.

I thought that was the point of the operation ;-)

1703. Fleabytes

Comment #134772 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 7:41 am

Could I possibly claim beaver?

Alternatively I would go for elephant's foot umbrella stand.

1704. Fleabytes

Comment #134758 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 7:18 am

Comment #134730 by Steve Zara

The "materialist" argument is a distraction.

And certainly not universally true.

At least part of my movement away from religion came from the schoolyard. Sniggeringly discussing Eve's anatomy and whether she had a belly button or not, and whether the sight of her naked would give Adam a permanent hard-on. Trying to reconcile the story of the flood with Noah being the hero and 99 point however many nines people being given the role of spear carrier. Reading mythology of various cultures and thinking "hang on, this doesn't fit with the religious instruction I am getting" and then wondering whether that was mythology too (and being caned for the thought). Eating pineapples and trying to find a reference to them in the bible, especially in Genesis. Going to an astronomy club and looking through a small reflector (not often possible in the skies of those days) and realising that none of the moons of Jupiter are mentioned in the bible. Getting very strange and evasive answers in geography lessons about the habits and beliefs of people in other, non-Christian (and even non-Catholic) countries. And as I have mentioned before, seeing my grandfather die after an amputation and septicaemia setting in and killing him despite the copious amounts of prayer being performed both before and after his death, comparing that with all the other suffering that seemed to be going on in the world despite Jesus caring for us.

A whole mixed bag of stuff in other words, very little having to a conscious material philosophy.

1705. Fleabytes

Comment #134735 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #134698 by clearthinker

Your atheism is not just simply an absence of belief in God. It is a an absence of belief in God based upon a materialist/naturalist philosophy.

That's it? All of it? I suppose it might be true of some western atheists, though not of the New Age people. Similarly it isn't true of Buddhists.

Speaking personally I am an atheist because I can't find anything in theism that I would class as true, i.e. having any correspondence with the facts.

Now I was brought up a Catholic. I believed:

That the universe was created by an omniscient, omnipotent being
That this being continues to interfere in the natural world
That this being is actually Jesus/Yahweh/Holy Ghost and not Zeus, Vishnu or the Great Spirit
That babies were born into sin
That god was omni-benevolent as well as omniscient and omnipotent
That there are various places I might go when I die, the majority of which were unpleasant (to say the least)
That miracles happen
That the host and wine became the body and blood of Christ during the mass

And a whole lot more stuff.

My gradual move from being a Catholic to being an atheist was little to do with a materialist/naturalist philosophy, this came later. It was to do with the fact that I became to find most of the things in my list to be ludicrous, repellant or simply counter-factual.

1706. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134687 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 5:38 am

Comment #134684 by clodhopper

Clearly, driving on the left is more rational and sensible and driving on the right is irrational.

It is completely sensible. One stands on the horseblock and swings the right leg over the horse. Once on the horse then one rides away.

1707. Fleabytes

Comment #134674 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 5:01 am

Comment #134668 by Steve Zara

I realise I am talking about religion here, but isn't this a little weird? I mean, it suggests that there was either some kind of "anti-original sin condom" in use when Mary was conceived, or that God works actively to contaminate each innocent baby with original sin. Which seems a bit off to me.

I wonder if Mary went to an iron age equivalent of these people - http://www.affordableplasticcosmeticsurgeryincolombia.com/Hymen-Restoration-Vaginal-Virgin.php

1708. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #134650 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #134647 by hungarianelephant

Spot the wooter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGR0BriodkM

George Carlin quotation - "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

1709. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134646 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 4:16 am

Comment #134614 by YssiBoo

But if accessibility of booze is the only problem you can find with a country I would say it doesn't have any problems worth mentioning.

Things to enjoy sailing between Sweden and Finland

Crayfish season. Eating a tray full of crayfish accompanied by vodka. The only downside being the amount of swell that seemed to occur during the process
Sailing into the harbour on a small island, booking the public sauna, chopping the wood for the stove. Taking the sauna punctuated by running out and diving into the sea without the necessity of dressing first
Lumparland on Aland (Oompah Lumpar..)
Stockholm, one of the most beautiful cities I have ever been in
The vast number of islands in the archipelago

The only downsides - navigating the vast number of islands and the ferries that travel between Sweden and Finland - frighteningly huge if you are in a 10m yacht.

1710. Fleabytes

Comment #134622 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #134606 by hungarianelephant

Eve eats a fruit and that affects all the seed of her womb forever. We hear a bit about second and third generations, and then nothing until Psalm 51, "In sin was I conceived". So apparently it's now about sex, not fruit.

Of course, God is perfectly capable of creating people without recourse to sex. Jesus was conceived without sex. So was Mary. So were Jesus' brothers and sisters. Adam was made from dirt, and Eve from his rib. You'd think, then, that he'd be able to come up with a regular means of reproduction that was not inherently offensive to him. I mean, he's the ultimate creator, isn't he?

From my elder daughter (archaeology and anthropology at Cambridge) and my own reading - you have to wonder whether this was due to a change from a matriarchal to a patriarchal society. Russell Blackford posted this - http://www.savagebreastbook.com/index.php in another thread. I know Robert Graves and James Frazer are a bit out of date these days but there are intimations there.

Historical, not biblical, scholarship needed here. A bit beyond (ok, well beyond) my knowledge.

1711. Fleabytes

Comment #134615 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 3:40 am

Comment #134612 by NMcC

Though I think the most important question in regard to whether a God who, by definition, is everywhere, can be 'abscent' is: is Jesus still sitting on His right hand?

If he is you would have thought he would have had pins and needles by now.

1712. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134608 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 3:29 am

Comment #134577 by Gustaf Sjoblom
I don't think a tighter binding within the EU is very likely, at least no in the foreseeable future. We are a bit to different on many accounts.Politically possibly, not too different people-wise.

(If you are a republican or libertarian stay waaaay clear of Scandinavia)

The only problem I found with Sweden is (a quote from the guy I sailed around the Swedish Archipelago and across to Finland with) that if they could find a street that was one-way in both directions, then that is where they would put the state liquor stores.

1713. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134599 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 3:15 am

Comment #134586 by wooter

This is nonrandom natural selection in combination with random mutation.

Nonrandom natural selection means:?

Knowing that you won't go and read anything that isn't actually on this site I have cut and pasted the following from "Biology Online"

One of the prime motives for all species is to reproduce and survive, passing on the genetic information of the species from generation to generation. When species do this they tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support.
The lack of resources to nourish these individuals places pressure on the size of the species population, and the lack of resources means increased competition and as a consequence, some organisms will not survive.
The organisms who die as a consequence of this competition were not totally random, Darwin found that those organisms more suited to their environment were more likely to survive.
This resulted in the well known phrase survival of the fittest, where the organisms most suited to their environment had more chance of survival if the species falls upon hard times. (This phrase if often associated with Darwin, though on closer inspection Herbert Spencer puts the phrase in a more accurate historical context.)
Those organisms who are better suited to their environment exhibit desirable characteristics, which is a consequence of their genome being more suitable to begin with.

1714. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134594 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 3:09 am

Comment #134582 by wooter

To Zara;
Brushing up on biology

ROFLMAO

Wooter - the next instalment:

To MPhil - An extract from Faux News on the primacy of induction in the methodology of science

To Cartomancer - Information from the Fred Phelps site on the basis of Christian ethics being derived from Thomas Aquinas

To Al Rawandi - A posting from Geert Wilders on the sublimity of Islam

To Epeeist - Lessons in logic from the "Fundies say the darndest things" website

1715. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134565 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 2:06 am

Comment #134559 by Steve Zara

For some reason I just feel European, and have a particular fondness for France, perhaps because I was taken there often as a child. I feel "at home" there, and in other European countries I have visited.

Sorry to bring it back to fencing.

I have travelled reasonably extensively because of the sport and had to interact with people of many different nationalities (somewhat more than the average tourist I suspect). This has been a joy (you may have no friends on the piste, but you can have an awful lot once you take your mask off).

While one may loathe governments and the egotism of politicians I have rarely come across people with whom it has not been possible to have a friendly relationship.

So yes, tighter binding in the EU but better to get rid of this little England xenophobia in the UK.

1716. Fleabytes

Comment #134561 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 1:56 am

Comment #134547 by Steve Zara

I have to say that if someone discovered some lost work by Aquinas that included a phrase like: "You know that stuff I wrote about triangles? It doesn't work close to black holes", then even I would start to wonder....

Well since MPhil and Cartomancer seem to have their heads stuck in a sub-woofer:

Cum principia quarundam scientiarum, ut logicae, geometriae et arithmeticae, sumantur ex solis principiis formalibus rerum, ex quibus essentia rei dependet, sequitur quod contraria horum principiorum Deus facere non possit: sicut quod genus non sit praedicabile de specie; vel quod lineae ductae a centro ad circumferentiam non sint aequales; aut quod triangulus rectilineus non habeat tres angulos aequales duobus rectis

Which translates to

"Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the centre to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles."

In the Summa Contra Gentiles.

So, just as I have always thought - Bernard Riemann has no equal.

1717. Fleabytes

Comment #134555 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 1:46 am

Comment #134553 by hungarianelephant

Morning all. Another 400 posts. Did nice Mr Robertson answer epeeist's question yet, or shall I come back later?

Do you have to ask?

1718. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134534 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 12:40 am

Comment #134478 by Shmeezers

OK. So. Evolutionary theory provides a few explanations as why such complexity suddenly appears: an increase in the level of oxygen, fluctuations of carbon isotopes, small increases in genertic complexity. OK. All very interesting, but speculative.

Here are some details from a recent meeting of the AAAS - http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-the-art-evolution.ars

Good digestible format.

1719. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134527 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 12:05 am

Comment #134522 by irate_atheist

As opposed to "savage breast people", one presumes...

I suspect a lot of Italian blokes are feeling a bit savage at the moment - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_hattenstone/2008/02/nether_let_it_be_said.html

1720. Fleabytes

Comment #134518 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Comment #134330 by ianmkz

Thomas Aquinas felt "The blessed in the kingdom of heaven will see the punishments of the damned, in order that their bliss be more delightful for them.

While MPhil and Cartomancer are about - didn't Aquinas also believe it would be impossible for god to make a triangle whose internal angles didn't add up to 180^o?

This would presumably make Gauss, Riemann, Lobachevsky and Bolyai greater than god.

1721. Evolving Mistakes

Comment #134260 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Just fixing your underline problem

1722. My Argument With God

Comment #134192 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 11:32 am

Comment #134165 by Blue_Manue

Does anybody know more about these statistics? How trustworthy are these polls?

They are from a Federal Bureau of Prison survey. More details on http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

You have to be somewhat careful - just because someone registers an affiliation does not mean they are necessarily practicing. There are also arguments by theists on this front. Having said that of course, you can apply the same argument to any other type of survey or census. You can't have it both ways.

1723. Fleabytes

Comment #134175 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 11:04 am

Comment #134159 by Brian English

Do they actually believe that the host is the transubstantiated body of Christ though?

It's required that to be a catholic, you believe this dogma.

But if you are a member of the Free Church...

1724. Fleabytes

Comment #134141 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 10:13 am

Comment #134129 by PMurdock

Just throwing this out, because, as was mentioned earlier, I'm new to this site. Why not have a debate in which Prof. Dawkins dresses down McGrath or Robertson and has it done?

Cui bono?

1725. Fleabytes

Comment #134096 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 8:36 am

Comment #134090 by NMcC

Blimey, is that not a wee tadge paranoid? I think that tendency has to be guarded against.

Did you participate in the "Irrational Atheist" thread? When Vox Day was urging his minions to come over and tell us what a wonderful book it was and how none of us would be able to defend against its irrefutable logic?

OK, I may have it wrong but it smells very much the same.

1726. Fleabytes

Comment #134086 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 8:22 am

Comment #134084 by PMurdock

You should just debate this guy ultra-publicly and put him in his place.

Welcome PMurdock - I see you just joined today. Did you join to make that particular comment? All by yourself, or did someone ask you to do it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

1727. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134079 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 7:59 am

Comment #134046 by Dr Benway

So the breast wranglers say, anyway.

Well if anyone should know it is somebody from the University of Cambridge.

I didn't realise this particular topic was part of the tripos though.

1728. Fleabytes

Comment #134064 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #134050 by Tyler Durden

That's the only post from "mlearnedfriend" on this site. Coincidence? I think not! How stupid does he think we are?

Clearthinker registered on Nov. 8th last year, last visit to the forums on Feb 21st at 9:42

mlearnedfriend, registered on the 21st February at 17:15. One post on the forum on the 26th and a couple of posts here.

I think we ought to take another possibility into account - namely we are being "vox day'd". Not sure whether we can expect a FCoS blowjob though.

1729. Fleabytes

Comment #134061 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 7:24 am

Comment #134052 by Quetzalcoatl

I don't know. My aunt's Moravian church has Communion, and so does the Pentecostal church I used to got to. Not sure if that's the same thing as the Catholics or not.

Do they actually believe that the host is the transubstantiated body of Christ though?

1730. Fleabytes

Comment #134048 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #134045 by Quetzalcoatl

Of course, we could just go to mass and steal one of the communion wafers from a priest's hand. They're the Body Of Christ, after all.

Isn't that a bit, you know, Catholic? That isn't really Christianity is it...

1731. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134034 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 6:47 am

Comment #134011 by wooter

I am not even going to quote any of the dross you have posted. I will just refer you to my post above.

There is a difference between ignorant, stupid and delusional. Ignorance means you are unaware of certain information. Stupid is when you are incapable of assimilating information. Delusional is when you are aware of information but refuse to acknowledge it.

You have been given lots of information here, your points have been answered (politely in the majority of cases). Yet you come back and post exactly the same material (almost word for word in many cases) as though you had never read the answers, or have read the answers and chosen to ignore them.

Now when you first came to this site people struggled to help because English was obviously not your first language. We even asked you what your first language was so that we might be able to find or post information in that language. You refused to tell us what that language was, just as you have refused to answer any other questions that have been put to you.

So here is a final question to you. I hope you are able to answer it.

Why should we respond to someone who acts in the way I have detailed above??

1732. Fleabytes

Comment #134012 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 6:26 am

Comment #133992 by Steve Zara

The entire universe. 90 billion light years wide (at least). Hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with typically hundreds of billions of stars. Close to 14 billion years old. Someone can believe that all of that, was for one man. In the Middle East. Two thousand or so years go. Why? Because it is written in a book. A book full of mistakes. A book that we supposedly have to keep re-interpreting to avoid the bits that have become wrong.

Pale Blue Dot Steve

In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."

1733. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133968 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 5:14 am

Comment #133966 by Peacebeuponme

Shmeezers

No proof. No proof in the lab

Err...have you read anything about DNA?

Read? Read? Are we now expecting people to have actually gone away and read something about a topic before commenting upon it?

Oh, we are. As you were then...

1734. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133967 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 5:11 am

Comment #133910 by The Reverend Dark

Cretin, as I recall, derives from Christian. I stand by my usage.

The etymology of the word is not agreed on, and there are several possible explanations; including yours.

Surely we can agree a compromise. The word obviously derives from the French writer Chretien de Troyes, thereby combining both possibilities.

1735. Fleabytes

Comment #133945 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:41 am

Comment #133925 by BillySands

I dont see what is good about the christian message on condoms in Africa, or threatening folk with hell - like has happened to someone I know in Robertson's Church.

Billy - Robertson has done the usual "not my god" bit on the Phelps, which is commendable.

Where would you put the FCoS in terms of its beliefs in comparison to say Pat Robertson, the Paisleys, Alistair McGrath and Bishop Spong?

1736. Fleabytes

Comment #133938 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:28 am

Comment #133935 by Paula Kirby

What I laugh at is the futility of it, the transparency of it, the ignorance of it.

I find his comments a bit like Lewis Carroll's description of the different branches of arithmetic - "Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision."

1737. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133927 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #133913 by Steve Zara

Steve - may I pick a small nit with you.

Is there any chance of you making a back reference to the OP when you make a quote. Otherwise it can be a little difficult to follow the context.

1738. Fleabytes

Comment #133918 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:03 am

Comment #133914 by Quetzalcoatl

Now, who would like to join me in a game of "Spot the Glaring Differences?"

I should have done what you did, namely cut and paste Lorien's actual post.

Got to agree with both Steve and RD. Robertson only comes here to provoke. Glad to see that fewer people are rising to the bait.

You will note that even though he has responded to one of my comments he has yet to define what our tenets and creeds are.

1739. Fleabytes

Comment #133897 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 2:26 am

Comment #133893 by clearthinker

Eppeist (1050) - I was responding to the claim that " all of the scienctific and philosophical pursuits of the greatest minds in history" were on the side of atheism." (Lorien 936). Something that is demonstrably false.

Well if he had actually said this then it would be false. I will leave it to other readers to go back and look at the comment and see what he actually said.

1740. Fleabytes

Comment #133881 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #133860 by clearthinker

Are you suggesting that Newton, Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, Galileo, Plato, Jesus, Paul, Aquinas, Milton, etc were all atheists?

No, but just because the majority of people in times past believed in something doesn't make it true. How many believers in Tir na nOg now exists, or phlostigon?

1741. Fleabytes

Comment #133874 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #133860 by clearthinker

But in the surreal world of atheist fundamentalism that is apparently not how it works.

In the real world of discourse one doesn't use the mechanisms of quarrel dialogue.

So, since we are atheist fundamentalists on this site - what are our dogmas, tenets and creeds. You have still to answer this.

1742. Fleabytes

Comment #133681 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Comment #133579 by Paula Kirby

Wasn't the Second Coming due by now? Are you thinking what I'm thinking ...?

I thought that was 2012, the end of the Mayan calendar?

1743. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133679 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #133648 by Goldy

My martial arts instructor is a fairly short guy, probably only a few inches above Anna's height. He could without question beat the crap out of the biggest and heaviest guy in our class

Ok, two more things then I'm off to bed.

There was one guy I used to hate when I was fencing competitively, he was 7' 2" tall. Which meant that everything was target, since he could see above your guard. The only way to beat him was to flèche at his knees (a move I have been teaching a lot tonight, which is why I am going to bed early).

The second is the motto of the European veterans association "Age and treachery will always defeat youth and skill".

Oh, and sabreurs are faster than sprinters over a short distance.

1744. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133672 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Comment #133559 by The Reverend Dark

Whoever said size does not matter in a fight was a big guy. And he was lying.

There is a wonderful coach called Zbigniew Czajkowski. He divides fencers into two extreme classes, warriors and technicians. The warriors win by speed and strength but tend not to be particularly skilful. However, they don't last particularly well. The technicians tend to see through them fairly quickly and like McCavity they are never there when the warriors make an attack. Technicians go on for ever.

Czajkowski was in the UK last year. Came to the podium to start his talk using a Zimmerframe. He also has a heart pacemaker. He is 86. He gave a demonstration on the use of timing just standing still. Nobody could hit him and when he turned the action around nobody could stop his attacks.

1745. Fleabytes

Comment #133531 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #133520 by Frankus1122

I was at a conference yesterday talking about what is crucial for students to learn in school.
Information is ubiquitous and it is increasingly easy to access it.
Critical thinking skills are most important. Detecting bias, authenticating sources, looking for internal consistency - these are skills that need to be taught and fostered.
Students need to question the validity of the information they access.

Hmm, you might like these lines from another poem then:

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

1746. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133527 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #133521 by Epinephrine

Isn't that just Russell's paradox?

I like Hofstadter too. However most people only seem to have read "Godel, Escher, Bach". I enjoyed "Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language".

1747. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133491 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:37 am

It seems as though it isn't just the Pakistanis that are keen on shutting down technology - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080225-taliban-wants-cell-phone-networks-shut-down-at-night.html

1748. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133471 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:14 am

OK smartarses - but I want to know whether the set of all sets which do not contain themselves contains itself.

1749. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133462 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #133459 by al-rawandi

How did England even acquire those territories? It wasn't exactly a hop skip and a jump from the home Isle.

Make that Britain rather than England.

Probably the same way the Spaniards and Portuguese acquired most of South America.

The fight really wasn't about some rather small islands though.

1750. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133440 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 7:34 am

Comment #132783 by wooter

If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
1.Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2.The universe has a beginning.
3.Therefore the universe has a cause.

You really ought to try this one wooter:

The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
Therefore, God does not exist.

A master logician like yourself should be able to spot the flaws in it.

Please submit your answer in the format of first order predicate calculus.