[QUOTE=Maximus122;58092441]You can't see the wind. Where did it come from? Where is it going? But you can feel it. You know that it's there.

It's the same thing with the spirit. You can't see it, but you can feel it within a person. It's responsible for joy, anger, hate and love. Did the Big Bang create sorrow and happiness?

So where did the spirit come from? You know that it's there. And where is it ultimately going?[/QUOTE]

Really ?
That is great !

What it’s mass ?
Speed?
Composition?

How many there is ?

How do we know the “spirit” is there? Can you provide a coherent definition of “the spirit”? Can you measure it in an objective way? Wind, yeah, we can do both of these things. We can define wind as motion of air in the atmosphere due to local variations in barometric pressure. We have instruments that measure barometric pressure, so we know where the wind comes from (regions of higher pressure) and where it goes to (regions of lower pressure). We have instruments for measuring the speed and direction of wind. And most importantly, if two people both measure these things at the same time and location, both will agree on the result of the measurements - they are objective quantities. We know that wind exists because of these features, not because we can feel it. It is entirely possible, assuming low enough wind speeds that one person might be able to feel the wind while another cannot. Being able to feel something is not an objective quality - two observers might conceivably disagree on whether we can feel something. Being able to feel something therefore is insufficient to demonstrate its existence. For wind we have the above objective measurements to show it exists. Can you provide similar for “the spirit”, because we certainly disagree on whether we can feel it - I personally feel nothing of the sort.

Common: theist claiming atheists believe things can appear ex nihilo
Uncommon: atheist believing this

Looks pretty strawman-like to me

Go Greek and go Zero .

If "causality can't be extrapolated to its totality," as you say, then it means that, like the black swan analogy, it is possible that there will be some thing that does not have a cause.

Can you take a wild guess what this causeless thing could be, or at least what some people believe it could be?

Well, there’s a lot of things it could be. It could be a magical pink unicorn. It could be a deity. It could be some type of physical quantized field. It could just be a property of the universe as a whole (ie the existence of the universe is without cause).

I’m well aware of what some people believe, but the beliefs of some people or even a vast number of people don’t equate to truth. Since we have evidence for the existence of various quantum fields and the universe itself, I would lean toward those rather than the other two possibilities in my list above (which certainly was not meant to be exhaustive).

Even if the deity explanation were correct, there seems to be a fairly wide gap between “A deity is the uncaused entity that has always existed and serves as a cause for the universe” and “An omnipotent, omniscient, loving deity who cares about humans and intervenes in the workings of the universe to assist them exists and is the cause of the universe. A deity as the first cause at best implies only deism, not theism.

Yes, the gap between deism and theism is quite large. It takes a lot of work to conclude theism from deism, and I'm not sure if you truly can.

I suppose this is simply why they call it "having faith."