Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Chas]

Evidence.

---

---

Circular reasoning, proof by assertion. Ignored.
Present evidence, not stupidity.

impossible to reason with your mind and conclude human life hasn't a nonphysical component. that truly is the epitome of circular reasoning.

It is impossible to reason that it does without any fucking evidence for it.

[snowtracks]

---

self-explanatory - there exist an internal component about the knowledge of God that each person possess. Scripturally, God says that knowledge is written on each person's heart (spirit).
former atheists have said that this imprint of God kept coming up within them and had to remind themselves that there was not God.

Bull. Shit

.

---

More importantly, you're begging the question anyway, since you haven't even attempted to establish that an infinite regress or uncaused, unconscious universe is impossible. Argument from ignorance.

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe had a cause
many have tried to impugn it, but it stands like the rock of gibraltar; now genuflect before it and be thankful.
the best explanation of the cause is God. why? the data.

[Esquilax]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

You don't know this is true, and you don't know the universe had a cause.

2.The universe began to exist.

Our current, local universe did. You don't know what came before it, or even if "before" is a valid concept in that state.

3.Therefore, the universe had a cause

Since premises one and two are merely arguments from ignorance, the conclusion does not stand.

many have tried to impugn it, but it stands like the rock of gibraltar; now genuflect before it and be thankful.

We don't need to impugn it: all three statements are merely baseless assertions. We have no need to pretend the things you wish were true are, especially when you offer nothing beyond your own opinions.

the best explanation of the cause is God. why? the data.

The best explanation of the cause is Santa. Why? The data.

You see how easy it is to make baseless assertions, Snowy?

[pocaracas]

A table begins to exist, because someone converts wood into a finished product.
A cloud begins to exist because heat from the sun causes water in the ocean to evaporate and accumulate somewhere in the atmosphere.
A star begins to exist when a cloud of hydrogen, through the action of gravity, clumps together so tightly that the hydrogen atoms are forced to fuse creating helium atoms in the process and releasing a lot of energy in the form of light and radiation.
Etc.Etc.Etc...

Anything that we're commonly aware of has a precondition that results in that thing.

The counterintuitive science has discovered that some particles can, occasionally, be created out of quantum foam, a virtual field (or fields ) which have no real expression except when they cause such real fields (like particles).

The universe may have come into existence through such quantum foam... or some other process that we are not aware of yet.
Regardless of the potential mechanisms for it, we weren't there, so scientists will be hard pressed to convince ignorant indoctrinated imps... we can only hope that future generations will not be so ignorant and, as a result, will not be so indoctrinated.

Did the universe have a beginning? Perhaps...Some people may tell you that the big bang also created space- time, for both those dimensions become null at the singularity... others may tell you that the singularity was simply compressing pre-existing space-time into one point and then expanded that. Some may tell you that other similar singularities (like those found in black holes) can sprout other universes.
The truth, however, is that we can't say for sure if the universe had a beginning.

So, premise one and two are faulty...your conclusion, however logically accurate, is also faulty.
There's your Gibraltar stone...

[Tonus]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

I will note that this clause is worded the way it is ("begins to exist") specifically to attempt to avoid the question of infinite regression. That is the only reason that the first clause is not described as "everything that exists has a cause." Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart before you even get to the second statement. So you tack on a qualifier for no other reason than to try to cheat your way past a very thorny problem, wherein the most complex thing in the universe is the only thing that wasn't "designed."

It amazes me that you still use such a transparent and pathetic argument.

[truthBtold]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

I will note that this clause is worded the way it is ("begins to exist") specifically to attempt to avoid the question of infinite regression. That is the only reason that the first clause is not described as "everything that exists has a cause." Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart before you even get to the second statement. So you tack on a qualifier for no other reason than to try to cheat your way past a very thorny problem, wherein the most complex thing in the universe is the only thing that wasn't "designed."

It amazes me that you still use such a transparent and pathetic argument.

What gets me is that... this "god" gets inserted .. wtf!!

[Esquilax]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

I will note that this clause is worded the way it is ("begins to exist") specifically to attempt to avoid the question of infinite regression. That is the only reason that the first clause is not described as "everything that exists has a cause." Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart before you even get to the second statement. So you tack on a qualifier for no other reason than to try to cheat your way past a very thorny problem, wherein the most complex thing in the universe is the only thing that wasn't "designed."

It amazes me that you still use such a transparent and pathetic argument.

Earlier versions of the cosmological argument did just say "everything that exists has a cause." The Kalam variant was specifically formulated to dodge the infinite regression problem which, to me, is a clear as day signal as to just how mercenary and dishonest this argument is.

No extra information had been discovered, no new thoughts had been thought: the argument just changed, adding in another bare assertion, specifically because there was an objection to the initial version that was irrefutable. It's just moving the goalposts and hoping nobody will notice.

[Godlesspanther]

Everything that "begins to exist" (bad wording -- something exists, or it does not, if it is "beginning to exist" it exists, period) had a cause. Everything that exists has had a combination of causal agents that have worked together in order to have something as a result. All causes that have been observed have been naturally occurring without any input from a supernatural agent.

If we are to remain consistent and not make any exceptions for the cosmic cupcake, then we are to conclude that the universe came into being by a combination of naturally occurring causes.

[downbeatplumb]

This thread just goes round and round making the same arguments time and again.

Time to die.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Of course it does. If you're able to show a creationist they're wrong, their brain restarts, they begin the argument over again.

Because they can't possibly be wrong, you just must have not understood the first thirty times they recited a flawed argument to you.