Why I Don't Believe in Atheism

[Lemonvariable72]

For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence,

Funny thing is that most scientists don't say that universe came from nothing. Its mostly christian that say that when they are building a straw man. I personally am happy too say I don't know because I'm quite happy that I was born in a time where we still have some puzzles left.

because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

Actually there is a entire field of physics that is devoted to studying things that randomly pop into existance from nothing. It's called quantum physics.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects,

This may be a little hard to get your head around but, all if the laws of science started at one planck time after the big bang including time as we know it. So the singularity it self was not subject too time as we would know, or it could have been in a timeless state. So given what we know yes the universe could have "always existed" with a infinite regress.

so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

One issue with this. We know from how god behaves in the bible that his action are sequential and often reactionary. We also know from both jesus and the angel in revelation that god waits. That means that he too is subject to time and you get the same issue you listed off above.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Then how do you avoid the infinite regress?

This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally. The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

Why would such a being be obliged to reveal himself at all? The universe is 13 billion light across with trillions of sunlike stars and more planets then there grains of sand on every beach on earth put together. I would not be surprised with such a being was not even aware of our existence and I would be wholly surprised if it gave a fuck where I stuck my peepee.

[FatAndFaithless]

Another shining example of theists having no fucking clue what atheism is.

[Ben Davis]

I just wanted to clarify my poll response. I answered 'No', not because I think atheism is 'true' but because atheism, by definition, has no capacity for being 'false': atheism is not a position, it is a word to describe the absence of a position. The poll is ill defined consequently my only response can be 'No'.

[Dystopia]

You make it seem like atheism is some kind of religion or belief system, you don't believe in atheism, you become an atheist due to facts, it's not a choice in my opinion, merely a rational necessity.

[archangle]

For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects, so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally. The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

like most lines of logic we can start at initial points to find the flaws. This happens to us all. It is just that many atheists they have the truth. In effect, we are just like you. Let's use my initial point to look at yours.
The universe started from something. Well, it either started from something or nothing. So something is a reasonable conclusion. Nothing freaks me out more than nothing anyway. Your second point about infinite regression fits your notion of "god" also. So that statement cancels out of the discussion. The points about "eternity" are word games. This is because we are here, thus anything you say about "not being here" is philosophical jiggerish. In all fairness, it would be rude to try and make us buy into it.
The "cause outside" of this universe brings us back to your initial point. Something or nothing. This point then begins to circle back on itself. I call it philosophical circle jerks. Atheist and theist do this. This stuff is ok for writing practice and idea organization practice. But after that we need to pick a point and stop.
The point about "only one religion can be right" has many flaws. That is like saying "only one type of dinner meat can be eaten at dinner". But we can address that only after you understand your logical fallacies at the start.
It is important that you understand your mistakes are independent of your belief. You can still believe but you have to relieve your lines of logic of the flaws. It would help me and you to be able to discuss the topic.

[KichigaiNeko]

[Tonus]

You do believe in your lack of belief in God.

Perhaps. But maybe I don't believe in my belief in my lack of belief in god. Or maybe it's lack of belief all the way down. Or maybe your comment there doesn't make sense.

I don't believe in 'a lack of belief in God' because that would be really stupid since the proof in the opening post proves having a lack of belief would be obviously wrong since nature proves the 'uncreated Creator' Whom we call God.

There is no proof in the opening post. There is simply the common human assumption that we have learned all that there is to learn, and therefore any missing pieces must point to something outside of the natural world.

There was probably a time when lightning was proof of the "uncreated creator we call god." And disease was proof of evil spirits, which was proof of the supernatural, and would allow us to recognize god. And so on. Pointing at what we haven't learned as proof of god is not convincing after centuries of learning that the things we attributed to god or gods weren't caused by any such things.

We cannot even see to the outer edges of our universe, which means that if our universe is simply one of many universes bubbling in a massive cosmic 'soup' of universes that form and re-form every few trillion years, we wouldn't know it. But I guess since you cannot prove that our universe isn't part of a cosmic universe factory, I am fully justified in stating that it is the truth, and in expressing shock and dismay at your inability to comprehend such an obvious fact!

[JesusHChrist]

Nothing like reading a nice WLC-sycophant ass-kicking first thing in the morning.

Oooh - the cosmological argument!

One of these days, maybe a Jesus Freak will actually come on the forum with Good News! and tangible evidence of their angry iron-age sky daddy.

[RobbyPants]

For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

Technically. atheism doesn't say this; it's just a lack of belief in gods. One could believe the universe was created by leprechauns and still be atheist. You're over-defining the term.

Also, I've never once heard an atheist say they believe "everything came from nothing". That's a theistic strawman argument.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects, so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally. The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

Whoa! You just said that the universe couldn't have always existed because of infinite regression, then you just said you're fine with an "uncreated Creator"? What the crap!? Special pleading, much?

The obvious question to your assertion is "what caused God?" Next, you'll probably say he doesn't need a cause because he's "timeless" or "eternal", or something. So, your logic goes as follows:

1) Create a universal rule (everything has a cause) to require a prime mover.

2) Invoke God as that initial cause, despite the fact that he just violated your "necessary" rule from the last step.

3) Give God special qualities to make him immune to said rule.

Conclusion: You're perfectly fine believing in "timeless" or "eternal" entities to solve this "problem". How do you know the universe isn't timeless or eternal? The cosmological argument is presuppositional, and all it does is convince people who already assume God exists that they're right.

[Mister Agenda]

For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

Atheism is not believing God nor any gods, real. Atheism isn't something to believe in. It's a condition that applies to you if you don't believe in God or any gods. Theism is the opposite condition. Both atheism and theism are real. This misunderstanding has led to your poll being worded badly, but I indicated 'no' because atheism isn't the sort of thing that can be false. Neither is theism.

It would make much more sense for you to just say you believe in God.

And you'd be better informed if you knew that none of the alternative explanations for the universe involve there ever having been absolute nothingness.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects, so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

Um, if God always existed, you would have had an eternity to come into being, too. God doesn't solve the problem of infinite regress, and no one has been able to prove that infinite regress is impossible. We tend not to like infinite regress, but that doesn't mean it isn't the case.

And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

Unless your version of God is not past-eternal, God does not solve your problem. And if he isn't past-eternal, you have the same issue with the origin of God as you do with the origin of the universe.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Quantum foam seems to fit that description.

This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally.

You seem to have skipped the part where you demonstrate that this uncreated creator is a personal being.

The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

The easiest way for God to be not self-contradictory is for it not to be an omnibenevolent all powerful personal being. And it doesn't seem appropriate to call something that's not that, God.

---

But it's always amazing how your god is exempt from the necessity of being created

I think you misunderstood the opening post.

The opening post shows nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, thus being uncreated.

No. The opening post claims that nature needs all that. It doesn't show it at all.

When a person uses the term 'God' that's what they are referring to this proven 'uncreated Creator' that can't be nature.

Simple.

Maybe you should stick to speaking for yourself instead of telling us what other people mean when they use the term 'God'.

---

When you say 'I don't believe in atheism' you sound really stupid. You know why? Because all atheism is, is: 'a lack of belief in god'. So what you are effectively saying is 'I don't believe in you not believing in my god'. Atheism is a lack of a belief and therefore it is impossible to hold it as a belief.

You do believe in your lack of belief in God. To deny it would be really stupid.

Almost as stupid as that sentence. Of course we believe we don't believe, dumbass.

I don't believe in 'a lack of belief in God' because that would be really stupid since the proof in the opening post proves having a lack of belief would be obviously wrong since nature proves the 'uncreated Creator' Whom we call God.

Not as stupid as believing your opening post actually constituted a coherent proof. First, prove the universe requires an outside creator. To do that, first prove that a property that isn't even universal within the universe (I can think of two causeless effects in quantum physics) applies to the universe itself. Show your work.

The fallacy you need to overcome (besides special pleading) is the fallacy of composition. A wall being made of unbreakable bricks doesn't mean the wall is unbreakable. A universe of cause and effect doesn't mean the universe itself is an effect that required a cause.

I lean towards it having had a cause, and there are several plausible candidates that don't involve a deity, but I'm aware that i can't prove any of them: no one can, yet. And that includes you.

---

Keep claiming it as 'proof' all you want but it does not make it so.

The proof remains the proof by the fact that you haven't disproven it. So you give strength to the proof.

Thank you for that.

One explanation for your posts that I can't dismiss lightly, is that you're an atheist trying to make Christians seem stupid. If that is the case, please desist and fess up. It's the honorable thing to do.

If you're actualy a real Christian (sigh) it's not a proof unless it proves something, and your opening post failed to do that, due to the fallacies it contains, which have been pointed out to you.

An argument that contains even one fallacy, fails. It doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong, but it does mean that your argument doesn't actually lead to it. Not only have fallacies in your argument been pointed out to you, which is all that's needed to disprove it, you haven't even bothered to argue why your argument isn't actually fallacious or modified it to remove the fallacies.

Although I suspect that if all the fallacies are removed, all that will be left is an unsupported assertion.