New Athiest Needs Help

[Rampant.A.I.]

[quote='Rampant.A.I.' pid='683077' dateline='1402097806']

Are you reading a different definition of "Infinite chain of events" than everyone else?

No think about it. Each part of the infinite chain requires a cause. Within the infinite chain, you will have infinite chains that have infinite chains that are the cause of other infinite chains. Still all those infinite chains still require a cause.[/quote]

The chain is infinitely long.

]It can be said a chain of effects is an effect. Therefore an infinite chain of effects is also an effect. Therefore it would require a cause as well.

Yes, somewhere back that way toward infinity. Start walking, let me know when you reach the cause.

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='683098' dateline='1402100143']
[quote='Rampant.A.I.' pid='683077' dateline='1402097806']How so?

There is no way to know it otherwise.

Why not?

It would at best a good guess based on what we observed so far.

Opinion.

But to know for certain that things can't just pop out of nothing as ontological fact of reality,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Not so. You're also assuming physics was identical to what we observe now. Planck time isn't even close to what we observe now, and that was back in the universes infancy. Why would physics prior to the universe be the same as now?

Can an "event" or "cause" make sense as coherent concepts in the absence of matter, space, and time?

such that, if you saw something appear in the sky and fall down, you would not assume nothing caused it to come into being but in fact know for certain it has a cause, then it requires to be given that in an absolute way.

You're still assuming linear causality at the quantum level.









If quantum physics made sense at a common sense level, we'd all be quantum physicists, and construction workers would hold doctorate degrees.