Why I Don't Believe in Atheism

[Esquilax]

You want a debunking, OP? Let's go:

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.

This is called a fallacy of composition: you're assuming the universe needed to be created, based upon inductive principles that apply within the universe. But you have no reason to think that what's true of the interior is true of the entire thing, or things beyond it. If "outside the universe" is even a coherent concept, it's entirely beyond our scope of experience. Why would you assume that the same rules would apply?

Moreover, when you're talking about before the big bang, you're talking about what happened before time began rolling. That doesn't make sense and, obviously, before time began there was no temporal state for cause and effect to take place in. Hence, your first point is an unjustified fallacy.

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.

The last part of your sentence is literal gibberish, but how did you determine that an infinite regress was impossible?

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.

Ah yes, "evidential reasoning," the mistaken belief that you can just think things into existence. Sorry, doesn't work that way; you're not going to unlock the secrets of the universe by just sitting in your armchair and engaging in blatant confirmation bias.

But let's scope out your conclusion here: "Everything that exists needs a cause! Therefore, I will propose a being that doesn't need a cause to resolve this conundrum with regards to the universe!"

You're breaking your own premises with your conclusion, and hence your premises can't be valid. Evidently, something can exist without being created in your worldview, you're just making a series of fallacies in order to make it what you want to believe.

Debunked.