(July 30, 2014 at 10:44 pm)MPCADF Wrote: 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.
