Why I Don't Believe in Atheism

[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.