Why I Don't Believe in Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

The burden of the proof remains on the atheist because I've done my part with the proof for the 'uncreated Creator' which remains unchallenged.

You ignoring every challenge to it doesn't make it unchallenged, it makes it refuted since you didn't bother to respond substantively to any of the criticisms of your so-called proof, which didn't prove anything.

We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing (that is, non-existence), so nature can't start up from nothing.

Virtual particle formation: an effect without a cause. Particle decay: an effect without a cause. Checkmate.

And nature cannot always have existed because if it did, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

God cannot always have existed because if it did, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. That argument is so bad that I feel vicarious shame for throwing it back in your face.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Conclusion is based on nothing since you failed on every point leading to it.

This uncreated Creator is what we are talking about when way say 'God'.

It's what YOU are talking about when YOU say 'God'. There are plenty of people who wouldn't accept a definition of God that doesn't include God having a mind or being a person.

Now that you know God exists find out which religion is the correct one, since only one religion can be true since God does not contradict Himself.

Bad arguments for theism are support for atheism. No one would make a bad argument for theism if they could fined even one good one. Thank you for your efforts.

---

Read Lawrence Krauss, he will turn your nothing into something.

The reason Lawrence Krauss to me is dumb is because he claims non-existence which doesn't even exist can split into two things. This was proven obviously false because that which does not exist can't do anything, can't cause anything and can't split into anything. Nature always exhibits causation from something.

If you read him, you'd know that the closest physics can come to nothing insn't actually nothing, but quantum foam. There never was absolutely nothing, but quantum foam seems to have the property of not being able to not exist. Sound familiar?

And you have not responded to any comment where it has been explained to you that it is a fallacy of composition to ascribe properties TO Nature because they are found IN Nature.

The reason there are no billion bound gorillas stomping over NYC is because they don't exist so they can't cause anything. I think Krauss knows he is being belligerent. He gets off on it, perhaps making lots of money on the atheist circuit. He's probably having more fun doing that than his previously boring life and at least getting more attention.

Since you either haven't read or don't understand Krauss, your opinion about his motives is completely worthless.

But according to the Bible which has been proven to be true what's it worth to have all that entertainment yet go to Hell for rejecting Christ as his Lord and Savior for forgiveness of sins on the cross of salvation?

Unsupported assertions don't require evidence or argument to dismiss. The above is mere preaching.