Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

You have not demonstrated that the universe was caused to exist, or that there's any framework which supports an uncaused cause.  To paraphrase: "Infinity is scary and philosophicaly icky, so it cannot be the case that causality regresses infinitely."

So let me see if I got this straight. The touted empirical data shows that nothing exists without a cause. Logically causes cannot regress infinitely (as every cause is contingent upon another). Your response to this is that we simply find infinite regression icky? Wow. Well the good news is you can falsify this premises by simply showing an causal chain of infinite regression. I await your evidence. (by the way retrocausality has yet to be evidenced though it is a useful virtue conception. Huh, a fairy tale that has some use in the real world. Who'd have thunk it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality)

Any five year-old will immediate demonstrate that all this is word salad, with an obvious question: "If God made everything, what made God?"  And your answer is "There must be one thing which was never caused to exist."  Well, fine, then why wouldn't that be the Universe, or whatever larger framework might exist in which Universes are arranged?  Why would it be a sentient entity?

First I did not say "God made everything" I simply said that according to the logic there must be a single cause without cause and that cause must be proactive (not reactive). It just happens to be we already have a term for that which is the single proactive cause without cause and that term has been God. We may use another term if God is to icky. Perhaps Dark Cause? Or Darth Genesis?

Now if wish to anthropomorphize the Universe such that it may behave proactively, very well. I await your evidence of Universal proaction (not reaction) to beget itself? Bear in mind that in anthropomorphizing the Universe you will be providing an argument to theist who contend God is everything while no particular thing is God.

If you have to start a semantic argument about what "really, really" constitutes evidence, then let me simplify it: if you want me to accept the idea of God as an existent entity, you will need to cause me to have some experience which accords with that idea.  This is the real standard of evidence: it must resolve any question posed to my world view.  In this case, you've posed the question of cosmogony, and must provide evidence for your answer: a deity.  But nothing you've said, and nothing you have shown me, accords better with a world view which includes God than one which does not.

As I imagine you do not have direct experience with everything you consider to be factual thus I would state once again that you are imposing a bias threshold of proof. If you accept the same threshold of proof than the evidence is as you say just outside your window. You do not observe infinite regressive causal chains and you observe existence outside your window. Thus, this existence cannot be one predicated upon an infinite regressive causal chains. Therefore, there must be an initial cause in that chain which was is not predicate upon a cause; also known as a cause without cause which proactively caused (to reactively cause is to say the cause was caused). The argument is evidenced. And may be falsified by either showing:

1. Existence is not outside your window.
2. Regressive causal chains can exist.