Why Does Atheism Have to be False?

[crosssaves]

I covered this recently in another thread so I will quote myself. This kind of argument contains many logical fallacies, and if you are interested, I can help you see why. It is based off the argument from incredulity, "I can't imagine how else all this could have happened."

If anything is unclear, please ask. I have links in the post to my website explaining what the fallacies mean.

All of science has never so far indicated there ever was "nothing". So to be blunt, to state there once was "nothing" is to make a completely unfounded assumption that goes beyond all scientific knowledge. We simply don't know what happened before a certain point.

But even if there was a "cause" then

cause =/= sentient being =/= god =/= any particular god

[ =/= means is not equivalent to ]

That's 3 non sequiturs in a row following an argument from ignorance/incredulity from an unsupported assertion.

Logic is my only friend.

I agree that there isn't 100% scientific proof for god. I would go further, and say that there is 0%. There isn't even a coherent definition that could be tested for.

You misread what I said. You said "to state there once was nothing is to make a completely unfounded assumption." I didn't state there was nothing, but just the opposite that such nothingness does not exist. Since there is not this nothing then it can't cause something, so nature can't come from nothing. Pretty simple. Many atheists try to argue something from nothing, but obviously, they are wrong.

You misread the argument. I did not say because there is a cause, therefore there must be a sentient being. Rather, I showed why both infinite regress is impossible and why something from nothing is impossible.

You did not show any non sequiturs, argument from ignorance/incredulity or unsupported assertion; but you did show how you misread, therefore, you have committed all 3 of these fallacies.

The 100% scientific proof for the uncreated Creator was given in the opening post which you were unable to challenge. The coherent definition of uncreated Creator is tested by trillions of cause and effects in nature, showing it is impossible for infinite regress and it is impossible for nature to start up from nothing, so it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. That's the test -- you were unable to show something can come from nothing and how infinite regress could be true.