Why I Don't Believe in Atheism

[Violet]

I haven't seen anywhere in this thread anyone debunked the proof in the opening post.

You have a clear misconception of what proof entails.

[MPCADF]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I haven't seen anywhere in this thread anyone debunked the proof in the opening post. Perhaps you would like to try.

I refer you to post number 3.

[Foxaèr]

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.

Your claim to cognitive dissonance is astounding. Keep up the good work.

[Chad32]

I haven't seen anywhere in this thread anyone debunked the proof in the opening post. Perhaps you would like to try.

Keep claiming it as 'proof' all you want but it does not make it so. It just makes you appear as an uneducated fool with the discussion and linguistic skills of a five year old. It is a common tactic amongst toddlers to repeat themselves over and over again when they don't get their way.

No it isn't.
Yes it is.
Not it isn't!
Yes it is!
*devolves into high pitched screams*

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[Esquilax]

You want a debunking, OP? Let's go:

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.

This is called a fallacy of composition: you're assuming the universe needed to be created, based upon inductive principles that apply within the universe. But you have no reason to think that what's true of the interior is true of the entire thing, or things beyond it. If "outside the universe" is even a coherent concept, it's entirely beyond our scope of experience. Why would you assume that the same rules would apply?

Moreover, when you're talking about before the big bang, you're talking about what happened before time began rolling. That doesn't make sense and, obviously, before time began there was no temporal state for cause and effect to take place in. Hence, your first point is an unjustified fallacy.

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.

The last part of your sentence is literal gibberish, but how did you determine that an infinite regress was impossible?

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.

Ah yes, "evidential reasoning," the mistaken belief that you can just think things into existence. Sorry, doesn't work that way; you're not going to unlock the secrets of the universe by just sitting in your armchair and engaging in blatant confirmation bias.

But let's scope out your conclusion here: "Everything that exists needs a cause! Therefore, I will propose a being that doesn't need a cause to resolve this conundrum with regards to the universe!"

You're breaking your own premises with your conclusion, and hence your premises can't be valid. Evidently, something can exist without being created in your worldview, you're just making a series of fallacies in order to make it what you want to believe.

Debunked.

[Bad Wolf]

The proof remains the proof by the fact that you haven't disproven it. So you give strength to the proof.

Oh well I know you are a troll now, either that or incredibly stupid. But what can i say, i'm an optimist and therefore believe that no-one can be this stupid.

So basically you are saying you will believe things if they haven't been disproved?
Well that puts you in the very uncomfortable situation of believing any claim which cannot be disproved or falsified.

Unicorns exist. You must believe that because no-one has proved they don't exist.

I own my own Boeing 747. Can't prove I don't? It must be true then!

Sock pixies, can't prove they don't exist, so you have to believe in them.

[Losty]

How can atheism be false? Even a theist cannot say atheism is false as it makes no claims.

[The Valkyrie]

The proof remains the proof by the fact that you haven't disproven it. So you give strength to the proof.

Oh well I know you are a troll now, either that or incredibly stupid. But what can i say, i'm an optimist and therefore believe that no-one can be this stupid.

So basically you are saying you will believe things if they haven't been disproved?
Well that puts you in the very uncomfortable situation of believing any claim which cannot be disproved or falsified.

Unicorns exist. You must believe that because no-one has proved they don't exist.

I own my own Boeing 747. Can't prove I don't? It must be true then!

Sock pixies, can't prove they don't exist, so you have to believe in them.

Dammit. I thought I'd killed the last sock pixie!