science vs creationism

I thank ILL_logic for his response. I cannot fully explain why I'm a Christian here, but there is also one more thing: there is evidence that Jesus existed, and there are tons of sound arguments for His existence, and another fact is, none of the other gods of other religions have no arguments, nor has anyone affirmed their existence with facts. It's not my position to argue for the bad things that must have happened then. This is about arguing for the existence of God, but you can't necessarily say that stoning children is wrong because you have no objective moral values. I was saying that Buddhists are supposed to see Buddha in a near-death experience rather than Jesus, because it is merely predetermined by the person's mind, and Buddhism does not have any affiliation with the Abrahamic God. As I have not read the Quran, if Muslims think this, that does not make it true, unless it is explicitly stated in the Quran. I think ILL_logic is misinformed on the definition of "sane," rather he thinks it means something such as "insane" or any relation to that word. The definition does not, however, mean this. It means reasonable or sensible. ILL_logic, while misinformed, says atheism is not reasonable! The Universe Began to Exist 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause 4. If the universe has a cause, that cause is a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, enormously powerful mind. 5. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, enormously powerful mind. 1. We can obviously see that these premises are true. That said, if the universe did not have a cause, that means it would have to come from nothing, which is absurd. If something would be able to come from nothing, why don't we see this all the time? The universe is obviously not eternal, because [1] the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy, and [2] if the universe was eternal, it would have ran out of usable energy by now. 2. Even if there was such a scientific (or otherwise) dogma about causality, the only thing that this tells us is that causality is ill-defined. Let's define another word, say "causality_b", like this: "Every event has a cause, except for the first event in the history of the system (universe). Every cause is an event." I don't see a reason why a universe governed by causality_b would be impossible to exist. Frankly, my assumption always was that this is closer to what physicists actually mean when they are talking about causality and the universe, like: "We will for now leave the question of the absolute beginning of the universe open, and just talk about what happened after that. And this 'after that' we will call 'causality'." - Along these lines. I'm not a physicist though, and I might be wrong. However, my point with causality_b still stands, independent of any dogma or physicist. Ad Infinitum 1. An infinite past is impossible since you cannot have an infinite amount of anything. Infinity is a process, not a number - as you approach it, it runs off into the distance. Hence an infinite regress of causation cannot happen and is illogical. If you believe in actual infinities, then there must be some point of time an infinite quantity of time ago. The only way to terminate infinite regress is by a cause that is not subject to features of our 4D timespace. Hence you by necessity have to have an entity not of matte, not existing in our concept of time of immense intelligence. Even if we were to assume infinite sequence of events is true, it needs an initiation, and in the beginning, there would be no preexisting material. Many people claim there was absolutely nothing; and there is Hawkins for example. But any such opinions can only be based on faith, since we cannot have empirical evidence (which is by nature 4D phenomenon) for a transcendent 'dimension' which had to precede the universe, again because if 4D stuff preceded the universe, then it just cases an infinite regress as we then ask what led to that 4D stuff. There are 4 possible options 1 - The universe is infinite The universe cannot be infinite since an actual infinity is impossible 2 - The universe came from nothing It cannot come from nothing since a nothing that has the potential to bring something into being fails to be a nothing, negating this option. 3 - The universe created itself The universe cannot create itself since it has to exist first to bring itself into existence - again a logical impossibility. 4 - The universe is simply uncausedThe universe cannot be 'uncaused' since that either means the impossible infinite universe or a universe from 'nothing' which again is illogical.[http://www.doxa.ws...] [http://www.godandscience.org...]