The Unthinking Atheist

[Yrost]

I've linked you to enough sources to show you that time does not work in the fashion you want to believe it does.
Furthermore, causation is not always seen in nature. Saying that it is, is a lie.

[Parture]

You don't need to be all-knowing to know all things like God does to know nature always needs a cause, for that obviously would be pretentious since you will never be all-knowing. So stop erecting yourself above God like Satan does. You would always keep holding out for the explanation, thus invalidating all previous explanations, since they always need an explanation. Once you have the best explanation, you don't need an explanation of the explanation.

It is enough to observe the trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, to know the universe always has a cause. Therefore, since the universe always needs a cause that leads to infinite regress, but infinite regress is false, since you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. This is how we know the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space which make up our universe.

When you compare a universe that always existed with the Creator of the universe, you come to realize that the latter always wins out, because that which has no life can't generate that which does have life. You can mix the universe up any way you want for eternity and it still would never produce even the simplest living cell. You continue to prove this more and more every day because you can't generate life spontaneously from non living matter. To produce a mind you need a mind. To produce conscience, conscience is needed. To generate free will, you need free will. To be able to say, "You are my God", God must give God-consciousness. Amen.

Since the links you provide admit your theory of time is unproven, how is that evidence? So you are just lying to yourself. It's really just false humility. Anyone could introduce any theorem they like, but if you got no evidence then get off the pot. Who would ever think you were being humble if you knew all things except one last thing yet still held out that one last thing could disprove the proof I gave you? Vanity of vanities!

The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems prove that a cosmological singularity is inevitable, and therefore, it is impossible for the universe to be oscillating from eternity because it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state. Stephen Hawking notes about this that, "The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems led to the abandonment of attempts, mainly by the Russians, to argue that there was previously a contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Almost everyone now believes the universe and time itself had a beginning at the big bang."

Even with Hawking's latest book, he admits that time began to exist at the bottom of the badminton shoot. For something to begin to exist needs a cause. This is what your imaginary time would indicate, as Hawking admits, there was nothing before the badminton shoot, so he admits he has a problem, because a time regime began, yet he shuts his mind down to the necessity of a cause. Space itself can't spontaneously generate time. There must be a legitimate cause. Since the bottom of the badminton shoot requires a beginning, then it needs an explanation. Anything that has a beginning needs a cause, whether you think time exists at that point or before that point or after that point is irrelevant. So the point of time or no time is irrelevant since that which brings in time necessarily must be supernaturally timeless and beyond time, transcending time and space.

You just can't win. And the more we learn about science, the more your arguments seem sillier and sillier. Hope this helps.

[Yrost]

God is also unproven and has no empirical observations to support such. Imaginary time has empirical observations to support it.

Nevertheless, time breaks down at the quantum level. This is observable and observed. Until you explain how quantum time works, you can not make arguments about infinite regress or beginnings.

There is no reason to believe that anything is caused by anything other than the 4 fundamental forces. Science does not show us that everything has a cause.

[Parture]

The proven empirical observations are trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something that comes that which has no energy. The links you give for imaginary time not only concede it is unproven, but Hawking himself conceded in his recent book that empirical time had a beginning at the south pole or bottom of the badminton shoot, so it needs a cause.

Even if time breaks down, it needs a cause, since energy always has a cause in nature. You do not need to know all things. You don't need to know even if any of the many quantum theories are true, for the evidence we do have is more than sufficient as trillions and trillions of causes is more than ample, and no evidence something comes from nothing.

This is science and it shows us everything in science, therefore, must have a cause. Science is not presuming something to be true when you don't have evidence to be sure it is true.

To deny lifting your arm has a cause due to your muscles, oxygen to your muscles, and your will to move your arm is quite delusional. Or, saying trees grow because of the big bang but there was no cause of photosynthesis from our sun to the leaves.

[Yrost]

Muscles, oxygen and trees growing are all due to the 4 fundamental forces in nature. Saying there are trillions of causes is a lie.

Imaginary time is unproven, but is a valid method of understanding how time works. Besides, before you make any assertions about time you need to explain how time works at the quantum level.

There is no evidence that everything has or needs a cause, there are phenomenon that are not known to have a cause, assuming there is one is just that, an assumption. Using it as proof of something is insignificant, deceptive and fallacious.

[Parture]

Just because muscles need the laws of nature to exist doesn't mean there is no causation between lifting your arm and muscles. To deny the trillions of causes in nature is a lie. If your muscles are not a cause of lifting your arm, then neither are the 4 fundamental forces of nature, because the forces of nature have a cause also as do all the amazing constants, quantities and variables in nature.

Even more, there can not only be 4 fundamental forces of nature since we observe things in nature that can't be attributed to those 4 fundamental laws like seeing Jesus alive from the dead and how nature can't overturn the evidence it can't always have existed (since you would have happened already).

I am glad you admitted imaginary time is unproven and could be imaginary, so it can't be admitted into evidence, and therefore, it is not a valid method. You do not need to know anything about quantum theory to know God exists since there are as many quantum theories as there are quantum scientists.

The burden is on you to show something in nature happens all by itself and since you can't do that, then you fail, even prove that you are going to Hell. There are no phenomenon in nature to be without a cause, so asserting this without evidence is wrong. There is evidence of only causation since we observe trillions and trillions of causes and even you admit, there are forces of nature that are causal, and they need a cause also.

Clearly your pseudo-science is a result of your desire to be eternally separated from God. How sad for you.

[Yrost]

Fundamental interactions, such as with the fundamental causes, are deemed fundamental because there are no simpler causes to explain them.

Your muscles contracting and moving are a cause of lifting your arm, but your muscles are only a product of fundamental interactions. Therefore saying muscles are the cause is the same as saying fundamental forces are the cause.

We can not, today, observe Jesus being raised from the dead, the splitting of the moon by Muhammed or any of the miracles of Vishnu and Ahura Mazda. So they can not be explained scientifically and remain a part of faith. Not science.

Imaginary Time is not proven, but it is mathematically valid and explains the workings of Quantum Mechanics well. Imaginary time IS Imaginary.

Radioactive decay is spontaneous and causeless. This is my evidence of something in nature happening without a cause.

I did not say that the fundamental causes in nature are causal. As a matter of fact fundamental interactions are called fundamental because they can't be explained as happening due to other interactions.

[Parture]

Fundamental interactions, such as with the fundamental causes, are deemed fundamental because there are no simpler causes to explain them.

These fundamental laws that are irreducibly complex would have a cause because a non-mind can't produce a mind. And they don't explain why we will this or that, why we feel this or that, why we have self-consciousness since these fundamental laws do not, and why we have God-consciousness when those laws can't have that.

Your muscles contracting and moving are a cause of lifting your arm, but your muscles are only a product of fundamental interactions. Therefore saying muscles are the cause is the same as saying fundamental forces are the cause.

You have to ask yourself why did the fundamental laws just all of a sudden commence a world we can live in? You got no answer. Abiding in laws is not the same thing as saying there are these causes.

We can not, today, observe Jesus being raised from the dead, the splitting of the moon by Muhammed or any of the miracles of Vishnu and Ahura Mazda. So they can not be explained scientifically and remain a part of faith. Not science.

The faith you have is counter-scientific, because you violate the laws of nature and science. Scientifically and psychologically, we know all naturalistic explanations for the origin of the disciples' beliefs and appearances are impossible, so that is how we know there necessarily exists the cause outside of time and space.

I agree we can't concede any miracles by those others because they were not multiply attested in various group settings like for Jesus' resurrected. And since the moon bears no record of being split by NASA we can be confident either Muhammad or those with Muhammad were liars. I am comfortable with that.

Imaginary Time is not proven, but it is mathematically valid and explains the workings of Quantum Mechanics well. Imaginary time IS Imaginary.

It would not be mathematically valid if it is false. Obviously, in in that case, you have some unforeseen mathematical error. Imaginary time is imaginary and that is why it is admittedly unproven. Either way, an always existing imaginary time can't produce a mind for it has no mind.

Radioactive decay is spontaneous and causeless. This is my evidence of something in nature happening without a cause.

You haven't shown radioactive decay is causeless, you just asserted it. There are many things we don't know the cause of, but we don't mindlessly and arrogantly then say they happened all by themselves from that which does not exist. That which does not exist can't cause anything. It should be readily apparent how dumb the atheist's arguments have to be to hold onto atheism.

I did not say that the fundamental causes in nature are causal. As a matter of fact fundamental interactions are called fundamental because they can't be explained as happening due to other interactions.

Fundamental laws are like programs that run and interact with each other, but all the events within them are causal, so there would be an eternity going on of cause and effects in them since they always existed in your mind, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Big problems with your silly theories.

[Yrost]

How do you justify that a non-mind can't produce a mind? Doesn't DNA (a non-mind) produce minds everyday? And what about brain evolution?

No one says that these fundamental forces appeared randomly for no reason.

NASA has never tried to test if the moon was ever split and Muhammed's miracles were multiply attested and there were multiple attestations to those multiple attestations. Here they are:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: "The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208)"
Narrated 'Abdullah: "The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the Prophet in Mina. He said, "Be witnesses." Then a Piece of the moon went towards the mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 209)"
Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: "During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, 'Bear witness (to thus).' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 830)"
Narrated Anas: "That the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 831)"
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: "The moon was split into two parts during the lifetime of the Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 832)"
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas: "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split (into two places). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 210)"
Narrated 'Abdullah: "The moon was split (into two pieces). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 211)"
Narrated Abdullah: "Five things have passed, i.e. the smoke, the defeat of the Romans, the splitting of the moon, Al-Batsha (the defeat of the infidels in the battle of Badr) and Al-Lizam (the punishment)' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 345)"
Narrated Abdullah: "Allah sent (the Prophet) Muhammad and said:--
'Say, No wage do I ask of you for this (Qur'an) nor am I one of the pretenders (i.e. a person who pretends things which do not exist). (38.68) When Allah's Apostle saw Quraish standing against him, he said, "O Allah! Help me against them by afflicting them with seven years of famine similar to the seven years (of famine) of Joseph. So they were afflicted with a year of drought that destroyed everything, and they ate bones and hides. (One of them said), "And they ate hides and dead animals, and (it seemed to them that) something like smoke was coming out of the earth. So Abu Sufyan came to the Prophet and said, "O Muhammad! Your people are on the verge of destruction! Please invoke Allah to relieve them." So the Prophet invoked Allah for them (and the famine disappeared). He said to them. "You will revert (to heathenism) after that." 'Abdullah then recited:
'Then watch you for the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke plainly visible.......but truly you will revert (to disbelief).' He added, "Will the punishment be removed from them in the Hereafter? The smoke and the grasp and the Al-Lizam have all passed." One of the sub-narrator said, "The splitting of the moon." And another said, "The defeat of the Romans (has passed)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 349)"
Narrated 'Abdullah: "Five things have passed: Al-Lizam, the defeat of the Romans, the mighty grasp, the splitting of the moon, and the smoke. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 350)"
Narrated Ibn Masud: "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split into two parts; one part remained over the mountain, and the other part went beyond the mountain. On that, Allah's Apostle said, 'Witness this miracle.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 387)"
Narrated Abdullah: "The moon was cleft asunder while we were in the company of the Prophet, and it became two parts. The Prophet said, 'Witness, witness (this miracle).' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 388)"
Narrated Ibn Abbas: "The moon was cleft asunder during the lifetime of the Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 389)"
Narrated Anas: "The people of Mecca asked the Prophet to show them a sign (miracle). So he showed them (the miracle) of the cleaving of the moon. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 390)"
Narrated Anas: "The moon was cleft asunder into two parts. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 391)"
"Abdullah said that five signs have (become things) of the past (and have proved the truth of the Holy Prophet): (Enveloping) by the smoke, inevitable (punishment to the Meccans at Badr), (the victory of) Rome, (violent) seizing (of the Meccans at Badr) and (the splitting up of) the Moon. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6721)"
"Abu Ma'mar reported on the authority of Abdullah that the moon was split up during lifetime by Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) in two parts and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bear testimony to this. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6724)"
"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: Bear witness to this. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6725)"
"Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported that the moon was split up in two parts during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). The mountain covered one of its parts and one part of it was above the mountain and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bear witness to this. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6726)"
"Anas reported that the people of Mecca demanded from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) that he should show them (some) signs (miracles) and he showed them the splitting of the moon. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Anas through another chain of transmitters. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6728)"
"Anas reported that the moon was split up in two parts and in the hadith recorded in Abu Dawud, the words are: 'The moon was split up into two parts during the life of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him).' (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6729)"
"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the moon was split up during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him). (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book Giving Description of the Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell (Kitab Sifat Al-Qiyamah wa'l Janna wa'n-Nar), Book 039, Number 6730)"

There's no scientific proof that Jesus's brain cells actually died, so we can't tell if he really did die or if he swooned and woke up later. Nor is there scientific proof that the actually existed. Nor that the disciples existed.

Again, Imaginary Time is Imaginary. I've already attested to that.

One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?

The article on Wikipedia states "Radioactive decay is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by emitting ionizing particles or radiation. The emission is spontaneous in that the nucleus decays without collision with another particle." It's spontaneous. Since you claim that everything has a cause, you have to prove your claim. So what is the cause of this spontaneous emission?

Fundamental interactions is where it gets interesting, because quantum mechanics is what describes these interactions and as this article describes we do not understand exactly how time works at that level. The current explanation for how time works is called Imaginary Time. The article says that Imaginary Time runs in a direction different from the type of time we experience. In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space: you can move forward and backward along imaginary time, just like you can move right and left in space.

In this sense, infinite regress is not an issue.

[Parture]

How do you justify that a non-mind can't produce a mind? Doesn't DNA (a non-mind) produce minds everyday? And what about brain evolution?

What about it? There is information in the DNA, organized information. How does this information come about? There is no case where organized information in this world did not come about by a mind. DNA needs protein, but protein needs the DNA, so underneath there is more going on -- the Giver of life. The Bible says life is in the blood, deep down, even deeper. Remember, there are 10 dimensions and strings that need a cause. Even the dark energy that is causing the universe to expand exponentially, we can only see down to the 10^25 level with our greatest telescope, but in relation, our calculations tell us it goes down even farther at least to 10^133 level. And nothing we have ever seen in nature can spontaneously generate life. The lesser can never form the greater. Something can't come from that which does not exist.

No one says that these fundamental forces appeared randomly for no reason.

Something comes from nothing for a reason? You're being coy. What reason is there something comes from nothing when that which doesn't exist is without anything including reasoning? You realize how nonsensical you sound right? Likewise, what reason is there for an always existing universe? At any rate, your always existing universe has no mind and a mind is needed. The lesser can never form the greater. The universe has no self-awareness, so it can't produce beings that do. That's what evidence tells us, the evidence we observe in everyday nature.

NASA has never tried to test if the moon was ever split

Someone would have noticed a massive fissure across the moon at some point or Muslims would have tried to prove it, but none of that is forthcoming. Do you know why? Because nobody really believes it. Nobody goes and checks Elvis' grave either, because when you are dead, you're dead. I would guess if the moon split there would be major catastrophe on earth as a result as the relationship of the moon and earth is very finely balanced. There was no such catastrophe at the time. The silliness of your arguments really expose your desperate measures you need to take. You're not challenging me. You're very shallow to me.

So there is only two possibilities. They lied and people accepted a lie, or an illusion took place with the clouds and lighting and so forth. No big deal. Maybe a falling star crossed the moon's path. In the Quran there is a chapter called: "AL-QAMAR" or "THE MOON"... This chapter starts as follows: 1 The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. Wow! That's all you got to say about it? That was not very descriptive at all. Such a global event would have been recorded by many. Muslim scholars have tried to discredit it, because they know it never happened in the way many are trying to suggest. I am not saying it didn't split in other ways. Since that is a viable option, there is no issue. These are naturalistic explanations. And can hardly be compared to Christ.

The writings of the NT are within a few decades of their events, not over 200 years later, so reports of those seeing the split moon are not that credible, but we can grant they saw the moon split, but simply not in the way we would think. With the span of 200 years, you can get some embellishment. With Jesus you can't embellish resurrection. It's resurrection. You can embellish a split moon from an illusion to it physically actually breaking apart. So your story fails. It also fails the test of up close and personal.

I think you are going about this all wrong. If you were to try to disprove Jesus' resurrection, you would simply need to find a naturalistic explanation, rather than comparing Jesus to a moon. And I think you are starting to do more of that now but the theories you have tried are fully destroyed.

Muhammed's miracles...

What miracles? Muhammad never performed any miracles. He says he is greater than Jesus but Muhammad performed no miracles. Plus, he was as vague as could be about his split moon. Miracles have more substance than that.

There's no scientific proof that Jesus's brain cells actually died, so we can't tell if he really did die or if he swooned and woke up later. Nor is there scientific proof that the actually existed. Nor that the disciples existed.

All you need to do is poke your heart with spear so all the water and blood come out and see if you live. But before doing that make sure you get someone to scourge your back down to the bone and walk a good distance with thorns in your head carrying a heavy cross. Then get someone to nail your feet and hands, let yourself go unsupported with your legs for more than 12 minutes (scientifically, the heart stops at this point, it suffocates). And make sure the people that are in charge of ensuring your death will be beaten badly if not put to death for letting you live.

We don't doubt Aristotle or Plato or Tiberius lived, yet Jesus has tonnes more sources about him than anyone in antiquity, so you don't need scientific proof. The life of Jesus is surrounded by the 12 Apostles, their writings and works, so well multiply corroborated, so if you deny the existence of Jesus and the disciples, you would have to deny every person who ever lived in history, since the standard for the disiciples and Jesus far outweigh anyone else. I don't know any historians who are that obnoxious. Not even Muslims are that belligerent.

Furthermore, Jesus wouldn't look much like a risen Messiah to the disciples and he would be a liar, which wouldn't convince anyone He resurrected, so your Swoon Theory is thrown in the garbage with everything else you have said. Why be such a dullard? How are you searching God out with all your heart and soul? I don't see it in anything you are saying, so that explains why God withholds salvation from you. In fact, all I have said is in part God's grace working to reach you.

Again, Imaginary Time is Imaginary. I've already attested to that.

One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?

The Wiki page says it is unproven so it is not accepted into evidence. Whether real or not is irrelevant anyway, because it needs a cause since a non-mind can't produce a mind. That's what the evidence tells us. You can't get abiogenesis to work, so you lose. You can't explain why an uncaused timeless universe would just arbitrarily produce time. You can't explain the meaning behind an uncaused universe. It's all meaningless to shut your mind down and corrupt yourself more by dropping your moral standards even further. This is how Satan is using you. In the next few years you will take the mark of the beast ensuring your permanency in Hell.

The article on Wikipedia states "Radioactive decay is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by emitting ionizing particles or radiation. The emission is spontaneous in that the nucleus decays without collision with another particle." It's spontaneous. Since you claim that everything has a cause, you have to prove your claim. So what is the cause of this spontaneous emission?

Just because it doesn't collide we know there are other processes since the nucleus is not irreducible. You don't need to know everything in the universe to know the universe always has a cause, since we have trillions and trillions of causes in nature which is more than enough preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're contradicting yourself, because you demand you have to be all-knowing to know if God exists. Obviously, you are not God so that is a contradiction.

Fundamental interactions is where it gets interesting, because quantum mechanics is what describes these interactions and as this article describes we do not understand exactly how time works at that level. The current explanation for how time works is called Imaginary Time. The article says that Imaginary Time runs in a direction different from the type of time we experience. In essence, imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space: you can move forward and backward along imaginary time, just like you can move right and left in space.

In this sense, infinite regress is not an issue.

Since imaginary time is admittedly unproven and imaginary, you can't bring it into evidence. You're just speculating. Let's work with just the evidence. However, even if imaginary time was not imaginary, it would still pose the problem it has no mind, so it can't create sentient beings. That is that.