Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

No, I'm afraid you've forgotten what I said in post #496. Russell's Teapot. Bertrand Russell, the famous twentieth century philosopher, had encountered this "You have to believe I am right if you can't prove me wrong" argument, and countered it with What is Russell’s teapot?

If you want people to not understand you because you're speaking archaic English, go ahead. Don't expect anyone else to understand you or agree with you.

That is not true in the slightest. You're confusing "losing Christian privilege" with "being oppressed".

Yes, because they aren't "slanted towards humanism". You just made that up.

It's not a "humanist" word, it's a secular word (you may not be aware that "secular" does not mean "anti-Christian" or "biased against religion"; it means "religiously neutral"). In other words, it's just a neutral English word that describes something.
But another point is this: if you are not a humanist, why should you be allowed to define what humanists or atheists believe? (They are not at all the same thing, of course, but there is something of an overlap between the two groups). Would you like it if I rewrote the Bible and started to publish a new version?

Quote mining is a pretty good label for something that creationists are well-known for doing, taking quotes out of context in order to alter their meaning. It's a form of lying, which I understood was supposed to be against the Christian religion. And no, it's not "almost impossible to prove", it's extremely easy to prove. All you have to do is show the original quote in context to demonstrate how a quote-miner is taking it out of context. And whether you call it quote mining, falsehood-chopping or pizza-spreading, taking a quote of of context so that its meaning is changed is deceitful.

Well, if you insist on speaking seventeenth-century English to people, try not to be surprised if people have trouble understanding what you're trying to say.

You're mistaken about many things. Language changes as society changes. In this case, regarding the words "atheist" and "atheism" the change has been an improvement; it honours both what people think and reflects the etymology of the word; in short, the word now closer reflects reality. One again, if you were to construct a word to mean "person who lacks belief in God" a-theist is pretty much what you'd have to come up with.

But if you want to continue speaking in the seventeenth century, instead of English like the rest of us, be our guest. As for me, though, I'll decline your kind invitation to go back in time four hundred years.

sorry I apologize for calling your post childish. That was unnecessary. I edited that out of there. I don't want to make the same mistake other atheists are making here and allow it to become personal. However it does contain a lot more error than I can address in just the few minutes I have with you. I probably won't have time to address it. But if you made an abbreviate shortened version, I may be able to address that. Sorry about not having time to address all of that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

sorry I apologize for calling your post childish. That was unnecessary. I edited that out of there. I don't want to make the same mistake other atheists are making here and allow it to become personal. However it does contain a lot more error than I can address in just the few minutes I have with you. I probably won't have time to address it. But if you made an abbreviate shortened version, I may be able to address that. Sorry about not having time to address all of that.

gradyll, that was handsomely said. So thank you. But are you sure this is a fight worth having? Is it really important what people call themselves? Whatever you and I think the word "atheist" should mean, we both know what I believe about life, the universe and everything. What more do we need than that?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

it makes logical sense, when you use logic you search for logical alternatives, if there is no other one, accept one. You use that one as your hypothesis.

It’s only logical if you can show that there are no other alternatives. If you can’t, then you’re just committing an argument from ignorance.

So, what’s your evidence that human feelings of love can only come from a god? Note that even if it’s unique in the animal kingdom (which you haven’t really shown), that’s not evidence in your favor. You have to show that uniqueness can’t have an alternative explanation.

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll, that was handsomely said. So thank you. But are you sure this is a fight worth having? Is it really important what people call themselves? Whatever you and I think the word "atheist" should mean, we both know what I believe about life, the universe and everything. What more do we need than that?

The only reason I bring it up, is that atheists don't believe what original atheists believed, so why call yourself an atheist?

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s only logical if you can show that there are no other alternatives. If you can’t, then you’re just committing an argument from ignorance.

So, what’s your evidence that human feelings of love can only come from a god? Note that even if it’s unique in the animal kingdom (which you haven’t really shown), that’s not evidence in your favor. You have to show that uniqueness can’t have an alternative explanation.

an argument from ignorance, is when you make an argument that something is true because nothing disproves it. For example saying you can't disprove God exists, therefore he exists. That would be an argument from ignorance, and many people make it. But I am not making an argument from ignorance here because out of the few scenarios for who or what created the universe, God is the most logical of the three. There are logical errors with the other two. For example, believing the universe is eternal and that it created itself from nothing, lacks causation. Every effect has an cause according to the rules of cause and effect (what much of science is built on). Same goes for an eternal multiverse that created the known universe. Where did a conglomeration of asteroids and planets and stars, gain intelligence to create a universe, and gain otherwise creative abilities? And it lacks motive. Why would a universe, a world or a group of those, (in a multiverse) decide to waste hard energy on a universe it would never cooperate or communicate with? So both of those situations lack in the logical arena and until some of those questions are answered there simply is no evidence of them happening. God scenario fits perfectly, God who is outside of time, because He has no mass (time accelerates mass according to general relativity). So He would be uncaused due to the fact he has no beginning because of being outside of time. Other supernatural beings are also timeless, but a being can be placed in a dimension above time, at a certain event, thus signifying a creation. But God would have to be put into a timeless domain by something bigger than Him, which would negate His godhood, according to the actual definition of God as being all powerful and everywhere at once. So that being would be God, so the same argument would apply to Him, that He was in fact the true God who had no causation, because of the fact He has no accelerated mass in time, because He too would be massless. So the logical problems with God creating the universe have been satisfactorily met, and we also have motive. God decided to love the world and humanity in general, so that He could essentially marry the church of believers in a divine wedding. Not that he needed companionship, but I am sure it is more fulfilling and results in more glory to Him to marry the crown of his creation, a group that truly loves Him with a genuine love. We all desire to be loved. I am sure that God is no different. However even if all of creation rejected Him, He still has the fellowship of the trinity, the father the son and the Holy spirit in divine fellowship. So He ultimately does not need us at all. But never the less, he chose to love us, and exalt us to eternal heaven.

again there is nothing illogical or missing in the divine scenario of the universe

but the eternal causless universe theory, is lacking and the multiverse theory is also lacking in logical conclusions.

so because there exists no other option, and because theism is the only option that is not logically defeated, we must accept it. If we are to be honest with logic and factuality.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

an argument from ignorance, is when you make an argument that something is true because nothing disproves it. For example saying you can't disprove God exists, therefore he exists. That would be an argument from ignorance, and many people make it. But I am not making an argument from ignorance here because out of the few scenarios for who or what created the universe, God is the most logical of the three. There are logical errors with the other two. For example, believing the universe is eternal and that it created itself from nothing, lacks causation. Every effect has an cause according to the rules of cause and effect (what much of science is built on). Same goes for an eternal multiverse that created the known universe. Where did a conglomeration of asteroids and planets and stars, gain intelligence to create a universe, and gain otherwise creative abilities? And it lacks motive. Why would a universe, a world or a group of those, (in a multiverse) decide to waste hard energy on a universe it would never cooperate or communicate with? So both of those situations lack in the logical arena and until some of those questions are answered there simply is no evidence of them happening. God scenario fits perfectly, God who is outside of time, because He has no mass (time accelerates mass according to general relativity). So He would be uncaused due to the fact he has no beginning because of being outside of time. Other supernatural beings are also timeless, but a being can be placed in a dimension above time, at a certain event, thus signifying a creation. But God would have to be put into a timeless domain by something bigger than Him, which would negate His godhood, according to the actual definition of God as being all powerful and everywhere at once. So that being would be God, so the same argument would apply to Him, that He was in fact the true God who had no causation, because of the fact He has no accelerated mass in time, because He too would be massless. So the logical problems with God creating the universe have been satisfactorily met, and we also have motive. God decided to love the world and humanity in general, so that He could essentially marry the church of believers in a divine wedding. Not that he needed companionship, but I am sure it is more fulfilling and results in more glory to Him to marry the crown of his creation, a group that truly loves Him with a genuine love. We all desire to be loved. I am sure that God is no different. However even if all of creation rejected Him, He still has the fellowship of the trinity, the father the son and the Holy spirit in divine fellowship. So He ultimately does not need us at all. But never the less, he chose to love us, and exalt us to eternal heaven.

again there is nothing illogical or missing in the divine scenario of the universe

but the eternal causless universe theory, is lacking and the multiverse theory is also lacking in logical conclusions.

so because there exists no other option, and because theism is the only option that is not logically defeated, we must accept it. If we are to be honest with logic and factuality.

I’m sure you realize that this post has nothing to do with the moral argument, which is what we were discussing.

But, since you’ve switched back to the origins of the universe, my same rebuttal applies. No one knows the origins of the universe. No one knows if physical properties behaved the same. No one knows if the idea of time was even coherent. Arguing that something has to be true based on a lack of information is the definition of an argument from ignorance.

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m sure you realize that this post has nothing to do with the moral argument, which is what we were discussing.

But, since you’ve switched back to the origins of the universe, my same rebuttal applies. No one knows the origins of the universe. No one knows if physical properties behaved the same. No one knows if the idea of time was even coherent. Arguing that something has to be true based on a lack of information is the definition of an argument from ignorance.

I never said it has to be true, I said we must accept it as such that it's the only logical option, unless you can present one we have not heard.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The only reason I bring it up, is that atheists don't believe what original atheists believed, so why call yourself an atheist?

Hmmm. I think we may be starting off a new conversation. That's nice!

Well now, let's see...

First of all, a quote from two dictionaries in the seventeenth century saying that atheists believed something does not necessarily mean that they did believe that. Remember, at this time the art of writing dictionaries was still in its infancy, whereas today they are very much more thorough and reliable. I would take a seventeenth century dictionary as a good primary source for what the dictionary writer thought, but not as solid and convincing evidence for the state of society.

Second, remember that at that time atheists were a despised and misunderstood minority, and so very little was known about what they thought at all. Given this, we should be careful about saying "We know that atheists in the seventeenth century believed X because people said they did." I would not go to a pre-modern Christian source to get an accurate view of atheists (and unless the dictionary-writers were themselves openly and publicly atheistic, in their society of the time they constitute a "Christian source" because virtually everyone was a Christian).

Third, even if we take what you say at face value - an atheist believes certain things because the dictionary says that they do - the your argument refutes itself. You tell me not to call myself an atheist because the dictionary says I believe things different to what I say I believe; but, following your own logic, my own definition of an atheist is in accordance to the current dictionary definition, so why not call myself an atheist?

Fourthly, you say "atheists don't believe what original atheists believed". Even if that were true, so what? Christians don't believe what early Christians believed, as I'm sure you are aware - Christian beliefs have gone through major revisions over the many centuries. And if your answer is "Yes, but we still call ourselves Christians," then my answer is that whether you were an atheist in Ancient Greece, Enlightenment France or modern Britain, you are still a person who responds to religious beliefs by saying "I don't believe that".

Fifth and final point (for now): the word atheist is perfectly constructed and descriptive: a person lacking belief in a God or gods. a-theism.

 

[cvanwey]

ed: So far almost all of the scientific evidence points to it not being eternal. And more is being discovered every month. Of course, most people will deny this conclusion, especially the conclusion that it is the Christian God, because humans naturally hate Him.

I'm not about the 'bandwagon.' My point is that until we 'know', we don't know. To assert requires that you demonstrate your asserted burden of proof.

In regards to your asserted God, I don't have any energy to 'hate' something for which I doubt of it's existence. Much the same as I don't 'hate' Poseidon.

ed: True but the fact that there exists anything in the universe that has a purpose points to a personal creator. The other things may have purposes that we have yet to discover.

Even IF there exists some specific purpose, it is YOUR burden to demonstrate this purpose comes from the Christian God. And we are miles apart in establishing this 'fact.'

ed: That is called adaptation. The creator has created organisms that can adapt to the environment. Such as cavefish, that over time have lost their ability to see even though they have remnant eyes. But originally they did have eyes that worked.

This will go nowhere fast. Seems as though the creator needed to make updates. And/or, I could just as easily mention how 99.99999% of our universe is uninhabitable to human life.

ed: No, as long as we have anything that was created, we can compare it to those things. And we can make rational assumptions about what type of universe other gods were create such as allah, which is a pure unity, therefore its universe would be a unity without any diversity.

We are right back to where we started, with no established conclusion... If the 'universe' always was, then there logically is no 'creator.' Again, we don't know. And even if everything thing we know was created, then why couldn't something have created that creator, and so on and so forth?

You see, infinite regress can even work for the concept of creationism.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hmmm. I think we may be starting off a new conversation. That's nice!

Well now, let's see...

First of all, a quote from two dictionaries in the seventeenth century saying that atheists believed something does not necessarily mean that they did believe that. Remember, at this time the art of writing dictionaries was still in its infancy, whereas today they are very much more thorough and reliable. I would take a seventeenth century dictionary as a good primary source for what the dictionary writer thought, but not as solid and convincing evidence for the state of society.

Second, remember that at that time atheists were a despised and misunderstood minority, and so very little was known about what they thought at all. Given this, we should be careful about saying "We know that atheists in the seventeenth century believed X because people said they did." I would not go to a pre-modern Christian source to get an accurate view of atheists (and unless the dictionary-writers were themselves openly and publicly atheistic, in their society of the time they constitute a "Christian source" because virtually everyone was a Christian).

Third, even if we take what you say at face value - an atheist believes certain things because the dictionary says that they do - the your argument refutes itself. You tell me not to call myself an atheist because the dictionary says I believe things different to what I say I believe; but, following your own logic, my own definition of an atheist is in accordance to the current dictionary definition, so why not call myself an atheist?

Fourthly, you say "atheists don't believe what original atheists believed". Even if that were true, so what? Christians don't believe what early Christians believed, as I'm sure you are aware - Christian beliefs have gone through major revisions over the many centuries. And if your answer is "Yes, but we still call ourselves Christians," then my answer is that whether you were an atheist in Ancient Greece, Enlightenment France or modern Britain, you are still a person who responds to religious beliefs by saying "I don't believe that".

Fifth and final point (for now): the word atheist is perfectly constructed and descriptive: a person lacking belief in a God or gods. a-theism.

I am not at a computer but I have examples of primitive atheists defining athiesm that way. The dictionaries simply reflect that. No christianity has not changed soteriologically speaking or in essential doctrine over the years. Why would it, we have the exact same book the did. But that adresses the main points, a simple reading of patriotic fathers proves that essential doctrine was the same. Even systematic theology such as the trinity goes all the way back to first few centuries. Duality even further. But if you wish for me to adress all of your points, please abreviate. Your posts are 3 to 4 times longer than everyone elses. And I share my time among everyone evenly.

 

[Moral Orel]

an argument from ignorance, is when you make an argument that something is true because nothing disproves it. For example saying you can't disprove God exists, therefore he exists. That would be an argument from ignorance, and many people make it.

No, that's Shifting the Burden of Proof. Like this:

I never said it has to be true, I said we must accept it as such that it's the only logical option, unless you can present one we have not heard.

This is shifting the burden of proof. We don't need to show that there is another logical option, you need to show that there are none. Arguing that you can't think of any other logical options would be an Argument from Ignorance. You should probably pick up a book on logic and debate; these are really basic concepts.

Same goes for an eternal multiverse that created the known universe. Where did a conglomeration of asteroids and planets and stars, gain intelligence to create a universe, and gain otherwise creative abilities? And it lacks motive. Why would a universe, a world or a group of those, (in a multiverse) decide to waste hard energy on a universe it would never cooperate or communicate with? So both of those situations lack in the logical arena and until some of those questions are answered there simply is no evidence of them happening.

You can keep pretending like post #822 didn't happen, but it did, and you lost. Not that this straw man of multiverse theory really deserved a refutation, but I did go through all the trouble to show that this is nonsense.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I never said it has to be true, I said we must accept it as such that it's the only logical option, unless you can present one we have not heard.

Again, since we’re dealing with the unknown, there’s no way to tell that it’s the only logical option.

And, once again, the burden of proof is on you to show there can only be one logical option, given the fact that there’s no current way to know how conditions then were different from how they are now.

 

[createdtoworship]

Again, since we’re dealing with the unknown, there’s no way to tell that it’s the only logical option.

And, once again, the burden of proof is on you to show there can only be one logical option, given the fact that there’s no current way to know how conditions then were different from how they are now.

listen to what you are saying, you are saying ....

because it's unknown there is no way of knowing.

and that seems logical, but not when you analyze it, because you are unable to know one thing and not the other.

see we don't know if there is any other option, all we know is that we have three options, two are implausible, one is plausible.

so you follow the logic.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hmmm. I think we may be starting off a new conversation. That's nice!

Well now, let's see...

First of all, a quote from two dictionaries in the seventeenth century saying that atheists believed something does not necessarily mean that they did believe that. Remember, at this time the art of writing dictionaries was still in its infancy, whereas today they are very much more thorough and reliable. I would take a seventeenth century dictionary as a good primary source for what the dictionary writer thought, but not as solid and convincing evidence for the state of society.

Second, remember that at that time atheists were a despised and misunderstood minority, and so very little was known about what they thought at all. Given this, we should be careful about saying "We know that atheists in the seventeenth century believed X because people said they did." I would not go to a pre-modern Christian source to get an accurate view of atheists (and unless the dictionary-writers were themselves openly and publicly atheistic, in their society of the time they constitute a "Christian source" because virtually everyone was a Christian).

Third, even if we take what you say at face value - an atheist believes certain things because the dictionary says that they do - the your argument refutes itself. You tell me not to call myself an atheist because the dictionary says I believe things different to what I say I believe; but, following your own logic, my own definition of an atheist is in accordance to the current dictionary definition, so why not call myself an atheist?

Fourthly, you say "atheists don't believe what original atheists believed". Even if that were true, so what? Christians don't believe what early Christians believed, as I'm sure you are aware - Christian beliefs have gone through major revisions over the many centuries. And if your answer is "Yes, but we still call ourselves Christians," then my answer is that whether you were an atheist in Ancient Greece, Enlightenment France or modern Britain, you are still a person who responds to religious beliefs by saying "I don't believe that".

Fifth and final point (for now): the word atheist is perfectly constructed and descriptive: a person lacking belief in a God or gods. a-theism.

I could not find my early definitions of atheism, but I don't need to.....I was reading the work of a brilliant former atheist, Jinn Bo. And he really inspired this next comment. It's in my own words and not a quotation but hear me out.

ultimately the original atheists answered the question of "is there a God?"
they said "no." Because there is evil, and because there is no evidence of God.
later atheists Got smarter and realized they could not defend such a position, so in the late 1800's "agnostic"
became a thing.
which is basically saying "I don't know."
which is not really a statement of meaning.
A statement that is void of any factual statement, is really not worth living for.....yes?
so then there was the new atheist, who simply negates theism.
we are "non theists, atheists."
we don't see evidence of God, and thus we are non theists.
but they don't realize that in going negative, they are actually answering the question of if there is a God or not.
they are assuming no.
so again the new atheist falls into the same error as the old atheist.

so again, if an atheist believes there is no God, they are a strict atheist. If they believe there is no evidence for God but do not know. Then that is no longer atheist but agnostic. So yes the atheist typically rejects the belief in a God, as per the meaning of the word atheism. Anti theist.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

But if you wish for me to adress all of your points, please abreviate.

Alright, but I hope we won't lose any important points...
First of all, a quote from two dictionaries in the seventeenth century saying that atheists believed something does not necessarily mean that they did believe that. Dictionaries were nothing like as reliable as they are now.

Second, remember that at that time atheists were a despised and misunderstood minority, and so very little was known about what they thought at all.

Third, even if we take what you say at face value about trusting a dictionary, my own definition of an atheist is in accordance to the current dictionary definition, so why not call myself an atheist?What the dictionary describes is a good approximation of what I believe.

Fourthly, you say "atheists don't believe what original atheists believed". Even if that were true, so what? Christians don't believe what early Christians believed, as I'm sure you are aware - Christian beliefs have gone through major revisions over the many centuries.

Fifth and final point (for now): the word atheist is perfectly constructed and descriptive: a person lacking belief in a God or gods. a-theism.

listen to what you are saying, you are saying ....
because it's unknown there is no way of knowing.
and that seems logical, but not when you analyze it, because you are unable to know one thing and not the other.
see we don't know if there is any other option, all we know is that we have three options, two are implausible, one is plausible.

No, we don't know that. We do not know how many options there are. We have no real knowledge at all. You have a character in your religion called God, and you wish us to believe that this character is real, and your evidence is "If He was real, then all of our questions about the origins of the universe would be answered".
Yes, they would. IF He was real.

God scenario fits perfectly, God who is outside of time, because He has no mass (time accelerates mass according to general relativity).

Have you considered that maybe "God fits perfectly" because you have imagined a character who answers the problem perfectly?

Ultimately the original atheists answered the question of "is there a God?"
they said "no." Because there is evil, and because there is no evidence of God.
Well now, that's an enormous simplification, probably an oversimplification, and possibly erroneous. But it's not completely unreasonable, so we can go with it for now...
later atheists Got smarter and realized they could not defend such a position, so in the late 1800's "agnostic" became a thing.
"Agnostic" became a thing because Thomas Huxley coined the word in 1869.
which is basically saying "I don't know."
I'm sure you've considered, certainly in areas other than religion, that saying "I don't know" when you do not, in fact, know, is a very sensible thing to do.
which is not really a statement of meaning.
The "meaning" is that I do not know something.
A statement that is void of any factual statement, is really not worth living for.....yes?
You're conflating different things here. Who ever said that people think agnosticism (or atheism) is what makes life worth living for them?
so then there was the new atheist, who simply negates theism.
we are "non theists, atheists."
we don't see evidence of God, and thus we are non theists.
Well, that makes sense. How exactly do you go about believing in a thing when you have no reason to think that it exists?
but they don't realize that in going negative, they are actually answering the question of if there is a God or not.
they are assuming no.
Yes. We can all see, Christians and atheists alike, that the world exists, and we all agree on the fact. But then Christians say "There isn't just the world. There are other worlds, and when you die, you still live on and go to them, with a being called God. Do you believe that?"
And the atheists say: "No".
so again the new atheist falls into the same error as the old atheist.
so again, if an atheist believes there is no God, they are a strict atheist. If they believe there is no evidence for God but do not know. Then that is no longer atheist but agnostic. So yes the atheist typically rejects the belief in a God, as per the meaning of the word atheism. Anti theist.
Did you not read earlier, gradyll, when I explained the difference between atheist (a lack of belief) and how it could be caused by agnosticism (a lack of knowledge)? To say it briefly, I lack knowledge of God (I am agnostic) and therefore I lack belief in God (I am an atheist).

You are an atheist too, in a way. Because the way you feel about Apollo, or Baldur, or Tefnut ("Well, I suppose it's not completely impossible for the legends about them to be true, but there's no evidence that they are, and it's much more likely that they're simply stories invented by the Ancient Greeks, Norse and Egyptians, so I certainly don't believe that they're real!") - that's how atheists feel about the God of the Bible.

And you know how we feel, and why we feel that way, because you think the same as me about every one of the thousands of gods who have ever existed, with one exception.
I just think about God the same way you and I think about gods. See?

 

[RichardY]

In the crudest of terms, belief is just a feeling. Knowledge is something that can be demonstrated to be true. You have to insert a lot of subjectivity to choose what constitutes a sound demonstration of the truth, but you don't need any of that to feel that something is true. Of course, if you can demonstrate something is true, then you'll likely feel that it's true too.

So back to my analogy, I told you my shirt is gray. Maybe you feel like I'm telling the truth, maybe you don't. But I haven't demonstrated to you that it is by showing up at your house and ringing the bell, so you don't know whether it is or not.

So knowledge is something you can directly perceive. Where as a belief is not.

However, agnostic means without knowledge. Agnosticism is a passive disbelief in God. Where as Atheism is an active disbelief.

 

[Moral Orel]

However, agnostic means without knowledge. Agnosticism is a passive disbelief in God. Where as Atheism is an active disbelief.

No, agnostic is without knowledge, you can hold a belief that you don't know is true. Do you believe my shirt is gray?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

listen to what you are saying, you are saying ....

because it's unknown there is no way of knowing.

and that seems logical, but not when you analyze it, because you are unable to know one thing and not the other.

see we don't know if there is any other option, all we know is that we have three options, two are implausible, one is plausible.

so you follow the logic.

Logic states that the only logical answer, since we have no actual information about the beginnings of the universe, is "I don't know".

Anything else is just opinion, not an actual argument. Because, of course, it would be an argument from ignorance.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What is this "law of causality"? Is it a law of physics like the commonly cited 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Is it an axiom of logic like the Law of Non-Contradiction? Please cite some non-apologetic sources.

It is a law of logic, like the law of non-contradiction. Read any good book on Aristotle to learn more.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Have you either observed dark matter for yourself, or know that dark matter is uncaused?

No, I have not observed it myself, but recently astrophysicists have. I did not say dark matter is uncaused. It is just a part of the universe which as an effect was caused by a Cause basically identical to the Christian God.