Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

[Jashwell]

"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

Doesn't seem like much preamble is needed, but expect this largely to be filled (if at all) with arguments in favour of the existence of a God and counter-arguments. (Because the question is not "Are there good reasons to believe that a god does not exist?"). Though if you do think you have a good argument that shows it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, that is also valid.

This question comes up a lot in other threads where various classical arguments (e.g. ontological, axiological, cosmological) have been given in those threads.

If possible, try not to shotgun debate by raising lots of arguments at once. One sound argument should be sufficient.

[kenblogton]

A. Reply to 1. If there are no examples, it doesn't exist, like infinite regressions.
There is an uncaused cause, and only one; the only uncaused cause is God.

To say that because you have never seen something, therefore it does not and cannot exist is the epitome of a premature conclusion. In our galaxy alone, there are an estimated two to three trillion planets. With at least 200 galaxies out there, we are talking about at least 10^24 planets in our observable universe. Written out, that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. Then you have different kinds of stars and nebulas and all the dark matter ("dark matter" is just a placeholder for "unknown stuff" we don't even know if it's matter, let alone what kind. It could be anything.) and whatever may be outside our observable universe. It would be arrogant to claim that, in all of that, you know that nothing doesn't, and has never come from something, because you have never seen an example of it here on Earth, which takes up only one hundred billionth of the known universe. If this is the only point you have holding up your argument, then you don't really have a convincing argument.

Here's proof of God:
B. 1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

](*,) Okay, this has been refuted several times now, but I will try again. As it has been stated, your statement, "If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing." is false. This is not something that logically follows. And as I previously stated, because there are no examples of something coming from nothing in our 0.000000001% of the known universe, does not mean it has never happened. Let me be clear, This is not an argument that the universe came from nothing. It is a rebuttal to the claim that the universe could not have come from nothing. You cannot rule out that possibility.
Furthermore, you are not using Occam's razor correctly here. Occam's razor states that "entities should not be multiplied unnecisarily." If your two options are 'maybe something came from nothing' and 'maybe God created something' then the option with the least amount of things involved is the simplist. Occam's razor would make something coming from nothing more likely because it involves less entities. The only time the razor will ever support a God is if the alternate involves more than one God. But, occam's razor, while it can sometimes be useful, is not an epistimological tool that always leads you to the truth. It is helpful in making assumptions about what could be most likely, but it is not always correct. You shouldn't use it as evidence in an argument for the truth of a claim.

C. 2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.

Since your first point is flawed, the following points don't really have anything to stand on, but I'll point out how this one is wrong to. All the change implies is a beginning, which implies a cause. It says nothing as to what the cause is or how the cause behaves, or anything about the cause. It means there was a cause, but not even that the cause was a thing. The existence of change alone cannot take you that far. Your statement, "A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something" is false. Your assumption that this universe was preceeded by nothing is a premature conclusion. We simply cannot know that.

D. 3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.

You have not even yet shown that the reason the universe exists is because of something, let alone that it is an entity. You have not demonstrated that the cause cannot be created. You have only stated that it must not be able to or there would be an infinite regress, which just invokes special pleading for God and says he is immune to the regress, but with no reason other than "he has to be to make sense"
Not only is it special pleading, and fallicious, but an infinite regress isn't inherently a problem that needs a solution.

The point I want to make is that, although it makes our brains hurt, there is nothing inherently contradictory about an infinite regress. Nobody has shown that, if an infinite heirarchy of causes occurred, then both A and not-A would be true. We haven’t demonstrated that, with an infinite regress, some basic piece of knowledge about the world would be contradicted. Perhaps someone will produce such a contradiction in the future, but until then we cannot make a sound argument by saying “…which leads to an infinite regress, and is therefore logically impossible”.

None of the evidence you have shown supports an inability to change. Even if there was a cause to the universe, and that cause had remained unchanged until the universe began, the universe could somehow change the cause after that point. The existence of the universe could have completely erased the cause from existence. There is no way we could know the changability of the cause based on any of your arguments. You can only declare it unchanging if you already assume it is the thing you're trying to prove, which I do not.

E. If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something, then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal. We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe, and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material – matter and energy – can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.

There is no basis for the assumption that becuase the cause caused the universe it shares no attributes of the universe. You can't assume that it is non-physical, immaterial, invisible, or timeless just because the universe is physical, material, visible and finite. There is nothing to indicate that a cuase, if there is one, is in some way inverse to the universe. To claim that the cause is intelligent because the universe is designed, you would first need to prove that the universe was indeed designed. I don't think it was. Many of the "marvelous designs" are explained by natural selection. Many of the cosmological constants are explained the same way, and some of them simply could not be any way other than what they are. The law of conservation of matter and energy is a physical law. Physical laws didn't exist before the universe existed. The physical laws that exist now have nothing to do with the cause of the universe. If the cause can change, which you haven't succesfully ruled out, then it could currently be bound by any physical laws. Or, the law of conservation of matter and energy might not always apply, as Bust Nak has pointed out with his Virtual Particle example. Like I said before, we don't know what goes on all over the universe. You would have to justify a lot of your points before succesfully making claims about the nature of your proposed cause, and do so without using confirmation bias to support what you already believed to be true.

F. 4. The limitations of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge consists of two types, generally speaking, empirical or observational knowledge regarding the physical universe, and theoretical or inferred or deduced knowledge about that universe, such as quantum theory. Scientific knowledge of the creative entity is impossible given that it, the creative entity, is not physical. It is logical error to negate the existence of the creative entity based on scientific reasoning; the creative entity is outside the domain of the scientific.

The limitations of science has absolutely no effect on what the cause is if there is one. Whatever the cause is/was, it is/was thta regardless of whether or not science can currently observer it. You have not proven that the cause is an entity, or that it is not physical. These remain unbased assumptions. There is no reason to conclude that scientific methods will never be able to tell us anything about the cause of the universe. That is just another premature conclusion. Even if everything you said in your point 4 was true, it does not support the existence of God.
All of your arguments, even if they weren't flawed, only support a cause. They are not arguments supporting God's existence. But they are flawed and don't even support a cause.

G. It's not a valid question, because as I've shown, God is, and must be, the uncaused cause to avoid the infinite regress.
kenblogton

This is just another false statement. You have not shown that God is, or that he must be, the uncaused cause. You have failed to even show that there must be a cause. Your insistence that you have succeeded in doing so doesn't change the reality that your arguments are flawed and don't lead to the conslusions that you propose they do.

Reply to A. If there are no examples of something, like infinite regression, you CANNOT say it exists. You can certainly speculate that someday, somewhere, an example will be found, but until then, you cannot.

Reply to B. As stated in A, if you cannot give an example of something, like something coming from nothing, you cannot say it is true. You can certainly speculate that someday, somewhere, an example will be found, but until then, you cannot.

Reply to C. You say my first point is flawed. I'm not sure what you mean by my first point, and I have no idea what the flaw is, since you never explicitly state it. Where's the flaw in what I've said?
I'm pleased to see you agree that change implies a beginning. The logic of first change takes us back to B: something not coming from nothing.
Prior to the physical universe, there was nothing physical: no space, time, matter or energy. At http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm, it states "as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers."

Reply to D. I've dealt with your other points above; I'll only deal with "Even if there was a cause to the universe, and that cause had remained unchanged until the universe began, the universe could somehow change the cause after that point. The existence of the universe could have completely erased the cause from existence. There is no way we could know the changability of the cause based on any of your arguments. You can only declare it unchanging if you already assume it is the thing you're trying to prove, which I do not."

It is pure speculation to suggest that the cause of the universe could have changed, for which you have no evidence, only speculation. At the previously cited website, it states "in 1964, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a microwave signal buried in their data. They attempted to filter out the signal, assuming that it was merely unwanted noise. However, they soon realized what the signal actually was; they had inadvertently discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The CMB had been predicted by a theory that few believed at the time called the Big Bang. This discovery was the first evidence that the Universe had a beginning."

In other words, scientists can trace the entire history of the universe from its origins. How can you possibly speculate that this entire known history can have changed?

Reply to E. You state "There is no basis for the assumption that becuase the cause caused the universe it shares no attributes of the universe." There is every basis for making that statement. If space, time, matter & energy all begin at the dense singularity/big bang, then, since the cause is prior to space, time, matter and energy, the cause cannot consist of any of space, time, matter or energy.

Your remaining points are speculative, similar to your prior points which I've dealt with.

Reply to F. You said " Even if everything you said in your point 4 was true, it does not support the existence of God." I've shown that the physical universe cannot have a physical cause, since there is no physical prior to the origin of the physical universe. God is a viable, and I believe necessary, non-physical cause. Do you know of a better non-physical cause?

Reply to G. I have shown the flawed logic of infinite regress, which necessitates that God is not caused. Everything has a cause, except God, including the universe.
You say my arguments are flawed, but don't point out the flaws.

kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 398 by kenblogton]

Even if causality were objectively true of nature; and even if A theory were objectively true;
God cannot precede the beginning of time.
Therefore, in order for God to cause the Universe, it must not be the case that "cause must precede effect".
If cause doesn't have to precede effect, there's no problem with an infinite regress of causes, because that doesn't lead to a necessary infinite regress of time.


(This is of course ignoring the fact that there's no reason to believe causality is true of nature and there are reasons to believe A theory isn't)

Of course God precedes the existence of time, or else God is physical, consisting of matter or energy and existing in space and time. The cause of the physical universe cannot be physical, since the physical begins with the dense singularity/big bang. Prior to that, there is NOTHING physical: no space, time, matter or energy. God is eternal: outside of time

Of course causality is essential in Science. At http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/, it states "Causality plays a central role in the sciences. Causal inference (finding out what causes what) and causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences." To use Al Gore's phrase, you may find causality an "inconvenient truth," but that doesn't change its scientific truthfulness.

I've previously dealt with the illogic of infinite regress. If you'd like it re-explained, please ask.

Actually, I've previously dealt with all of your above objections.

kenblogton

[kenblogton]

Reply to 1. If what I say is incorrect, give me one example of something coming from nothing>
Reply to 2. This is quibbling about which domain the truth lies in; whatever domain, it's still truth.
Reply to 3. The logic remains without a reasoned reply; by fiat doesn't qualify.
Reply to 4. Your reply indicates a lack of understanding of Science. Science studies the physical universe; the spiritual is outside the realm of Science.
kenblogton

1. That would be irrelevant- I didn't state that something can come from nothing, only that it cannot does not follow from the fact that something exists, which was what you had claimed. "Follows from" means is logically entailed by. But that something exists does not, in itself, entail that something cannot come from nothing.

2. Quibbling? Perhaps. We still don't want to be making false assertions about what is or isn't "well-accepted" in a particular field.

3. The logic remains? Sure- without successfully ruling out an infinite regression of causes, First Cause arguments are logically invalid. So I suppose the logic remains invalid. Apologists appear to think that merely showing that the alternative to God's existence leads to an infinite regress counts as showing that the alternative is false- except, there is nothing self-contradictory about an infinite regress of causes. Not only that, its far more intuitively and metaphysically defensible than an uncaused first cause (which is, upon close inspection, an incoherent concept in itself). At least some apologists, like Craig, at least try to rule out the infinite regress- having at least the sense to realize that failing to do so is fatal for the validity of their arguments- but so far, I haven't seen you even make such an attempt, wishing rather to rule out the infinite regress by fiat (irony alert).

4. If science could not study "the spiritual", even in principle, that doesn't suggest that what I said was false, only that "the spiritual" does not exist- it is not factual, and isn't comprised of any state of affairs.

Second reply to 1. How can you expect anyone to believe in something whose existence you cannot give an example of? It seems to me that puts it in the category of Easter bunnies, tooth fairies and unicorns. If something can come from nothing, then surely there must be at least one example?

Second reply to 2. What is not well-accepted in which field?

Second reply to 3. At http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/No_ICR.html, it deals in an excellent manner with infinite regress. In part, it states "The Infinite causal regress is an important issue in dealing with the cosmological argument, especially the Kalam version, and the argument form final cause. It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause. The importance of this argument applies not only to the now largely abandoned notion of an oscillating universe, but to any finite causes of space/time. This is because in light of the impossibility it means that the ultimate cause of the universe must be a final cause, that is to say, the cause behind all other causes, but itself uncaused and eternal. These are two major issues because they indicate why the ultimate cause of the universe has to be God. Since arbitrary necessities are impossible, the ultimate cause cannot be something which is itself contingent, such as an eternal singularity. The ultimate cause, or "final cause" must be God, since God is a logical necessity.

But lately skeptics have sought to deny these principles. They have actually been denying that infinite causal regress is impossible. This causes me to suspect that they don' really understand the concept. For no one truly understanding the notion of an eternally repeating cause could seriously consider that an infinite causal regress can actually exist."

The website deals effectively with 3 objections to arguments for infinite regress. If you're interested, please check it out. And by the way, you merely support the notion of infinite regress, stating that the argument against is logically invalid. However, you nowhere state any invalidity; that is fiat, not argument.

Second reply to 4. You again misunderstand Science. Science studies the physical: space, time, matter, energy. The spiritual is not physical, so not subject to scientific inquiry.
If you are only willing to accept physical reality, then of course you are only able to deal with a "straw man" concept of God, who is not physical but Spirit. by both logic and the Bible.

kenblogton

[Zzyzx]

.

Second reply to 1. How can you expect anyone to believe in something whose existence you cannot give an example of?

Religion promoters / priests / prophets have been persuading people for thousands of years to believe in something for which they cannot provide an example of existence. Thus, any church congregation indicates that people will believe without examples (or evidence).

Science studies the physical: space, time, matter, energy. The spiritual is not physical, so not subject to scientific inquiry.

Agreed. Science does not study the "spiritual" or imaginary or fictional.

What "non-scientific evidence" can be presented to indicate the presence / existence of "spiritual" entities or events?

Will "take my word for it (or his word)" suffice?

Are unverifiable opinions, claims and stories by ancient unidentified writers to be considered as evidence?

Are unverifiable testimonials about personal emotional / psychological episodes credible evidence?

Is religious dogma, doctrine, tradition adequate evidence? If so, which religion and why?

Is conjecture that "goddidit" non-scientific evidence?

What other evidence is there to demonstrate the truth and accuracy of "spiritual" claims?

If you are only willing to accept physical reality, then of course you are only able to deal with a "straw man" concept of God, who is not physical but Spirit. by both logic and the Bible.

To avoid the "straw man concept of God", kindly provide an accurate, verifiable, definition, description and identification of the "god" (among thousands proposed / worshiped / etc) to which you refer (beyond platitudes and conjecture).

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 398 by kenblogton]

Even if causality were objectively true of nature; and even if A theory were objectively true;
God cannot precede the beginning of time.
Therefore, in order for God to cause the Universe, it must not be the case that "cause must precede effect".
If cause doesn't have to precede effect, there's no problem with an infinite regress of causes, because that doesn't lead to a necessary infinite regress of time.


(This is of course ignoring the fact that there's no reason to believe causality is true of nature and there are reasons to believe A theory isn't)

Of course God precedes the existence of time, or else God is physical, consisting of matter or energy and existing in space and time. The cause of the physical universe cannot be physical, since the physical begins with the dense singularity/big bang. Prior to that, there is NOTHING physical: no space, time, matter or energy. God is eternal: outside of time

And there isn't anything before the beginning of time.
Before means "prior to in time". You are saying God is "prior to time in time out of time".
If you want to invent a causal or ontological dimension so that you can speak of God relative to the beginning of time, don't use temporal words, and then you can address what I've said.
In other words, rather than "precedes the existence of time" what you mean is "God existed to the right of time as well as with time" or "God existed in front of time as well as with time". Because you are inventing a new dimension: an ontological dimension.
Using temporal words just misleads people into thinking that you actually mean those words. Saying before means "during the period of time preceding (a particular event or time)". God did not exist before time because that is an incoherent statement.

And if you do want to invent this new dimension because you are aware that God can't exist in the time before time, then you entirely remove the need for effect to follow cause. The first thing that goes with this is an infinite regression of causes being an infinite amount of time. The second thing that goes with this is the first cause having to have existed at the beginning of time.

The Cosmological argument is so absurd as to cherry pick intuitions because it knows it can't stand up if it doesn't use such intuitions or if it takes them all.

Eternal doesn't mean outside of time. It means for all time.
Something that lasts forever is eternal.

Of course causality is essential in Science. At http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/, it states "Causality plays a central role in the sciences. Causal inference (finding out what causes what) and causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences." To use Al Gore's phrase, you may find causality an "inconvenient truth," but that doesn't change its scientific truthfulness.

I've previously dealt with the illogic of infinite regress. If you'd like it re-explained, please ask.

Actually, I've previously dealt with all of your above objections.

Ditto but it doesn't mean the other agrees.

So first: This is a website for a conference.
A conference that lists sciences that don't deal with major aspects of relativity or areas where time comes into question.

"causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences."
Astrophysics is not cosmology or theoretical physics.
Biochemistry, biomedical and social sciences are not cosmology or theoretical physics.


Here's a paper that was submitted to the conference.
http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/conferen ... TS2013.pdf

"This demonstrates that the apparent relevance of causal notions in the quantum and statistical mechanical explanations offered is merely the result of the imposition of a time-asymmetry in the collection of the relevant statistics. This indicates that such theories are not themselves causal."

[enaidealukal]

Comments on 1. As previously stated, at http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/No_ICR.html, it explains "The Infinite causal regress is an important issue in dealing with the cosmological argument, especially the Kalam version, and the argument form final cause. It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause.

Craig's arguments against infinite regressions (including the one about the impossibility of reaching infinity via successive addition) are notoriously unsound. He offers the Hilbert Hotel, as a purported disproof of infinite collections- when in reality, the Hotel is a thought experiment meant to illustrate the concept of bijection. Far from resulting in any contradictions, the Hotel thought experiment shows us precisely how bijection works. Are the results counter-intuitive? Sure. But so is quantum mechanics. Showing that an infinite regress would have counter-intuitive results is NOT the same as showing that it is impossible. Indeed, not only is the fact that "actual infinity" would have some highly peculiar properties NOT disproof of their possibility, that's exactly what we would expect if they did exist. Anyways, regarding the argument against forming an infinite collection by successive addition, the idea is this:

for a causal sequence that has led to our present state, P, each member of the sequence has some prior antecedent cause, so O->P and N->O... all the way back to A->B, where A is the first member of the sequence, or the "first cause". Now to suppose that the causal sequence is infinite is to suppose that there is no first member, i.e. there is no A. But if there is no A, there is no B, nor any subsequent effects. The idea here is that by claiming the sequence is infinite we are "taking away" the first member, so the sequence cannot get started, and we lose all subsequent antecedent causes- including the cause of P.

Or so the argument goes. Unfortunately the proponent of the infinite regress (or, more accurately, of the POSSIBILITY of an infinite regress) is not "taking away" any particular member of the series, only denying it the special status of being the first member. But if we don't "take it away", then all the subsequent antecedents are still there, and we have no trouble arriving at P.

The importance of this argument applies not only to the now largely abandoned notion of an oscillating universe, but to any finite causes of space/time. This is because in light of the impossibility it means that the ultimate cause of the universe must be a final cause, that is to say, the cause behind all other causes, but itself uncaused and eternal.

That isn't what "final cause" means- a final cause is a teleological cause, something which gives some X a purpose. And your conclusion here is non-sequitur. Even if we granted (just to be nice, since nobody has successfully demonstrated this) that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, it does NOT follow that there would be some SINGLE, unique, first cause. There could have been many "first causes". To assume there is only one is unwarranted and arbitrary.

These are two major issues because they indicate why the ultimate cause of the universe has to be God. Since arbitrary necessities are impossible, the ultimate cause cannot be something which is itself contingent, such as an eternal singularity. The ultimate cause, or "final cause" must be God, since God is a logical necessity.

-What is an "arbitrary" necessity?
-Why are they impossible?
-Why would a first cause need to be logically necessary?
-What does it even mean to say that a thing or entity is logically necessary? (X is logically necessary if ~X is a self-contradiction. But where is there a self-contradiction in a first cause not existing?)

But lately skeptics have sought to deny these principles. They have actually been denying that infinite causal regress is impossible.

Because nobody has ever shown that it is impossible.

This causes me to suspect that they don' really understand the concept.

Ironically enough, the only way to suppose that an infinite regress is impossible is by grossly misunderstanding the relevant concepts. Applying properties of infinite sets to finite objects, then complaining that the results are counter-intuitive, is not a disproof of "actual" infinites.

If you go to the website, it demonstrates the illogic of the 3 arguments for infinite regress.

Your URL is broken. But I'm guessing they're the same arguments Craig and his cronies have repeated, which don't magically become valid simply through repetition.

[enaidealukal]

Reply to A. If there are no examples of something, like infinite regression, you CANNOT say it exists. You can certainly speculate that someday, somewhere, an example will be found, but until then, you cannot.

Irrelevant. In order for the cosmological argument to be valid, an infinite regress needs to be impossible. All the opponent of the cosmological argument needs to point out to refute the argument is that an infinite regression does not entail a contradiction. The possibility of an infinite regression renders the kalam argument invalid, regardless of the many other (fatal) flaws with the kalam.

I've shown that the physical universe cannot have a physical cause, since there is no physical prior to the origin of the physical universe. God is a viable, and I believe necessary, non-physical cause. Do you know of a better non-physical cause?

That's not good enough. If God isn't the only candidate, the conclusion of the argument ("God exists") does not follow and the argument is not deductively valid. But the point is moot since there's no reason to suppose the universe has a cause in the first place.

I have shown the flawed logic of infinite regress, which necessitates that God is not caused.

Well, maybe you've tried, but that's it.

Of course God precedes the existence of time, or else God is physical, consisting of matter or energy and existing in space and time.

In other words, the creation of the universe is incoherent and logically false, requiring a "time before time", a prior atemporal state, a state of non-existence in which God exists. Gotcha.

Also, this has the side-effect of ruling out the assertions made in the cosmological argument- if the cause of the universe was atemporal, then we would expect an indefinite/non-finite age to the universe, as there would be nothing to distinguish creating the universe "now" as opposed to some other time. The universe, then, would presumably not have a definite/finite age.

[mwtech]

If there are no examples of something, like infinite regression? You CANNOT say it exists. You can certainly speculate that somewhere, somehow an example will be found, but until then you cannot

For me to reject the first premise of your argument, "something CANNOT come from nothing, so it had to have been created" I DO NOT need to show that "something from nothing" exists. But for me to accept it, you have to COMPLETELY rule it put as a possibility. That's what I am saying about the unimaginably massive size of the universe. You CANNOT say that "since there are no examples of something coming from nothing, that cannot and has never happened. Therefore the universe had a creator." Until you have shown that there are no examples in the remaining 99.99999999% of the universe, and that there never have been in all time, you can't make an argument based on the impossibility of that happening.
Since you keep seeming to miss this, let me put it in the clearest words I possibly can.

I am NOT saying:
The universe definitely came from nothing, even though there are no examples.

I AM saying:
The basis of your argument (something cannot come from nothing, so it must have been created) is fallacious because you have not shown definitively that something CANNOT come from nothing. This leaves us at a position of not knowing whether or not the universe could have come from nothing. The same way I can't assume it did with a lack of an example, you cannot claim that it did not without searching the other 99.999999999% for examples and all of time and still coming up lacking. As long as the concept is open to speculation, and not ruled impossible, your first argument, "something CANNOT come from nothing," can not be accepted as truth, nor can any assumptions that follow that first premise.

[Bust Nak]

At http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/No_ICR.html, it deals in an excellent manner with infinite regress. In part, it states "The Infinite causal regress is an important issue in dealing with the cosmological argument, especially the Kalam version, and the argument form final cause. It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause.

Again, that's the claim. Prove it.

They have actually been denying that infinite causal regress is impossible.

Why wouldn't we? Ever proof I've seen ends up being question begging.

The website deals effectively with 3 objections to arguments for infinite regress. If you're interested, please check it out.

I did, and found the same quibble:
"It's not possible because you can't get to here."
"Hibert doesn't believe in actual infinity."
"There is no grand cause for an infinite regression."

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 395 by Bust Nak]

Really how could the universe not be infinite? What happens when you get to the edge of the universe and take another step forward. Are you not in the universe anymore? Where are you? Is it like PacMan where you wrap around to the other side and start over again?

Good analogy. How many times have we heard physics writers say things like, "If you went far enough, you would come up behind yourself"?