What constitutes facts?

[b]fact[/b] /fakt/ [i]noun[/i] a thing that is known or proved to be true. "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas" synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude See link

Can you prove that the universe had a beginning? And if so, why can't the universe be infinite. We know that everything tangible is finite, and everything finite needs a cause. Would it not make sense for an infinite cause to be necessary for the possibility of existence for finite things?

Even if we accept your premise, it does not prove the existence of God.

Then what would you assume to be the infinite cause if not God?

I wouldn't make assumptions either way. I would merely observe and try to learn more.

Then from your observations, what have you concluded?

That we barely understand the universe. We don't even know if it's infinite, and if it is, that doesn't prove the existence of God.

We know it's finite. Your assuming whether it is or isn't infinite to back up what? The assumption that there isn't a god. How logical and apparently bias. The sense doesn't even act as any anti-thesis.

No, we do not know for sure that the universe is finite. Furthermore, the non-existence of God is not an assumption or biased in any way; it's merely evident at this point because there is no evidence to support the claim that God's exists. For this reason (the lack of evidence to substantiate the claim) proposing the existence of God must be factual, is the assuming and biased position. Lastly, in regards to this: [i][b]Your assuming whether it is or isn't infinite to back up what?[/i][/b] - SSG ACM I'm not trying to back up a proposition in either case; that's exactly what you are trying to do, it seems, since the premise of your argument is the following: [i][b]Would it not make sense for an infinite cause to be necessary for the possibility of existence for finite things? Then what would you assume to be the infinite cause if not God?[/i][/b] - SSG ACM Which is bizarre, because now you're saying the universe is finite, when before you were basically assuming the universe is infinite, and that this some how equates to the existence of God. And I'm saying, no; we do not know if the universe is infinite, and in either case, that doesn't mean you've proved the existence of God at all.

[quote]No, we do not know for sure that the universe is finite.[/quote]Speculation much? And if so, you would have to believe that the impossibility of something coming from the existence of nothing is possible via...[quote]Furthermore, the non-existence of God is not an assumption or biased in any way; it's merely evident at this point because there is no evidence to support the claim that God exists.[/quote]Archaeological evidence, non-biblical history, and reasoning theology isn't supportive? As a Christian, we understand that God is eternal, both everlasting and all-knowing. The idea of God actually existing satisfies the problematic issue with why we even have life. This accounts for the 30% of agnostics among America's atheistic community today. And you think that there's no evidence?[quote]For this reason (the lack of evidence to substantiate the claim), proposing the existence of God must be factual is the assuming and biased position.[/quote]Whereas assuming that He didn't exist and everything obviously originated from an alternate infinite cause for the existence of "our" simpler beginnings? I fail to see how this is in a biased position when it can easily be considered quite conclusive.[quote][i][b]Your assuming whether it is or isn't infinite to back up what?[/i][/b] -SSG ACM I'm not trying to back up a proposition in either case; that's exactly what you are trying to do, it seems, since the premise of your argument is the following: [i][b]Would it not make sense for an infinite cause to be necessary for the possibility of existence for finite things? Then what would you assume to be the infinite cause if not God?[/i][/b] -SSG ACM Which is bizarre, because now you're saying the universe is finite when before you were basically assuming the universe is infinite...[/quote]No. I'm assuming that as an atheist. Belief if anything tangible to be infinite would have to be necessary for the manifestation of anything.[quote]...and that this some how equates to the existence of God.[/quote]He fulfills the requirements.[quote]And I'm saying, no; we do not know if the universe is infinite, and in either case, that doesn't mean you've proved the existence of God at all.[/quote]Then your left in an agnostic state, and are willing to not to depend on the absolutes of everything being finite? This is pantheistic. We are to depend on what we know to be true and self-evident. To say that you don't believe in a god existing is understandable since their theology isn't under the seeking question of "Why?" The monotheistic god known as God is the only documented being that fulfills the requirements. He has as much proof of existing as one would assume that Abraham Lincoln did. The veil to which it is hidden to the general public is problematic because of the lack of truth-seekers that sought out for the evidence. God is evidential, and the Bible perfectly explains why. I can go in circles with this conversation since the thinking you currently possess is obviously not dependent on anything absolute, just modern speculation that I have seen in some previous cases. What evidence do you adopt if you refuse to receive the evidence that is already backed up? Yes. Your assumption is a presumably bias assumption because of the lack of discernment of all the information that you currently possess concerning our Genesis.