God is the uncaused being. Genesis (in the bible) puts it, "In
the beginning, God..."
Perhaps the question to ask for us believers is "beginning of
what?" If God is uncaused, does he have a beginning? Shan't go too
far, but i would say beginning of mankind's perception of
time.
And of course, God refers to Himself as "I AM who I AM", meaning He
doesnt need a reason for existence outside of Himself, whereas all
of the other creation does.
The very definition of GOd itself negates the need to explain how
He came about.
Actually there is an unfair assumption u made in reference to
god. U assume everything to have a reason for existence (why must
everything have a reason for existence ?) but do not give such a
criteria for god. Just put it tis way, if u can believe god do not
need to be created or need a reason to exist, why don't u just
bring tis down one level to the universe, and tat it do not need to
be created or a reason or it to exist. I hope u see tat u r just,
again pushing up all the questions up one level
Of course, as a non believer, I dont intend to force the
authority of the bible upon u. But I wonder why you (not other
people, just you) do not moderate your stance a bit? Even Richard
Dawkins dare not say for certain there is NO God, he maintains that
the evidence remains inconclusive, thus labelling himself an
agnostic.
The thing is, I will believe if god give me evidence to believe.
Otherwise it is just an assumption tat he exists. Because of
assumptions, tat is why there can be a few hundred religions in tis
world. Can we believe all of them ? Neither has more evidences, or
sounds more logical over the others. It is really just guessing and
peer influences
THere is an argument that atheism itself is a faith. As such,
there really is no system of belief that doesnt involve the concept
of faith. While there is a burden of proof upon the Christians to
show that God does exist, I think that there is the same burden of
proof upon the faith-based atheistic system to show that God doesnt
exist.
If u wanna make a claim, obviously u have to prove it and not
the other party to prove it otherwise. i have mentioned tis
probably a few hundred times before. Tis is because claims is
cheap.
I can claim tat there r invisible unicorn on the planet. Can u
prove me otherwise ? Nope. Then it is true ? Can u prove Star war
to be false, tat is some galaxy far far away got a Luke Skywalker ?
U can't too. So Star War is a true story ? Can u prove Ju On never
exist ? Tat is some ghost tat kill all the people who knew of its
existence ? U can't too. Then a lot of science fiction and nonsense
becomes true.
I hope u realise why the burden of proving have to lie on the
person making the claim and not others to prove him wrong.
