Particulary, infinite regress is one that sounds to me like it could be easily ruled out for sure.
You appear to be arguing for a god that existed infinitely long in the past, which has the same problems as infinite regress, lol. Whether or not you think infinite regress is a problem, a god doesn't solve it.
Now, I don't think I have ruled out the one you mentioned about the universe in the future causing itself in the past. Sounds interesting but a priori I don't see how is that a logical possibility. Could you elaborate?
There is nothing that excludes the possibility of the expansion from the universe from a small point beginning with a point in spacetime in our own universe's future. Hypothetically, perhaps a supernova that resulted in a black hole is our own universe's big bang. For clarity, imagine a picture of a tree where one of its limbs loops down and grows into the trunk of the tree in place of a root system.
I'm not arguing this is the case. My point is you haven't excluded it. And, even if you did, that wouldn't be evidence of the need for a first cause, let alone a god.
And about the universe not having a cause could mean either the infinite regress thing again
The universe not having or requiring a cause is not infinite regress.
either the infinite regress thing again or that it created itself or simply poofing out of nothing, which are all unlikely and Im afraid there's not really a sound answer for that.
Demonstrate this. How did you exclude infinite regress? (Any answer you have for this excludes an infinite god). How did you exclude merely having no cause? A mistake you're making is applying laws of causality to the formation of causality itself.
I should first need to assume a very illogical idea that time began later on and along with its causality these came to be after the beginning of the universe, which is already a mess since there is no before nor after without time, but only then we could reason that matter as we know it (corruptible, subject to change, subject to time...) may have existed without a cause at the very beginning [?].
This paragraph was a bit of a mess, but it's important to note that when we talk about the formation of the universe (if it even had a beginning), we are potentially talking about the beginning of time and causality. That throws any need for a cause or a "before the universe" out the window. Arguably, it's impossible for there to be a cause to causality or a time before time.
You mean a reason like God being immaterial and timeless, thus not being corruptable, mutable, etc, that is allegedly outside the laws that rule this dimension? I dont see how the same reason could be applied to the universe or anything that materially exists and is subject to previously established laws.
Describing god as "immaterial" or "timeless" doesn't change anything. The universe itself might be eternal. A hypothetical natural cause to the universe may be eternal. God doesn't solve any problems or answer any questions, and there's definitely no reason to think a god exists.
Are you even inclined to the possibility that the universe is eternal or has created itself?
The universe, cosmos, or whatever we are talking about might be eternal. It might have began to exist without a cause. No evidence has been provided that debunks these options. Even if you were to disprove these options (you can't), that wouldn't demonstrate a god's existence.
The first cause argument is logical even though its premises are probable, thus making its conclusion also just probable.
The premises of the first cause argument have not been demonstrated to be "probable," and anyone who wants to be reasonable has a duty to reject those premises. The first cause arguments are also illogical because the conclusions don't follow the premises. It's an absurdly bad argument all around, and since I've explained all this to you, you should stop defending it unless you have something new and significant to add.
But I dare to say that there isn't such a way of a perfect reasoning and you could find flaws to any argument that tries to explain something that is not ridiculously simple even if they turn out to be true. Language itself is a limited tool when trying to portrait abstract thoughts; whenever it is done, the message leads to numerous conclusions.
Logical soundness is a definable thing. If the premises of an argument are demonstrably true, and if the conclusions necessarily follow the premises, it's a valid and sound argument. If not, then it's not. Whether or not an argument is sound is objective, not subjective.
but what I can say as of now is that I lean towards the possibility of one superior being/thing/mind/whatever.
In the absence of sound reason and evidence, you're being absurdly irrational. If you care if your beliefs are true, you can't accept that a god exists or likely exists.
If you care more about believing in God than whether or not it's true, then fine, but let's not pretend that would be anything other than moronic.
I just happen to like the christian lore so I'm just a bible reader if you will
I like Star Trek and Zelda lore. That doesn't mean I should believe they're true.
so I'm just a bible reader if you will, because it makes a lot of sense to me... morally at least.
The Bible definitively rejects reason and skepticism, and it pretends that doing so is virtuous. This is the #1 worst thing about religions. The Bible also condones slavery, it's been used to oppress and marginalize various minority groups (LGBT, etc.), and it doesn't condemn some of the most basic immoralities. The idea that the Bible is any sort of humanistic morality is, pardon me, the fucking stupidest thing you've said in this entire thread.
When it comes to things that are demonstrable I'm not crazy about finding and experimenting first hand that everything I believe in is true.
You don't have to do your own science experiments to have reasonable justification for your beliefs, but you do require good evidence.
Yes, not gonna lie, I rely a lot on human faith but not completely blind.
Faith is blind and irrational by definition. As I've said numerous times, it's the excuse a person gives when they don't have good reasons or evidence.
I like to question things with a widest perspective.
Questioning is good. Accepting claims as true without reason or evidence is bad.
So I can't ignore that where there is technique there is intelligence behind it, where there is organization there is intelligence behind it and so on. Naturally that leads to a lot of questions when you observe what has been given to us. Things don't become real when we understand them. It can take a lifetime to make all the necessary observations.
There is no evidence that an intelligence is necessarily behind things that are organized. This sounds like an argument from complexity, which is another unsound argument for the existence of a god. By definition, a god would have to be insanely organized or complex, and yet the arguments omit him from the need for an intelligent creator, lol.
I mean when we trust/believe by our own will in what someone is telling/teaching us just because we respect them or because they have some authority over the subject they are talking about.
You should accept something because someone in particular said it. You should accept something because of the sound reasoning and evidence that it's true.
