Atheists: How do you deal with infinite regress?

By not defining the beginning of the universe in terms of creation.

Okay....here we go again! Please, please read this:

Since the late 1960s, the Big Bang theory has been the dominant explanation for the birth of our universe. Fred Hoyle's steady state model has been discarded. Most of cosmology since that time has consisted of modifications and extensions of Big Bang theory. Because physicists have not yet formulated a consistent theory that explains how gravity operates on extremely small scales (like those present at the instant of the Big Bang), cosmologists are unable to formulate theories as to what happened before about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Our universe may have originated as a pointlike entity with nearly-infinite density, or perhaps something else. Our mathematics, instruments, and scientific methodologies may need to be substantially improved before any further progress is made.

Do you see where it says that, at this point, we cannot formulate theories as to what happened before the Big Bang? Do you see where it says that we need to improve our methodologies and mathematics and our instruments? You see, this is the difference between religion and science. Scientists are never hesitant to say "we don't know" or "we were wrong about that but with this new evidence we can see it more clearly". In religion, you don't say "we don't know"....

Nothing can be created or destroyed, only transferred. There was no cause, there just was. I believe mass has and will exist for infinity, but life will not. I deal with the empty meaning of life by living in the present, not the past.

I believe the universe has always existed and was never created. Is that too similar to your God?

"a million. regardless of starts off to exist has a clarification for its lifestyles." not merely is that merely a assertion of your person opinion, it is factually incorrect. debris look in empty area each and all of the time with out any reason. "3. consequently, the universe has a clarification for its lifestyles." It relies upon what you mean with the aid of "reason". while you're speaking a pair of reason that precedes the formation of the universe temporally then you definately are speaking nonsense, because of the fact the arrow of time is a assets of the universe. it is valid to declare that there is a clarification for the universe interior the experience that some thing facilitates the universe to exist, yet it particularly is a tautology considering that needless to say the universe does exist. "4. If the universe has a clarification for its lifestyles, then an uncaused, own author of the universe exists, who sans advent is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, undying, spaceless, and incredibly powerful and clever." ...and there you're making one large bounce into the nation-states of fantasy and wishful thinking. Edit: And in the previous you employ words like "established type" do make the hardship to verify what they mean. the established type of particle physics embraces the phenomena of quantum fluctuations and digital particle pair technology. those phenomena have been stated, measured and made use of in diverse technologies. I actual have some quantum tunneling composite in my workshop, might desire to I return it to the producer because of the fact it won't be able to probable artwork?

Infinite regress is a double edged sword---it cuts both ways.

I'll stick with "unknown", thanks. Making stuff up never was attractive - things like invoking an omnipotent invisible man to "explain" things (even though it doesn't actually explain anything) and then using special pleading to avoid infinite regression just seems a little sad.

Reply to the stupid ANSWERS.

It's not "special pleading"

Man is bound by their physical laws.

Saying God must have a start because man's law demands that... is really quite stupid.

Before you decide to rage etc "How dare he proclaim his religion and speak with insight?!?" think of it this way.

How would a (2D) Circle comprehend the existence of a (3D) Sphere?

The sphere would be rattling on about shading and three dimensionality... (theists) when all the circle (atheists) can comprehend from it's position is what looks like another circle.

Simple, I assert there is a magic man without evidence and we all go back to our merry way being satisfied with not understanding the world--let alone how arguments work.

I love the "special pleading" idea!

Where did that god come from?

LOL

A first cause doesn't necessarily mean a God. Premise fail.