You may want to read your paragraph and digest what it says:
”You ask how an infinite number of universes was originally created. The whole point of there being an infinite string of universes is that they were not created. Something has to be infinite. You ask what “was the cause of the rest” after the first. Each universe causes the one that comes after it. Causality is maintained.”
do you understand what causality means? This paragraph contradicts
I see nothing in your discourse that shows a deep understanding of any of the subjects we have discussed. When I asked you about life, you said it was biochemical. Yes it is, and at what level of particle would you say it occurs? And precisely what chemical reactions occur to create a thought?
The atheists I have talked to do not have a deep enough understanding of the universe or life to discuss it intelligently, but they think they have a revelation that there is no God. Even though the concept of God is man-made and only a couple of millenia old, they can’t separate that idea from the fact the universe is billions of years old and was either created or was not and would continue even if Man did not exist. The preponderance of evidence is that the universe was created. The bottom line is simple: either the universe was created or it wasn’t. Tell me the evidence you have that proves it wasn’t.
I’m pretty clear on what I wrote. I also think I’m pretty clear on what “causality” means (that every effect has a cause). I’m saying it’s possible that every universe is created by the end of a previous universe. How am I contradicting causality? I feel like you are trying to refute the statement “any number can be arrived at by adding 1 to the previous number” by asking where the first number came from. It’s not a meaningful question in this context.
You ask at what level of a particle life occurs. My answer — and I thought I was being pretty clear — is that life is not a property of particles. I see no reason to think that it is. You appear to be creating complexity where none exists.
You ask precisely what chemical reactions create a thought. I have no idea as this is not my area of expertise. I also have no idea what chemical reactions occur to let me blink my eyes, but that doesn’t imply that blinking motion is somehow a metaphysical property separate from biological systems. There is no reason to let the argument from ignorance fallacy convince us that not understanding something implies that their explanation is not understandable.
You may have spoken with some atheists who say they have a revelation that there is no God. I am not one of those atheists. I simply see no reason to believe in deities. You keep repeating your statement about man coming up with the concept of God long after the creation of the universe, and I reiterate that this is a pointless argument in our context. Human descriptions of the universe itself are much younger than the universe, but that does not imply that they are incorrect.
You say that the preponderance of evidence is that the universe was created. We obviously disagree on this point. I see no need for a creator.
You ask what evidence I have that the universe wasn’t created. It’s impossible to prove a negative such as this, since you could take any conceivable configuration of the universe and say that a deity created it that way. This would be like me asking you to prove that there are no volcano demons that cause volcanoes to erupt.
I am not proposing the existence of anything particularly novel. You are proposing the existence of a creature powerful enough to create a universe. That’s a gigantic difference. The burden of proof is on you.