The short version, of why I couldn't "believe", even as a small kid...
So what do you believe?
@LoopLinndrum
The greatest advice my dad gave us; "Stop Believing. Start Thinking."
I simply don't "believe" anything. I think, and with that I can hold multiple propositions in view at the same time with weighted probabilities of "accuracy". There is no need to believe.
HTH
I used to be the same however psychologically speaking we view the world through the lens of our own deeply held beliefs.
The error is in believing we view the world and that informs our world-view and this is a continually updating one way relationship.
Additionally, I think for the atheist there are 4 major origin problems:
Origin of Existence
Origin of Information
Origin of Life
Origin of Consciousness
Just a few things you may want to start thinking about, if you have time. ✌️
@LoopLinndrum
The religious proposition is even worse, since then add "Origin of the Supernatural/God(s)" to such list.
If invoking the "Always Existed", like most theists do, then it is so much simpler to do that for "Origin of Existence". The others are not fundamental at all, and simply falls under "I don't know...yet".
It was atheists/skeptics who historically argued for the "steady state" universe, the eternal universe that "always existed" until a Catholic scientist proposed the Big Bang Theory which showed a definitive beginning (and therefore a definitive ending) which lined up with the biblical claim. Ironic.
The origin of information is fundamental to both life and consciousness and there's a very good argument (J.A.Wheeler) that consciousness is fundamental to existence.
@LoopLinndrum I have listened to and heard it all.
Kalam -> Circular Reasoning Fallacy. I find it so stupid that I am surprised that anyone brings it up.
Steady State -> Unlike religious dogma, science adjust its view as the evidence presents itself
WLC -> He never replies to objections to his arguments, I mean sermons. He is preaching, nothing else.
Trent Horn; Don't know him on top of my head.
Consciousness required for Existence; No. That is simply stupid.
WLC literally debates people. I recommended a debate with one of the better atheists, CosmicSkeptic. They handle objections to each other's arguments because that's how a debate works.
Interestingly, none of the big atheists accuse or dismiss Kalam as being a fallacious argument due to circular reasoning. Curious.
Interesting too, how you can dismiss Wheeler's research as stupid without having assessed the evidence or given it any genuine thought.
That's all I have time for today.✌️
Wheeler; the thought experiment doesn't touch on consciousness, afair, but the consequences of the apparent oxymoron on the double-slit experiment, entangled particles and to some degree the Schroedinger's Cat.
Keyword "apparent". Personally I think we (science) are missing some insights, akin to General Relativity, that may take the models in a totally different direction. Physics moves slowly.
What point about "always existed" am I supposed to address?
I'm aware of no theory that doesn't posit a pre-existent condition of our universe that necessarily precludes an argument from nothing.
Effectively, every current hypothesis doesn't have a nothingy enough definition of nothing.
If you're arguing from general relativity then time is a bounded dimension to space so necessarily anything transcendent of the universe's condition (post-big bang) must necessarily be outside time (eternal).