Found this, and I just had to share.

It is still an invalid argument. The entire point is that an causality leads to an infinite and regress and so makes the universe logically impossible. It seems that your method is to assume that if we know a statement to be false, then the inverse must be true. For instance, if the statement "there is light" is not true, then the statement "there is no light" must be true by definition. However, you have failed to do this. Again, let me lay it out.

Statement: The universe cannot exist if causality is valid. [True]
Inverse: Causality cannot be valid if the universe exists. [True]
Concluction: The universe exists, therefore causality does not. [No conflict; True]​

However, you have not made this assertion. Instead, you have done this:

Statement: The universe cannot exist if causality is valid. [True]
Inverse (?): If the universe exists, then there must be a first cause. [There cannot be a first cause as defined by the statement; False]
Conclusion: The universe exists, therefore causality is true except for an undetermined first cause. [There is a conflict; False]​

I hope that is clearer.

Define the rules of indeterminism, and explain why one should believe in a god if one can cause one's own existence or have happened randomly, please.

 

Woah. Woah. Woah. When did I say anything about God? I'm simply rejecting determinism because of the fallacy it creates(the infinite regress). I also have no clue where you got the idea of "one causing one's own existence" from indeterminism(or at least that's what it seems). Before I make an argument for indeterminism, could you please clarify that last one?

 

Which did you mean? Hm. Indeterminism as I understand it, especially as the absence of determinism, would necessarily argue that events can happen randomly without previous causes.

I presumed that this discussion had shifted to a creationism versus all else thread like usual. I apologize for deviating.