Others have tried to do that, Packfan for one, and could never get past the ability to define what 'true' means.
I defined it. You just didn't like the way I defined it.
No worries, kingdomseeker.
Is there a contingent finite substance that is self caused? If not it would seem that we are dealing with an infinite regress which of course is philosophically unsatisfying while at he same time only pushes back the question . ( A slick way of trying to avoid the obvious)
You are suggesting that the law of causation requires an external cause for the universe, but we both know that it only applies when you know that something began to exist. When it comes to the universe, that is simply not known. There is the possibility that the universe is an infinite regression of dependent states (but I realize you don't find that satisfying). It also seems reasonable to me that the since the universe is a set of all things that exist, it necessarily follows that the universe exists as long as some thing exists (i.e., the universe doesn't require an external 'cause'). It is as silly to apply the law of causation to the universe as it is to suggest that the law of causation applies to mathematical sets (e.g., whole numbers). At the end of the day, we don't know if the universe has a cause, and it seems unreasonable to claim it must.
On the contrary those who claim God does exist need not be all knowing and everywhere at once because they believe that God has made himself known through revelation and His creation. They don’t have to “find” Him because He has “found” them and made Himself known to them.
I disagree. If someone claims that ghosts exist (or anything else supernatural), they have a burden of proof. Since the supernatural cannot be measured or "known" in any sense other than through personal experience, I suggest that the theistic claim is just as incoherent as the strong atheist claim (i.e., no gods exist).