Is this video a valid logical proof of a creator?

[bur7ama1989]

[Place in correct section if i have not]

This video was brought to my attention to be, as the title suggests, a logical proof of a creator. Although it is obvious as to which religion the speaker associates himself with, it doesn't seem to interfere with his explanation. I am posting this to ask for criticisms of the logic used by the speaker. I am looking for a logical rebuttal. Please keep this based on fact and try to avoid quoting religious scripture. The speaker does not quote any himself.

http://www.islamictube.com/watch/a3f572c342dc4bbcda0d/LOGICALLY-PROVING-THAT-THERE-IS-A-CREATOR"

 

[Evo]

Typical rant without logic that if we exist something had to personally create us. If you were to use his *logic*, and there had to be a creator, who created the creator, did he create himself? What existed before he created himself? Did he create himself from nothing? Do you see how making up "a creator" doesn't solve anything? Also if you believe something exits, the onus is on *you* to prove it, not on those that don't believe you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Typical rant without logic that if we exist something had to personally create us. If you were to use his *logic*, and there had to be a creator, who created the creator, did he create himself? What existed before he created himself? Did he create himself from nothing? Do you see how making up "a creator" doesn't solve anything? Also if you believe something exits, the onus is on *you* to prove it, not on those that don't believe you.

However, we know that the universe had a beginning. God is assumed to be eternal - to exist outside of time.

This idea that everything came from nothing does seem rather silly. That's why I was interested in the ideas of a collision of branes, or a collapse of a hypersurface, to explain the BB. This would presumably mean that the universe or multiverse is eternal, and the problem goes away.

 

[Evo]

However, we know that the universe had a beginning. God is assumed to be eternal - to exist outside of time.

And that's were faith comes in. Which is perfectly fine.

This guy is trying to say that he can prove we had a personal creator with his illogical rant. You can believe that, but you can't prove it, and he can't say that those that don't believe in a creator have to prove him wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One of the other great mysteries that he addresses, or at least implicity so, is the question of why the universe works. It is often mentioned that even the slightest deviation in value of some physical constants, would make it impossible for stable atoms to exist. How is it that everything has just the values needed to make the physical universe possible? Based on our current understanding of physics, there is no known reason why this must be the case.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And that's were faith comes in. Which is perfectly fine.

This guy is trying to say that he can prove we had a personal creator with his illogical rant. You can believe that, but you can't prove it, and he can't say that those that don't believe in a creator have to prove him wrong.

I'm not defending his thesis, just some of his points.

 

[Evo]

One of the other great mysteries that he addresses, or at least implicity so, is the question of why the universe works. It is often mentioned that even the slightest deviation in value of some physical constants, would make it impossible for stable atoms to exist. How is it that everything has just the values needed to make the physical universe possible?

It was "the accident" that worked. Obviously the accidents that didn't work, didn't work.

Who's to say that the same accident that formed the universe didn't also create life forms which we can't comprehend and which we refer to as "gods"? Instead of placing these creatures before the big bang, perhaps they are the by-product of it. "Prove me wrong!" Ok, I'll infractionate myself for that one. But do you see my point?

 

[zomgwtf]

One of the other great mysteries that he addresses, or at least implicity so, is the question of why the universe works. It is often mentioned that even the slightest deviation in value of some physical constants, would make it impossible for stable atoms to exist. How is it that everything has just the values needed to make the physical universe possible? Based on our current understanding of physics, there is no known reason why this must be the case.

LOL I absolutely LOVE this type of logic.

To address the post though it's not a mystery AT ALL. People just love to apply mystcs to everything. The universe NECESSARILY must be 'perfect' by it's own standards for existence... It CAN'T be any other way.

It's like the nuts that use the good ole' 'Earth must have been created perfectly to harbour life because it harbours life.' Uhhh... no? WRONGGG! Try again.

 

[zomgwtf]

However, we know that the universe had a beginning.

I think this isn't factually correct... where did you dig that up? (in the context you are using it i.e. cause --> beginning of universe ENTIRELY not just 'our' universe)

God is assumed to be eternal - to exist outside of time.

Err, isn't our universes existence 'out of our time' necessarily? The universe itself doesn't exist INSIDE itself AFAIK.

Assuming god exists solves no problems of the existence of our universe... and belief in such a god just causes more problems for humanity in general than it solves scientifically speaking.

The universe does not need a cause and it doesn't even need to have a 'beginning' from some cosmological models. (in the context you used previously)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

LOL I absolutely LOVE this type of logic.

To address the post though it's not a mystery AT ALL. People just love to apply mystcs to everything. The universe NECESSARILY must be 'perfect' by it's own standards for existence... It CAN'T be any other way.

It's like the nuts that use the good ole' 'Earth must have been created perfectly to harbour life because it harbours life.' Uhhh... no? WRONGGG! Try again.

You shouldn't be so cocky when making such elementary errors. Yes, clearly we do exist, but the question is, why? The fundamental problem is that we don't know what determines the values of the constants. We don't know if they are driven by some underlying physics that we don't understand, or if they happened by chance. If you look back on the talk about Heim Theory, he claimed to have a model that predicted the values of the constants. Had that been true it would have been been revolutionary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think this isn't factually correct... where did you dig that up? (in the context you are using it i.e. cause --> beginning of universe ENTIRELY not just 'our' universe)

We have no physics to go beyond the first few microseconds or so, of time. There is no known cause for the BB.

Err, isn't our universes existence 'out of our time' necessarily? The universe itself doesn't exist INSIDE itself AFAIK.

Space and time necessarily coexist.

Assuming god exists solves no problems of the existence of our universe...

Really? Why not?

The universe does not need a cause and it doesn't even need to have a 'beginning' from some cosmological models. (in the context you used previously)

Ah, please provide a source for that one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have heard the suggestion made [no idea if this relates to any formal theory] that universes are constantly bubbling up out of the multiverse, with perhaps millions or billions of failed universes for every one that works. Again, I have no idea if this is anything more than wild speculation; if there is any scientific basis for this idea. It did come from a physicist, that's all that I can say for sure.

 

[GeorgCantor]

LOL I absolutely LOVE this type of logic.

To address the post though it's not a mystery AT ALL. People just love to apply mystcs to everything.

Do you understand that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason WHATSOEVER, why anything should be understandable, i.e. NOT being mystical??

The universe NECESSARILY must be 'perfect' by it's own standards for existence... It CAN'T be any other way.

Sorry, but this makes as much sense as Dart Vader dancing ballet. Why should the universe be perfect by its own standards? What are these standard of the universe? Is the univese alive and conscious that it sets standard for itself? Sounds like a load of crap.

 

[GeorgCantor]

The universe does not need a cause and it doesn't even need to have a 'beginning' from some cosmological models. (in the context you used previously)

You can make any untestable model that will fit all the data we currently have(not much) and conclude almost anything.

 

[pallidin]

Luke, I am your Father...

 

[pallidin]

You can make any untestable model that will fit all the data we currently have(not much) and conclude almost anything.

True, but isn't it so much fun!
After all, wars are started over this.

Yummy!

 

[zomgwtf]

Do you understand that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason WHATSOEVER, why anything should be understandable, i.e. NOT being mystical??

Yeah exactly so why apply mystics to it? To pretend we understand? Give me a break. That was the entire point. Regardless of if we can understand 'causation of our universe' or not we do not need to invoke mystics. PERIOD Why make unnecessary assumptions?

Sorry, but this makes as much sense as Dart Vader dancing ballet. Why should the universe be perfect by its own standards? What are these standard of the universe? Is the univese alive and conscious that it sets standard for itself? Sounds like a load of crap.

I guess I should have said by it's own standards of it's own existence. It NECESSARILY exists the way it exists because it does exist is the whole point. This is not an elementry mistake as Ivan would like to believe. The elementary mistake is presuming that there is a reason for it being this way. (shown in his question 'why?')
They answer simply is: Because it is.

You can make any untestable model that will fit all the data we currently have(not much) and conclude almost anything.

I'd love for you to cite for me peer review articles from well known scientific journals where a cosmological model was presented which is 'untestable' and demonstrates that 'cosmology can conclude anything given the data'.

It's also pretty ironic you posted that last post considering in your last post you defended mysticism.

 

[zomgwtf]

You shouldn't be so cocky when making such elementary errors. Yes, clearly we do exist, but the question is, why? The fundamental problem is that we don't know what determines the values of the constants. We don't know if they are driven by some underlying physics that we don't understand, or if they happened by chance. If you look back on the talk about Heim Theory, he claimed to have a model that predicted the values of the constants. Had that been true it would have been been revolutionary.

Well then, I always love posts that start off with a bit of ad hominem.

Why do we exist? Because that's how the universe played out necessarily so because we exist! DUH! (circular reasoning FTW?!) The question itself is an argument from ignorance I think. Nothing is known about existence why should we assume it has a purpose or reason?

First off what constants are you talking about? No the fundamental problem to the question of causation of our universe is not that we may not be able to understand the underlying physics.

I thought Heim Theory is non-mainstream, isn't this a mainstream science ONLY forum? Wow though. Really! Him being able to predict the value of 'the constants (whatever ones your talking about) would have been revolutionary to science! Way to add something usefull in regard to the OP!

 

[zomgwtf]

We have no physics to go beyond the first few microseconds or so, of time. There is no known cause for the BB.

Oh, really? Way to make it look like this is an apparent contradiction to what I had stated:

The universe does not need a cause

Space and time necessarily coexist.

What does this have to do with what I posted exactly... I can't see any correlation between space/time existing in our universe and the fact that our universe exists outside that scope. The universe is EVERYTrHING including space and time. I posted that as a rebutle to your statement that: God is assumed to exist outside space/time.
I posed the counter: Why can't our universe exist outside space/time? You have not answered this at all. Simple.

Really? Why not?

Name a few problems that assuming existence of God will solve. Just replace all questions about the universe and shove them on to the concept you have of God. They still work; nothings changed!

Ah, please provide a source for that one.

What abouuut: Cyclic universe models, Ekpyrotic universe models or the new quantum bounce models? What about Inflationary models pre-big bang?

Just as a side: When was the last time you actually studied cosmology or do you just have a average Joes understanding of the universe? I assume the latter because you seem to be under the impression that Big Bang = universe coming into existence.

It's not, it's the initial conditions and the accelerated expansion that occured. The universe already existed.

Big Bang theory = The universe started off much hotter and denser than it is today and has expanded over a finite amount of time (13.7 billion years ago) This says nothing about the origin of it all. Maybe it was one of those quantum possibilities that sprung into existence?

 

[thack45]

We've all heard the "something must have created everything" logic. But wouldn't a more "logical" reason for faith in a creator be evolution?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Yeah exactly so why apply mystics to it?

Because you admit that you don't have an answer why the universe should NOT be mystical.
Everything is still mystical, we don't understand the universe, NOBODY does and this is exactly 100.00% certain.

To pretend we understand? Give me a break. That was the entire point. Regardless of if we can understand 'causation of our universe' or not we do not need to invoke mystics.

You fail to understand that you DO NOT understand the universe. At all. Your belief that you understand the universe and that it's not longer mystical is completely and totally unfounded. Really, it involves too much faith.

Why make unnecessary assumptions?

Who dictates which assumptions are necessary and which are unnecessary? Why is the assumption that you understand the universe a 'necessary' one? Why should i believe your assumption?

I guess I should have said by it's own standards of it's own existence. It NECESSARILY exists the way it exists because it does exist is the whole point.

You are going in circles and circular reasoning has never been a particularly good method for laying out a thesis.

This is not an elementry mistake as Ivan would like to believe. The elementary mistake is presuming that there is a reason for it being this way. (shown in his question 'why?')

As far as i can see, Ivan said Cause, not reason. How do you know there was not a cause? You assumed it, and you can assume anything, we all do at times. While there can or can't possibly be a creator, your reasoning does not in any way turn out to be superior to that of Ivan.

They answer simply is: Because it is.

So you have found the final answer to the biggest question of all times? Sound like faith to me.

I'd love for you to cite for me peer review articles from well known scientific journals where a cosmological model was presented which is 'untestable' and demonstrates that 'cosmology can conclude anything given the data'.

You mean the Big Bang theory is testable and is now beyond any doubt? Would you test it for me please?
Do you understand that the BB theory will not hold wil at least half of the interpretations - MWI, CI, the Relational interpretation, etc.

It's also pretty ironic you posted that last post considering in your last post you defended mysticism.

Which part of it didn't you understand? Those models involve a high degree of error margin, due to the fact that our basic physoical models don't work together. They are still speculative and tentative, though they are accepted by the majority. This doesn't mean however, that the minority that rejects them is wrong, as there is no way to test those models rigorously. Do you understand this point?

 

[zomgwtf]

Georg. I think your missing the point completely. There is no need to invoke mystics because it doesn't solve anything. It just brings up the same questions applied to the mystics. No new understanding and better yet: it leads no where. To believe in that requires faith, to utilize science requires evidence. I never once stated I understand everything in the universe. I clearly understand enough to see that it's pointless to invoke mystics though. That's not based on faith, it's based on deduction.

EDIT: As well yeah, I did use circular logic. Why not? The question is completely useless, just like the answer.

ERGO: To conclude by some logic that there is necessarily a creator and the universe necessairly had a cause and purpose is wrong.

As well @ Georg. You seem to be applying the False dilema fallacy towards me. If I say it's not this or this isn't necessary it must necessarily mean I think option 'B' 100%. WRONG! Truth being: I don't know about the 'cause' of the universe, and that's why I don't invoke mystics about it without evidence.(know in the philosophical sense which means it is a true belief.)

Invoking mystics or a creator means, necessarily, that you think you KNOW about the causation/'birth' of the universes existence as a whole. Nothing I have stated concludes, as some are trying to portray it as, that I know about this. Only that it is pointless to invoke mystics because it is not necessary.

Did I get my point across well enough through reptition or do I need a follow-up?

 

[pallidin]

Well, when humans can even begin to understand God, I'm all ears.

 

[Leptos]

There are certain formulations of "creator" that are logically inconsistent. Could some sort of "creator" exist? Sure. Just not the kinds most people think of.

 

[apeiron]

Do you understand that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason WHATSOEVER, why anything should be understandable, i.e. NOT being mystical??

What do you actually mean by "understandable"?

A scientist's position since the Enlightenment would be that we can model the world even if we cannot "know" the world. A model is a representation of some framework of causality - a logical, and normally mechanical, representation. It would seem to be an "understanding", and one that excludes any mysticism (as maths makes models crisp, not vague).

 

[chiro]

Well, when humans can even begin to understand God, I'm all ears.

Absolutely, we can barely understand ourselves let alone an entity like God.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Georg. I think your missing the point completely. There is no need to invoke mystics because it doesn't solve anything.

Really? How come?

It just brings up the same questions applied to the mystics. No new understanding and better yet: it leads no where.

Aha, you make the assumption that you MUST understand the hypothetical creator. You like making assumptions, don't you?

To believe in that requires faith, to utilize science requires evidence.

Ultimate questions REQUIRE faith, always, anytime, 24/7, 365 days per year. You just don't realize that the models you've chosen also require faith.

I never once stated I understand everything in the universe.

But you did state that a creator is UNnecessary. This means that you THINK you understand the universe and how everything works. This is simply hilarious and couldn't be further from the truth. A creator/designer is by default compatible with absolutely all the evidence that there might ever be. Whatever evidence you can bring up, there is no way to disprove that it wasn't the creator's will that things had to be exactly that particular way. You can believe that a creator is unnecessary, but those ultimate questions will always remain unanswerable and highly debateable. When it comes down to your beliefs vs someone else's, it becomes similar to the fights between religions.

I clearly understand enough to see that it's pointless to invoke mystics though. That's not based on faith, it's based on deduction.

No, you don't understand enough. This is ridiculous. Nobel prize winners never claim they know enough to disprove a creator, and you with you 113 times lesser knowledge claim this. Hmm...

EDIT: As well yeah, I did use circular logic. Why not? The question is completely useless, just like the answer.

ANd how do you know it's a useless question? You assumed so. You can assume anything, it's rather easy but also kind of pointless.

ERGO: To conclude by some logic that there is necessarily a creator and the universe necessairly had a cause and purpose is wrong.

While this may or may not be the case, it doesn't follow from anything you said above.

As well @ Georg. You seem to be applying the False dilema fallacy towards me. If I say it's not this or this isn't necessary it must necessarily mean I think option 'B' 100%. WRONG! Truth being: I don't know about the 'cause' of the universe, and that's why I don't invoke mystics about it without evidence.(know in the philosophical sense which means it is a true belief.)

Whenever you make statements that a creator is not required, you are making a bold assertion that reveals that you hold a high level of faith for the models you've chosen that you cannot falsify.

Invoking mystics or a creator means, necessarily, that you think you KNOW about the causation/'birth' of the universes existence as a whole.

I said it's one of the options. There may or may not be a creator, this is the default position for me, as i don't have faith of the religious or atheist kind.

Nothing I have stated concludes, as some are trying to portray it as, that I know about this.

Quite to the contrary, and this is rather obvious. Anytime you throw around statements that god is obsolete, means that you think you understand the universe. You are of course wrong, as are probably those of the religious camp.

Only that it is pointless to invoke mystics because it is not necessary.

God is not necessary, because God is not necessary. The Bible is right, because the Bible says so.

Did I get my point across well enough through reptition or do I need a follow-up?

No. You are repeating the same old mantra - god is not neceassry because it's not necessary and given that the thread will be locked, i am not too enthusiastic about writing a lengthier response.

 

[GeorgCantor]

What do you actually mean by "understandable"?

A scientist's position since the Enlightenment would be that we can model the world even if we cannot "know" the world. A model is a representation of some framework of causality - a logical, and normally mechanical, representation. It would seem to be an "understanding", and one that excludes any mysticism (as maths makes models crisp, not vague).

Aren't the laws of nature that we are discovering drawing us closer to understanding the universe? This is a philosophical question and my position, as with most scientists, is that they slowly are. But this could be an illusion or misunderstanding and the whole model that we are scientifically building could collapse at any time. The foundations of science are nowhere near rock-solid. The fundamental knowledge that every physicist is after is simply not there yet.

 

[apeiron]

Aren't the laws of nature that we are discovering drawing us closer to understanding the universe? This is a philosophical question and my position, as with most scientists, is that they slowly are.

Which I agree with. But that does not seem to fit with you saying there is no reason things should be understandable. If things ARE understandable, as you say, then why should we think it us UN-reasonable that this is so. It may be possible that reality MIGHT have not been understandable. But in practice, that seems a moot point on the evidence.

Whenever you make statements that a creator is not required, you are making a bold assertion that reveals that you hold a high level of faith for the models you've chosen that you cannot falsify.

But surely, just as there can be logical attempts to prove that creators must exist (if there are creations), so there can be logical attempts to prove that they cannot exist.

A standard rebuff is the infinite regress argument. If we need a creator for a creation, then who created the creator? Given the infinite regress, it is more parsimonious just to say creation exists (because that is what you are going have to say about a god - he just exists - so positing a god buys nothing of explanatory interest).

And in fact, it is a "faith" in regular models of causality that make people feel so desperate to find the local efficient cause of reality - the prime mover who could be its first cause. A bolder move is to say, well, "it just exists". But that is also then "illogical" as logic demands the cause that produces the effect.

So logic says there must be a first cause, and also that there cannot be one. Which is when people really ought to be wondering whether they are employing the best logic available.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Which I agree with. But that does not seem to fit with you saying there is no reason things should be understandable. If things ARE understandable, as you say, then why should we think it us UN-reasonable that this is so.

I don't follow you. Are you saying that it's reasonable that if the universe is understandble, we must be slowly building an understanding of it? If so, how does that answer the question why the universe is understandable in the first place?

zomgwtf insisted that our explanations of the universe should not be mystical, yet neither he nor anyone else could show the reason why the universe must not be mystical and incomprehensible. In short, I zomgwt, or I apeiron think the universe should not be regarded as mystical but as totally comprehensible because:

1...
2...
3...

It may be possible that reality MIGHT have not been understandable. But in practice, that seems a moot point on the evidence.

OK, i'll concede that reality in the not so near future might be totally comprehensible and no more mystical. How does that prove that there is no creator? I'd say it tips the scales in favor of the idea of a creator, than vice versa. What's the other option? That reality is in our heads only and hence the totality of the explanatory power of the human mind?

But surely, just as there can be logical attempts to prove that creators must exist (if there are creations), so there can be logical attempts to prove that they cannot exist.

I agree. But there is a boundary between philosophy and religion. Anytime your assumptions start looking like pure 'facts' to you, your doctrine is leaving philosophy-land for good.

A standard rebuff is the infinite regress argument. If we need a creator for a creation, then who created the creator? Given the infinite regress, it is more parsimonious just to say creation exists (because that is what you are going have to say about a god - he just exists - so positing a god buys nothing of explanatory interest).

I think it's silly to assume that we can understand a hypothetical creator god. I am not certain that it's not silly to assume that we can understand our reality, let alone god. We have a long way to go before we can look that high.

And in fact, it is a "faith" in regular models of causality that make people feel so desperate to find the local efficient cause of reality - the prime mover who could be its first cause. A bolder move is to say, well, "it just exists". But that is also then "illogical" as logic demands the cause that produces the effect.

So logic says there must be a first cause, and also that there cannot be one. Which is when people really ought to be wondering whether they are employing the best logic available.

I am also questioning both our logic or what we think is logical in the universe. Or maybe it's that there seems to be something missing - some driving principle for the organization found in our universe - from the physical constants and subsequent formation of matter to the arrival of emergent conscious, self-aware life in a comprehensible and mathematically consistent environment(if this is even how things really took place)

 

[Descartz2000]

However, we know that the universe had a beginning. God is assumed to be eternal - to exist outside of time.

This idea that everything came from nothing does seem rather silly. That's why I was interested in the ideas of a collision of branes, or a collapse of a hypersurface, to explain the BB. This would presumably mean that the universe or multiverse is eternal, and the problem goes away.

I agree. The issue however then becomes if eternal and there were no initial conditions from the Big Bang, then how do the properties and configurations of the Universe look the way they do today? In other words, this model allows for no logical explanation for why objects and relationships we see today are the way they are. At least with initial conditions we can make more sense of the structures we identify today. But, then again - if there were initial conditions and the BB was the start of all that we see today, and this was in fact the first cause, then what caused the BB? Some will say: "nothing caused the BB, as there was no time or space prior to the BB, there were no prior states". But, logically it seems we must always regress back to an earlier state in order to explain the current state we observe. There is no logical explanation any way that you look at it. At least none identified today.

 

[Descartz2000]

Which I agree with. But that does not seem to fit with you saying there is no reason things should be understandable. If things ARE understandable, as you say, then why should we think it us UN-reasonable that this is so. It may be possible that reality MIGHT have not been understandable. But in practice, that seems a moot point on the evidence.



But surely, just as there can be logical attempts to prove that creators must exist (if there are creations), so there can be logical attempts to prove that they cannot exist.

A standard rebuff is the infinite regress argument. If we need a creator for a creation, then who created the creator? Given the infinite regress, it is more parsimonious just to say creation exists (because that is what you are going have to say about a god - he just exists - so positing a god buys nothing of explanatory interest).

And in fact, it is a "faith" in regular models of causality that make people feel so desperate to find the local efficient cause of reality - the prime mover who could be its first cause. A bolder move is to say, well, "it just exists". But that is also then "illogical" as logic demands the cause that produces the effect.

So logic says there must be a first cause, and also that there cannot be one. Which is when people really ought to be wondering whether they are employing the best logic available.

Good insight

 

[zomgwtf]

There you go with the False dilema again. Just because we should not invoke mystics does NOT mean that the universe is comprehensible.

You look at it as belief in:
God = incomprehensible universe
No God = comprehensible universe.

Not true as I've stated many times. You're asserting my beliefs in how we can understand the universe based off the fact that I say it is not necessary to invoke something that we can not understand further. I never said that I KNOW no god exists, only that it is a pointless proposition and belief to hold because it leads no where at this current point in time. That is just the 'creator' type God from the OP. If the God has stories that if you don't follow his will he'll put you on a spike and repeatedly burn you or shove pineapples up your *** for an eternity then you might have a point in your belief in that God. This isn't the case in this thread however.

So the question is specificly about the cause of the universe.
God caused the universe and God needs no cause.
This is based on HUGE assumptions and false knowledge. (which isn't true knowledge hence it leads no where)

OR what I'm saying:
The universe exists and the cause (God) can not be fully understood so there's no point in making leaps of faith to attempt to conclude a creator must exist.
This has the minor assumption that we can not understand the cause of the universe WHY should we assume that? Because we live inside the universe so can not be 100% certain of anything that might occur or had occurred outside of our universe. Even if we end up making 'test tube' universes it wouldn't show conclusively that our universe was made in a similar way.

I show this point by changing around what Ivan had stated to show that the universe can be given all the defintions of a 'first cause' creator so why should we jump to mystics? To say that we should not invoke mystics isn't a firm stance on whether or not God does in fact exist as you like to think Georg.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I mostly agree with your latest statement zomgwtf, it seems to be a toned down version that's much harder to shoot down.

Reality is still pretty much incomrehensible and mystical, so anytime you or I or anyone else makes a definite statement, it's simply crying out loud - 'take me down, take me down, it's so easy'.

Reality could be a fluke or just as easily be divinely inspired(that should, in principle and philosophically speaking, include all possible creation events - advanced alien races, simlulations, brains in vats, bolzmann brains and the such).

 

[zomgwtf]

ANd how do you know it's a useless question? You assumed so. You can assume anything, it's rather easy but also kind of pointless.

It's useless because the definitive answer will always involve circular logic. Which was what I was showing. Here we have
'The universe exists necessarily because it exists' It's not really a perfect example of circular logic but hey... you want to call me out here:

'God exists because the universe exists and god created the universe' That's a PERFECT example of circular reasoning is it not? It's what's necessary to make assumptions about the universe. I'm of the position that no assumptions should be made as such because they don't add anything other than same set of questions on to the new concept (God in this case).