The Cosmological Arguments for God's Existence

[ding]

You have forced us to be militant.

We forced you to be militant? Are you saying you have no control over yourself? That we control you?

Wow, I never knew I had that much power.

 

[ding]

"But I am not anymore. In my interactions with religious and nonreligious people alike, I now draw a sharp line, based not on what exactly they believe but on their level of dogmatism. I consider dogmatism a far greater threat than religion per se. I am particularly curious why anyone would drop religion while retaining the blinkers sometimes associated with it. Why are the “neo-atheists” of today so obsessed with God’s nonexistence that they go on media rampages, wear T-shirts proclaiming their absence of belief, or call for a militant atheism? What does atheism have to offer that’s worth fighting for?

As one philosopher put it, being a militant atheist is like “sleeping furiously.”...

...atheists’ zeal keeps surprising me. Why “sleep furiously” unless there are inner demons to be kept at bay? In the same way that firefighters are sometimes stealth arsonists and homophobes closet homosexuals, do some atheists secretly long for the certitude of religion?..."

Has militant atheism become a religion?

We aren’t stoning anyone or burning anyone at the stake.

You guys sure are sensitive.

We feel your lie is bad for people. It may make you feel good but we think religion makes people stupid and overall we’d be better off without it.

If your faith is strong and your stories are real you shouldn’t worry about us who mock your religions for being made up.

You vot based on your religion. You have organized politically through your religion. You have forced us to be militant. And what about free speech? Do you want to outlaw our words? Your religion seems weak if it can’t be challenged

No. Militant atheists only killed 200 million people in the 20th century.

Do I understand you that you want to take away our right to vote?

Christians killed more.

Don’t give us credit for ww2. Germany was mostly Catholics and Protestants.

You mean from war?

C'mon man.

How many people has bush and trump killed overseas? Millions? Th Christian numbers keep racking up. When’s the last time an atheist country killed anyone?

And you take credit for every taliban kill. Those are religious muslims

I already answered this. 200 million people in the 20th century. All died at the hands of militant atheist regimes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I would suggest that you sit yourself down and humbly read the book of JOB.

The book of job is nothing but a weak, embarrasingly stupid argument to exculpate god. 10 cent ambulance chasers make better arguments.

 

[xband]

Give Occam's Razor a chance.

 

[sealybobo]

If your faith is strong and your stories are real you shouldn’t worry about us who mock your religions for being made up.

I agree. That's why you don't see me calling people names and insulting them.

Oh yea. Tell the members of your church you don’t believe anymore and see how you’re treated.

I don’t treat Christians I know that badly. I don’t care what they believe. But Christians care. They will ostracize you. Pretty cold.

 

[BreezeWood]

In a stereotypical attempt to justify his “… because I say so” claims to supernaturalism, the boy retreats to a litany of attributes he carelessly ascribes to his gods unaware of the irrelevant concept of a “… because I say so” claim. Trying to make this nonsensical red herring relevant to his already hopeless argument, he then applies this “concept” with gross incompetence of the most unsophisticated sort.

Your position is of a religious extremist and ill-informed. Your posted comments represent a system of mal-formed opinions on what you think about matters you don’t understand. The concept of an “uncreated creator” was derived first and foremost by explicitly religious apologists, and it has no legacy outside of that agenda. It is certainly not a widely held belief among other religions of the world. Even the ancient European religions posited a spontaneous generation of the creator (or creators) out of primordial elements that preexisted them. The concept of an eternal, uncreated creator derives almost uniquely from the polytheism of Christianity. Even the Jewish Yahweh evolved out of an earlier polytheism with ambiguous origins for their pantheon.

Your nonsensical “… because I say so” claim is a useless one for determining the existence (let alone character) of an “uncreated creator,” since it is purely (and viciously) circular.

Your hope was (and still is) to hold up the argument of the “uncaused cause” as a genuine syllogism of intellectual merit, in spite of the fact that it has not been taken seriously for generations. The fact that you hold it to be so regardless of its intellectual worthlessness is most easily attributable to some emotional comfort it provides you.

You want it to be useful, even though it sadly is not.
Unfortunately, the religious perspectives you so loudly thump over have been the prime antecedent of 2,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

Now, back to the question: why are you so hopelssly inadequate at providing even the most rudimentary evidence for your claims to magic and supernaturalism as the cause for existence?

Once again, you have not refuted the argument. Your post is nothing more than a litany of slogans that we've heard over and over again from new atheist nitwits. The fundamental attributes of divinity axiomatically follow from the KCA proof.

Go back and carefully read the KCA again, only this time as you do, think. Please note that the material world is a continuously divisible, mutable and, thus, contingent entity of causality. Such an entity cannot be past-eternal. That means it began to exist. The only possible cause for the existence of such an entity would necessarily be a wholly transcendent, eternally self-subsistent being of incomparable greatness and free will Who created everything else that exists from nothing. Such a being would necessarily be omnipotent and omniscient.

Now back to the question: how are omnipotence and omniscience contradictory as you claim?

Thanks.

.

Please note that the material world is a continuously divisible, mutable and, thus, contingent entity of causality. Such an entity cannot be past-eternal.

the entity does not remain the same -

the substance simply changes identity at fruition reenacting an eternal cyclical event.

 

[ding]

You vot based on your religion. You have organized politically through your religion. You have forced us to be militant. And what about free speech? Do you want to outlaw our words? Your religion seems weak if it can’t be challenged

Is that what you guys are doing? Challenging us?

Here, let me give you a guide to use so you can tell when you are actually challenging us.

 

[ding]

In a stereotypical attempt to justify his “… because I say so” claims to supernaturalism, the boy retreats to a litany of attributes he carelessly ascribes to his gods unaware of the irrelevant concept of a “… because I say so” claim. Trying to make this nonsensical red herring relevant to his already hopeless argument, he then applies this “concept” with gross incompetence of the most unsophisticated sort.

Your position is of a religious extremist and ill-informed. Your posted comments represent a system of mal-formed opinions on what you think about matters you don’t understand. The concept of an “uncreated creator” was derived first and foremost by explicitly religious apologists, and it has no legacy outside of that agenda. It is certainly not a widely held belief among other religions of the world. Even the ancient European religions posited a spontaneous generation of the creator (or creators) out of primordial elements that preexisted them. The concept of an eternal, uncreated creator derives almost uniquely from the polytheism of Christianity. Even the Jewish Yahweh evolved out of an earlier polytheism with ambiguous origins for their pantheon.

Your nonsensical “… because I say so” claim is a useless one for determining the existence (let alone character) of an “uncreated creator,” since it is purely (and viciously) circular.

Your hope was (and still is) to hold up the argument of the “uncaused cause” as a genuine syllogism of intellectual merit, in spite of the fact that it has not been taken seriously for generations. The fact that you hold it to be so regardless of its intellectual worthlessness is most easily attributable to some emotional comfort it provides you.

You want it to be useful, even though it sadly is not.
Unfortunately, the religious perspectives you so loudly thump over have been the prime antecedent of 2,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

Now, back to the question: why are you so hopelssly inadequate at providing even the most rudimentary evidence for your claims to magic and supernaturalism as the cause for existence?

Once again, you have not refuted the argument. Your post is nothing more than a litany of slogans that we've heard over and over again from new atheist nitwits. The fundamental attributes of divinity axiomatically follow from the KCA proof.

Go back and carefully read the KCA again, only this time as you do, think. Please note that the material world is a continuously divisible, mutable and, thus, contingent entity of causality. Such an entity cannot be past-eternal. That means it began to exist. The only possible cause for the existence of such an entity would necessarily be a wholly transcendent, eternally self-subsistent being of incomparable greatness and free will Who created everything else that exists from nothing. Such a being would necessarily be omnipotent and omniscient.

Now back to the question: how are omnipotence and omniscience contradictory as you claim?

Thanks.

.

Please note that the material world is a continuously divisible, mutable and, thus, contingent entity of causality. Such an entity cannot be past-eternal.

the entity does not remain the same -

the substance simply changes identity at fruition reenacting an eternal cyclical event.

Where did you get your beliefs from?

 

[sealybobo]

You have forced us to be militant.

We forced you to be militant? Are you saying you have no control over yourself? That we control you?

Wow, I never knew I had that much power.

Look how crazy we make you when we abort.

 

[LittleNipper]

You can tell him how unimpressed you are when you meet your maker.

If heshe is real, I'll spit in their face on everyone's behalf for condoning all the things condoned in Mosaic Law, and for being as superficial and self centered as ding on the internet and requiring "worship."

Don’t blame god for ding and jerry Falwell

Ding believes he is a future god in waiting. He will never die, live for the rest of eternity with his grandparents and never get sick sad or mad.

It’s really ridiculous isn’t it?

I dont blame god, Im being internally critical of the belief.

Id have to believe in God to blame him/her/it, for something, and Ive never been presented with a good enough justification to believe in such a thing.

"But I am not anymore. In my interactions with religious and nonreligious people alike, I now draw a sharp line, based not on what exactly they believe but on their level of dogmatism. I consider dogmatism a far greater threat than religion per se. I am particularly curious why anyone would drop religion while retaining the blinkers sometimes associated with it. Why are the “neo-atheists” of today so obsessed with God’s nonexistence that they go on media rampages, wear T-shirts proclaiming their absence of belief, or call for a militant atheism? What does atheism have to offer that’s worth fighting for?

As one philosopher put it, being a militant atheist is like “sleeping furiously.”...

...atheists’ zeal keeps surprising me. Why “sleep furiously” unless there are inner demons to be kept at bay? In the same way that firefighters are sometimes stealth arsonists and homophobes closet homosexuals, do some atheists secretly long for the certitude of religion?..."

Has militant atheism become a religion?

We aren’t stoning anyone or burning anyone at the stake.

You guys sure are sensitive.

We feel your lie is bad for people. It may make you feel good but we think religion makes people stupid and overall we’d be better off without it.

If your faith is strong and your stories are real you shouldn’t worry about us who mock your religions for being made up.

You vot based on your religion. You have organized politically through your religion. You have forced us to be militant. And what about free speech? Do you want to outlaw our words? Your religion seems weak if it can’t be challenged

Freedom of speech ended the day public school teachers could no longer open a discussion of GOD philosophically in a classroom full of students; however, transvestites and homosexuals are allowed to explain their lifestyles to impressionable students and anyone who finds this a concern is labeled HOMOPHOBIC! Secularism seems weak if it can only grow where Christianity is excluded!

 

[percysunshine]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence are predicated on the first principles of ontology, i.e., the fundamental facts of existence per the imperatives of logic. Many fail to appreciate the intermediate premises of these arguments, particularly those of the KCA.


The following includes my own sub-premises for the first premise and my summary argument for the conclusion:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Horizontal Argument)

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

1.1. Something exists.

1.2. Existence from nonexistence is absurd.

1.3. Something has always existed.
​

2. The universe began to exist.

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

AND

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.​

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.

3.11. The universe is a material existent.

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.


The Vertical Cosmological Argument​

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

There are more cosmological arguments for anything than there are ringtones on my iphone.

 

[ding]

If your faith is strong and your stories are real you shouldn’t worry about us who mock your religions for being made up.

I agree. That's why you don't see me calling people names and insulting them.

Oh yea. Tell the members of your church you don’t believe anymore and see how you’re treated.

I don’t treat Christians I know that badly. I don’t care what they believe. But Christians care. They will ostracize you. Pretty cold.

Why would I treat someone different just because they didn't believe as I did? I like diversity. I'm not the one arguing we should all believe the same thing. That's you guys. Hell if it was up to you I couldn't even vote.

 

[ding]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence are predicated on the first principles of ontology, i.e., the fundamental facts of existence per the imperatives of logic. Many fail to appreciate the intermediate premises of these arguments, particularly those of the KCA.


The following includes my own sub-premises for the first premise and my summary argument for the conclusion:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Horizontal Argument)

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

1.1. Something exists.

1.2. Existence from nonexistence is absurd.

1.3. Something has always existed.
​

2. The universe began to exist.

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

AND

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.​

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.

3.11. The universe is a material existent.

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.


The Vertical Cosmological Argument​

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

There are more cosmological arguments for anything than there are ringtones on my iphone.

OK, name them. Go.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here is an analogue to the stupid argument made in the book of job:

You make a device with explosives that is designed to put on a pretty light show (or, so you say, wink wink). You carry this device into your neighbor's garage, leave it, then set it off. It explodes, killing your neighbor.

You get charged with negligent homicide, or manslaughter, or maybe even murder. Your defense?

"That device was very complicated, and so lent itself to malfunction. I cannot have been expected to know what it would do. Therefore, blame the device, not its maker. "

What rational person whose mind is not addled by religious bullshit (or strong drugs) accepts such an idiotic defense as complete exculpation? Nobody. The only thing acheived by this defense, if successful, is to indict the maker as a ******* moron who will still be guilty of negligent homocide.

 

[LittleNipper]

You can tell him how unimpressed you are when you meet your maker.

If heshe is real, I'll spit in their face on everyone's behalf for condoning all the things condoned in Mosaic Law, and for being as superficial and self centered as ding on the internet and requiring "worship."

Don’t blame god for ding and jerry Falwell

Ding believes he is a future god in waiting. He will never die, live for the rest of eternity with his grandparents and never get sick sad or mad.

It’s really ridiculous isn’t it?

Me? No way. I'm just some guy on a computer. Nothing special about me.

Where do you go when you die?

No one knows their fate. So how can I know?

He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. What's not to know?

 

[G.T.]

I would suggest that you sit yourself down and humbly read the book of JOB.

The book of job is nothing but a weak, embarrasingly stupid argument to exculpate god. 10 cent ambulance chasers make better arguments.

Youre not going to reason with that guy.

People used to bury their babies under the foundations of buildings as a sacrifice to their gods.

Decapitations of the Maya, atop the Pyramids that I visited in the Yucatan makes clear that Jews inherited the idea of sacrificing a human being to appease a sky dad. The story of Jesus is a plagiarized folklore thats as old as time, and like I said its born from that fear that we've evolved by becoming sentient, aware of fatality. Rationalization 101, and its nothing close to original, certainly not profound and actually...mostly goofy.

 

[sealybobo]

You vot based on your religion. You have organized politically through your religion. You have forced us to be militant. And what about free speech? Do you want to outlaw our words? Your religion seems weak if it can’t be challenged

Is that what you guys are doing? Challenging us?

Here, let me give you a guide to use so you can tell when you are actually challenging us.

View attachment 279496

What are the cosmological arguments for the existence of god? I already debunked those with my first post.

Multiverses. Simple. We just don’t know what god was going before the Big Bang.

And god isn’t necessary. If he is eternal then so too can be the cosmos.

Not our universe. It’s only 13 b years old.

We don’t know. That’s the right answer. Not there must be a god. No there must not

 

[ding]

You have forced us to be militant.

We forced you to be militant? Are you saying you have no control over yourself? That we control you?

Wow, I never knew I had that much power.

Look how crazy we make you when we abort.

I'm crazy just because I believe it is wrong and can prove it scientifically that every abortion ends the life of a new genetically distinct human being who has never existed before and will never exist again?

Really? Is there anything I can say that you don't agree with that you won't see me as being crazy?

 

[percysunshine]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence are predicated on the first principles of ontology, i.e., the fundamental facts of existence per the imperatives of logic. Many fail to appreciate the intermediate premises of these arguments, particularly those of the KCA.


The following includes my own sub-premises for the first premise and my summary argument for the conclusion:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Horizontal Argument)

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

1.1. Something exists.

1.2. Existence from nonexistence is absurd.

1.3. Something has always existed.
​

2. The universe began to exist.

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

AND

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.​

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.

3.11. The universe is a material existent.

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.


The Vertical Cosmological Argument​

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

There are more cosmological arguments for anything than there are ringtones on my iphone.

OK, name them. Go.

Ringtones, or cosmological arguments?

 

[ding]

You vot based on your religion. You have organized politically through your religion. You have forced us to be militant. And what about free speech? Do you want to outlaw our words? Your religion seems weak if it can’t be challenged

Is that what you guys are doing? Challenging us?

Here, let me give you a guide to use so you can tell when you are actually challenging us.

View attachment 279496

What are the cosmological arguments for the existence of god? I already debunked those with my first post.

Multiverses. Simple. We just don’t know what god was going before the Big Bang.

And god isn’t necessary. If he is eternal then so too can be the cosmos.

Not our universe. It’s only 13 b years old.

We don’t know. That’s the right answer. Not there must be a god. No there must not

Ok, here you go. Please do debunk it.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.


We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.


The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.


If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.


All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.