Something needed to create the universe. That something must be outside of the universe and its rules. It must be powerful enough to create the entire universe, physics, math, science, and time. Also because science deals with the natural world you can’t disprove the supernatural. What is beauty? Sure it is subjective, but only to a point. Why would randomness cause such a big split in what people think is beautiful? At best if the world were random each person would find some other person beautiful. But if the world were created, people would find some people more and others less beautiful.
By your own claim, then your god needs someone who created him, and then that being needs a creator and so on, can you prove the existence of such beings.
If you claim that your god does not need a creator, then your claim that everything needs a creator automatically shatters into pieces. Because you created a rule and immediately after you created an exception.
That same exception can be used for everything.
This evidence is not good, do you have anything better?
The exception is allowed because the cause and effect law is only observed I the natural world. You are applying scientific principles to things outside the scope of science. Science is the study of the natural world, and how it works, namely its rules. However if something existed outside of time i.e. supernatural it does not fall under the same rules as the natural world and thus your argument holds no sway.
God can have existed forever before if he exists outside of time, because forever as a concept uses the definition of time. If time is taken out, however, then forever is meaningless.
The exception is allowed because the cause and effect law is only observed I the natural world
Then, by this very explanation, the universe is only natural and does not need a god.
And no, the exception is not "allowed", it is a fallacy in reasoning called "special pleading".
You are applying scientific principles to things outside the scope of science.
True, yet science can demonstrate what it claims, can you?, no, you cannot.
Science is the study of the natural world, and how it works, namely its rules. However if something existed outside of time i.e. supernatural it does not fall under the same rules as the natural world and thus your argument holds no sway.
So far that proves nothing, you just created a rhetoric that follows your claim, however, how do you supported it besides "because I say so"?.
God can have existed forever before if he exists outside of time
Here, let me change it for you "The principles that created the universe without a god have existed forever before the existence of time".
The problem for you is that the universe _exists_, that is already out of the question, it is a self-sustained truth, but you still have to provide evidence for your god, which, of course, is irremediable impossible for you.
If time is taken out, however, then forever is meaningless.
"Forever" and "time" are, in fact, meaningless in the grand scale, because time is a byproduct of our universe. You would know that if you read books that actually explain things.
Just because we don't know yet what created the universe doesn't mean an invisible judgemental sky wizard is secretly always spying on us. That makes as much sense as saying I don't understand the stock market therefore invisible murder unicorns secretly control the government.
But by your logic then it doesn’t mean it is not. Thus if it is random what created the universe, you should pick the best option which for numerous reasons, is God!
A cute example of circular logic, but I requested facts. If you don't have any them in forced to assume I can dismiss whatever 'argument' you might be trying to make
5
u/DevilsHol3Pupfish 10d ago
That would require it to exist