• Yes it does.

    To Alex Freeman, I would take issue with your central question: "If the universe does not need to be made from anything, why do you think it needs to be made by anything?" You are presuppoing that because the idea of a Creator making the universe in the absence of matter means that "nothing" existed prior this creation, it means that it could not possibly be true. But the only thing we've established is that the Creator didn't use pre-existing matter for his creation. "Something" existed prior to the creation and that "something" is the Creator himself. Hence the need for a Creator to explain the otherwise explainable. Otherwise, the universe would exist for infinity going backwards and forwards. Eternity, from this point onwards, could make logical sense: The universe exists and thus will always exist. However, the idea that the universe has always existed, meaning "infinity" going backwards, doesn't make logical sense. At some point there had to be a start to it all.

  • Yes, the existence of matter is the proof of a creator

    The existence of matter is the proof of a creator. The different particles and the theories governing them can not be created without a creator. Universal constants like the gravity constant, magnetic constant and atomic number are so special that it is almost inappropriate to think there is not a creator.

  • Yes, it is

    Yes. Matter is energy bound together by atomic forces and matter cannot happen without energy. If there is no creator, then where did this energy come from? Scientist cannot prove how energy would come from nothing. There has to be a higher power for life cannot arise from non living matter.

  • Nessecity of contingency.

    Second law of thermodynamics speaks to the finite nature of our universe. Because it is not infinite in nature, it had a beginning. We are left with whether matter was caused by an outside source "created" or that matter was self-causing (created itself). Matter cannot be shown to create itself, in fact it is equally difficult to demonstate the "created" position as it is the "self caused" position. Impossible. Therefore we rely on logic. It makes the
    most sense that matter would be caused by a source outside of time space and matter itself. The force acting upon itself to create itself is contradictory because it foesnt exist to act upon itself in the first place! I would strss the fact that one should not go on the rabbit tail of attributing specifics to this causing entity other than the fact that "it " is outside law of the object it creates. This allows ability to objectively act upon it. Figuring out people personal personifications of this entity os religion debate and entirely off topic.

  • The notion of a creator is illogical.

    What does it mean to create something? A reasonable definition is that to create something is to cause the existence of something, so let's use that for now. From what we have observed, anyone who creates something acts on some pre-existing material to fashion it into the created thing. So, in order to create thing X, the creator must perform an action on thing Y, which causes Y to have the form of X. We say, then, that X is made from Y. Bread, for example, is made from wheat, water and yeast; that is, it is created by doing things to wheat, water, and yeast until they have the form of a loaf of bread. This type of creation -- from pre-existing material -- is the only type we have ever observed. How do we apply this to the universe? If the universe was in fact created, it seems intuitive that it would have been created from some pre-existing material, but of course the most popular models of creation claim that the creator had literally nothing out of which to make the universe. Ignoring the fact that this seems like special pleading, the important question is this: If the universe does not need to be made /from/ anything, why do you think it needs to be made /by/ anything? To state that the universe was not made from anything pre-existing is to deny that the universe is subject to the rules of causation that we typically observe, and if this is the case -- if we are allowed to make up new rules that apply only to the creation of the universe -- then it we do not need to say that some agent created the universe from nothing. The most metaphysically simple answer is that the universe was not created at all.

  • No.

    The net energy of the universe appears to be exactly zero, resulting in a universe that expands infinitely in all directions with no impetus at all. A prime mover or un-caused cause is hardly required to cause something that is happening at a rate of zero. You could make a stronger case to say that time required a cause, but because it appears that time was created in the instant of the big bang, such a presumption appears to not be necessary.

    In essence, why presume what doesn't appear to be required?

  • I believe in a creator but this is not why

    The existence of matter is in my mind something that was put here by God but that alone doesn't prove that there is a creator in my mind.

    Just because something is there doesn't explain how or why it's there it's the same with matter just as I might make the case that it's proof of God or a creator someone else can counter and say because of matter we created God in our own minds.

  • Matter Does Not Prove There's A Creator

    The existence of matter does not prove that there is a creator. In fact, the science books provide reasoning behind the existence of matter and the way our earth was formed, so if anything, it can argue against there being a creator. Most everything is backed by science now a days.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.