This is why I think God exists.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I hope that isn't directed at me. If it is I applaud your strawmaning abilities. If you'd like verification of the inaccuracy of that interpretation just read over my posts.

And if that is directed at me, then I'll just assume anytime we have an argument that you are incapable of actually reading what it's said but merely lead the thread off in your own direction, and then in a direction different to this , pretending they are the same, and then around in circles.

Yes that's exactly what happened :rolleyes:

raah! wrote: »

All the same, I had a grand time arguing, but perhaps it's best that this is the last.

Perhaps so

MagicMarker

saywhatyousee wrote: »

that is assuming the big bang actually happened?

It's a safe assumption. Then again, if there was no beginning then no ''creator'' is necessary.

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

You argument is that something can't come from nothing, therefore there must be a supernatural (God) creator.

Am I missing something here?

I know that you're substituting ignorance for the supernatural, erm, because you don't know what happened before the big bang. Pretty simple really.

At which point does my logic go awry? I disagree that I'm substituting ignorance for the supernatural, and if you're citing my not knowing what happened "before the big bang" as your reason for thinking that I'm making this substitution then you're on very dodgey ground cos "Before the big bang" does not make sense.
Do you have a better axiom than the one I used or do you think that one of my statements does not follow from the previous ones?

saywhatyousee

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's a safe assumption. Then again, if there was no beginning then no ''creator'' is necessary.

really i thought the big band was just a theory?funny thing about this is where all goin to find out for sure one day.i bet you a coke there is a god;)

Ush1

use logic please wrote: »

At which point does my logic go awry? I disagree that I'm substituting ignorance for the supernatural, and if you're citing my not knowing what happened "before the big bang" as your reason for thinking that I'm making this substitution then you're on very dodgey ground cos "Before the big bang" does not make sense.
Do you have a better axiom than the one I used or do you think that one of my statements does not follow from the previous ones?

Is this your arguement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

?

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

At which point does my logic go awry? I disagree that I'm substituting ignorance for the supernatural, and if you're citing my not knowing what happened "before the big bang" as your reason for thinking that I'm making this substitution then you're on very dodgey ground cos "Before the big bang" does not make sense.
Do you have a better axiom than the one I used or do you think that one of my statements does not follow from the previous ones?

How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you start listening? You don't know what happened before the big bang, you don't know what instigated the big bang. That's that.

use logic please

Ush1 wrote: »

Is this your arguement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

?

All that's in my argument is what I wrote. (I hope that doesn't sound flippant)

saywhatyousee

saywhatyousee wrote: »

really i thought the big band was just a theory?

Just... no.


:mad:

use logic please wrote: »

All that's in my argument is what I wrote. (I hope that doesn't sound flippant)

Since it's your argument I'm sure you can answer yes or no

Ush1

use logic please wrote: »

All that's in my argument is what I wrote. (I hope that doesn't sound flippant)

From post 278, you said that something had to happen before the big bang and ergo, this something has to be supernatural?

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

How many times am I going to have to repeat myself before you start listening? You don't know what happened before the big bang, you don't know what instigated the big bang. That's that.

"Before the big bang" does not make sense! I never said I knew anything, I put forward an argument I think was reasonable. Exactly what have I done wrong here? Be specific! You cannot end a post with "That's that" unless you've proven something.

use logic please

bluewolf wrote: »

Just... no.


:mad:




Since it's your argument I'm sure you can answer yes or no

I'd have to read the whole article then, I don't have time now, I'll do it later.

use logic please

Ush1 wrote: »

From post 278, you said that something had to happen before the big bang and ergo, this something has to be supernatural?

"Before the big bang" doesn't make sense as time only existed after the big bang. I'm saying that, given "axiom op," supernatural creation is a reasonable possibility.

use logic please

Ush1 wrote: »

Is this your arguement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

?

I've read it. This says some things I don't say, so it's not my argument.

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

"Before the big bang" does not make sense! I never said I knew anything, I put forward an argument I think was reasonable. Exactly what have I done wrong here? Be specific! You cannot end a post with "That's that" unless you've proven something.

Okay, let me rephrase.

You don't know how the big bang came about.

Is that better?

You're still substituting ignorance with the supernatural.

Ush1

use logic please wrote: »

"Before the big bang" doesn't make sense as time only existed after the big bang. I'm saying that, given "axiom op," supernatural creation is a reasonable possibility.

I'm not familiar with axiom op, can you enlighten me?

Also, I assume you're referencing something that created the big bang? Which would infer time, as creation would had to have happened first.

Nemi

This must be trolling, its too blatent.

use logic please wrote: »

Exactly what have I done wrong here? Be specific!

The flaw in your argument has already been pointed out, in several posts. Most succinctly in this one

bnt wrote: »

even if you assume some first cause, there's no reason to assume that it would have any of the qualities you associate with "God".

Replacing the word "God" with "supernatural" does not make much of a difference, particularly when you've signalled your intention is to then suggest that "God" can be deduced from "supernatural".

use logic please

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not familiar with axiom op, can you enlighten me?

Also, I assume you're referencing something that created the big bang? Which would infer time, as creation would had to have happened first.

Nothing can have happened "before the big bang." as without the big bang there'd be no time. Post 270 gives what axiom op, it's not something that created the big bang. It's the statement "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time."
It's explained better in my post 270. It's basically what I think is the best thing to base this discussion on, it has to be based on something.

use logic please

Nemi wrote: »

This must be trolling, its too blatent.The flaw in your argument has already been pointed out, in several posts. Most succinctly in this oneReplacing the word "God" with "supernatural" does not make much of a difference, particularly when you've signalled your intention is to then suggest that "God" can be deduced from "supernatural".

i guarantee i'm not trolling. I know people have problems with what I'm saying, but i have to know exactly what they are before I address them.

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

i guarantee i'm not trolling. I know people have problems with what I'm saying, but i have to know exactly what they are before I address them.

Everyone's has told you what the problem is, you just keep ignoring everyone and repeating ''there is no before the big bang''.

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

You're still substituting ignorance with the supernatural.

I am saying that we are, as humans, ignorant to a considerable extent, but I have not said "we don't know so it must be God." I've created an argument which says that I believe there's a reasonable possibility that the supernatural exists. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but if I'm to respond to criticism then that criticism needs to be specific to my argument. I don't see an illogical step in my argument. If there is one, then quote it.

MagicMarker

use logic please wrote: »

I don't see an illogical step in my argument. If there is one, then quote it.

It's the part where you make shít up.

Zillah

use logic please wrote: »

I am saying that we are, as humans, ignorant to a considerable extent, but I have not said "we don't know so it must be God." I've created an argument which says that I believe there's a reasonable possibility that the supernatural exists. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but if I'm to respond to criticism then that criticism needs to be specific to my argument. I don't see an illogical step in my argument. If there is one, then quote it.

Please explain why a first cause has to have the qualities people associate with a God, ie, omnipotence, sentience, benevolence, interest in human affairs etc.

use logic please

MagicMarker wrote: »

It's the part where you make shít up.

Clearly you're not interested in a logical discussion. That is plainly obvious.

liamw

use logic please wrote: »

I am saying that we are, as humans, ignorant to a considerable extent, but I have not said "we don't know so it must be God." I've created an argument which says that I believe there's a reasonable possibility that the supernatural exists. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but if I'm to respond to criticism then that criticism needs to be specific to my argument. I don't see an illogical step in my argument. If there is one, then quote it.

No but you've basically said "we don't know so it must be a supernatural entity" and then implied that the entity is God (your god I guess...).

I wrote out a logical expression to show why your argument is illogical! You start with a premise that X1->Xn-1 all need to be 'created' and then just say that xn 'created itself'. It entirely illogical.

use logic please

Zillah wrote: »

Please explain why a first cause has to have the qualities people associate with a God, ie, omnipotence, sentience, benevolence, interest in human affairs etc.

I revised my original statement on post 270. I still think these qualities do exist in God, I'll tell you my reasons if you like, but it's all that personal stuff that tends not to wash here. It can't really be that scientific if the being is supernatural.

Nemi

use logic please wrote: »

I revised my original statement on post 270. I still think these qualities do exist in God, I'll tell you my reasons if you like, but it's all that personal stuff that tends not to wash here. It can't really be that scientific if the being is supernatural.

So you are abandoning your argument?

That's fair enough. I mean, we could see from the start you were going nowhere. Its not as if you were the first person to try to find some 'proof' for the existence of god.

use logic please

liamw wrote: »

No but you've basically said "we don't know so it must be a supernatural entity" and then implied that the entity is God (your god I guess...).

I wrote out a logical expression to show why your argument is illogical! You start with a premise that X1->Xn-1 all need to be 'created' and then just say that xn 'created itself'. It entirely illogical.

Read my first post again, you'll see that I say this in the context of "if it were true, then that would be a logical problem," and then I continued with my argument. I did not say "Xn created itself" and then just leave it at that.
(I revised my original post in post 270.)

use logic please

Nemi wrote: »

So you are abandoning your argument?

That's fair enough. I mean, we could see from the start you were going nowhere. Its not as if you were the first person to try to find some 'proof' for the existence of god.

I'm not abandoning it, read post 270.

Ush1

use logic please wrote: »

Nothing can have happened "before the big bang." as without the big bang there'd be no time. Post 270 gives what axiom op, it's not something that created the big bang. It's the statement "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time."
It's explained better in my post 270. It's basically what I think is the best thing to base this discussion on, it has to be based on something.

Okay, I've read post 270 and it sounds suspiciously like "a" cosmological argument.

How is any of what you said evidence for the supernatural?

Zillah

Ok. Axiom op is a load of horseshit. That's the point where you stopped using logic (I lie, even the very first post makes no sense)

"I hereby arbitrarily define everything that exists within space/time as natural and anything else as supernatural. I arbitrarily and baselessly assert that all natural things must have an cause that is outside of space/time, which as I have said is now called supernatural, and because it is supernatural I can make up whatever I want about it, so I now assert that it can cause itself to exist, and for no reason whatsoever is an intelligent personal God".

It is absolute gibberish that has no bearing on reality. It really is that simple. Your arguments are completely based on tautologies and baseless assumptions.

use logic please wrote: »

I revised my original statement on post 270. I still think these qualities do exist in God, I'll tell you my reasons if you like, but it's all that personal stuff that tends not to wash here. It can't really be that scientific if the being is supernatural.

Even if we accept your argument as to the existence of the supernatural (we can't, it's insane), your axiom op does not in anyway address the God question. Please explain, in a clear and logical fashion, why the cause of the universe which exists outside space/time must be a sentient and personal God.

Nemi

use logic please wrote: »

I'm not abandoning it, read post 270.

You have abandoned it. You said "It can't really be that scientific if the being is supernatural." Fine, the question is beyond reason and objective investigation. I sort of knew that. Now can I have that five minutes of my life back, please.

Galvasean

THe back and forth roundabouts of the last 5 or so pages have done my head in. Time for some music.

Dades wrote: »

Twas just a jest, no?

You've witnessed what happens when you start a discussion in A&A and disappear for a length of time. The discussion continues with or without you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ye8GLPUVsM

use logic please wrote: »

Do you want to take me on on my argument for the supernatural?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HE9OQ4FnkQ

CerebralCortex

use logic please wrote: »

No, why don't you just refer to my argument?

In fairness all you have done is wrap your argument up in a layer of indirection actually it seems all you've done is replace God with supernatural. Anyway why can't the instantiation of the universe just be another facet of nature our feeble minds don't understand?(I know I'm gonna regret asking that question.)

use logic please

Zillah wrote: »

Ok. Axiom op is a load of horseshit. That's the point where you stopped using logic (I lie, even the very first post makes no sense)

"I hereby arbitrarily define everything that exists within space/time as natural and anything else as supernatural. I arbitrarily and baselessly assert that all natural things must have an cause that is outside of space/time, which as I have said is now called supernatural, and because it is supernatural I can make up whatever I want about it, so I now assert that it can cause itself to exist, and for no reason whatsoever is an intelligent personal God".

It is absolute gibberish that has no bearing on reality. It really is that simple. Your arguments are completely based on tautologies and baseless assumptions.




Even if we accept your argument as to the existence of the supernatural (we can't, it's insane), your axiom op does not in anyway address the God question. Please explain, in a clear and logical fashion, why the cause of the universe which exists outside space/time must be a sentient and personal God.

What qualifies you to make sweeping statements like the ones you've just made? If you check my posts, I never call anything "jibberish", I have more respect for people's opinions. Axiom op is not intended to address the God in question, it's used in an argument to show why I think the supernatural exists.
The way you talk, it's as if you've just won a Fields Medal or something and feel empowered with all knowledge and can proclaim as rubbish anything you don't subscribe to.
Is this attitude an unwillingness to get into a proper debate?
Now, give me a better axiom, and tell me what's wrong with mine without resorting to sarcastic rhetoric.

(As an aside, the "Axiom of Choice" is not exactly the most well founded axiom either, yet many mathematicians use it without apology. I'm not saying that I can invent any axiom I want, this is merely a very interesting aside to this post)

I'm not going to address your last question on this forum as I have already left it for another day, I'll pm you if you like. PS I did base axiom op in human experience, if you have something else to base an axiom on, let me know.

Ush1

use logic please wrote: »

What qualifies you to make sweeping statements like the ones you've just made? If you check my posts, I never call anything "jibberish", I have more respect for people's opinions. Axiom op is not intended to address the God in question, it's used in an argument to show why I think the supernatural exists.
The way you talk, it's as if you've just won a Fields Medal or something and feel empowered with all knowledge and can proclaim as rubbish anything you don't subscribe to.
Is this attitude an unwillingness to get into a proper debate?
Now, give me a better axiom, and tell me what's wrong with mine without resorting to sarcastic rhetoric.

(As an aside, the "Axiom of Choice" is not exactly the most well founded axiom either, yet many mathematicians use it without apology. I'm not saying that I can invent any axiom I want, this is merely a very interesting aside to this post)

I'm not going to address your last question on this forum as I have already left it for another day, I'll pm you if you like. PS I did base axiom op in human experience, if you have something else to base an axiom on, let me know.

Well then your theory immediately shatters.

What actual empirical evidence is this axiom based on?

Galvasean

We have heresay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence...

silent sage

Galvasean wrote: »

THe back and forth roundabouts of the last 5 or so pages have done my head in. Time for some music.

Another aptly named artist and song. I'm hoping this fantastic tune brings an enjoyable moment of introspection and reflection to the discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdqT3MDAG2w

Zillah

use logic please wrote: »

What qualifies you to make sweeping statements like the ones you've just made? If you check my posts, I never call anything "jibberish", I have more respect for people's opinions. Axiom op is not intended to address the God in question, it's used in an argument to show why I think the supernatural exists.
The way you talk, it's as if you've just won a Fields Medal or something and feel empowered with all knowledge and can proclaim as rubbish anything you don't subscribe to.

You've just slipped into yellow, after starting with pretensions of standing atop the pyramid.

I'm not going to address your last question on this forum as I have already left it for another day.

Er, it's the entire reason you started this thread. You started out claiming to be able to make a logical case for God, and now that we're getting into the nitty gritty of it you're suddenly dismissing it as the sort of thing you're not willing to discuss.

Is this attitude an unwillingness to get into a proper debate?
Now, give me a better axiom, and tell me what's wrong with mine without resorting to sarcastic rhetoric.

I try to avoid axioms beyond the basics ("the universe is in principle knowable", or "I'm not a brain in a jar"). Here's my position: We don't know anything about the ultimate origin of existence, nor, if such exists, do we know anything about a greater existence beyond space/time/bigbang. It's really that simple. Trying to create rules about nothingness and ultimate sources is an imagination game, nothing more. What is wrong with your axioms is that they are arbitrary and based on nothing whatsoever.

ps, I no more "resort" to sarcastic rhetoric than a samurai "resorts" to sword fighting

use logic please

Zillah wrote: »

You've just slipped into yellow, after starting with pretensions of standing atop the pyramid.



Er, it's the entire reason you started this thread. You started out claiming to be able to make a logical case for God, and now that we're getting into the nitty gritty of it you're suddenly dismissing it as the sort of thing you're not willing to discuss.



I try to avoid axioms beyond the basics ("the universe is in principle knowable", or "I'm not a brain in a jar"). Here's my position: We don't know anything about the ultimate origin of existence, nor, if such exists, do we know anything about a greater existence beyond space/time/bigbang. It's really that simple. Trying to create rules about nothingness and ultimate sources is an imagination game, nothing more. What is wrong with your axioms is that they are arbitrary and based on nothing whatsoever.

ps, I no more "resort" to sarcastic rhetoric than a samurai "resorts" to sword fighting

If I didn't attack the substance of your argument, then why are you defending it?
Alright, give me one good reason why the universe should be knowable. "I am not a brain in a jar" is supposed to convey what? Why did you selectively omit the fact that I offered to pm you about what I thought when you quoted me there?

use logic please

Ush1 wrote: »

Well then your theory immediately shatters.

What actual empirical evidence is this axiom based on?

When I say human experience I mean scientific experience gathered by humans.

Ush1

use logic please wrote: »

When I say human experience I mean scientific experience gathered by humans.

Can you please link to some evidence why this axiom "op" works in the way you are saying and is legitimate?

Can you concisely attempt to explain it and then how it links to add evidence for the supernatural?

Zillah

use logic please wrote: »

If I didn't attack the substance of your argument, then why are you defending it?

I was responding to your specific comments.

Alright, give me one good reason why the universe should be knowable.

Well that's why it's such a fundamental axiom, your question doesn't even make sense without making that assumption. If we don't assume the universe is in principle knowable then no discussion of any sort can take place, because everything and anything and nothing goes.

"I am not a brain in a jar" is supposed to convey what?

That particular statement is to avoid the rather redundant school of thought known as solipsism.

Why did you selectively omit the fact that I offered to pm you about what I thought when you quoted me there?

Because I'm interested in an open debate. I have little doubt that I'm going to have numerous criticisms of your reasons for believing in a personal God and I'd rather continue that discussion here than start a two-way via PM.

Now really, you've clearly given up. You started out all of this confident that you could make a convincing logical case for the existence of God, and at this point you're resorting to vaguely hostile one liners. Are you going to address our criticisms of your position or not?

strobe

use logic please wrote: »

I am saying that we are, as humans, ignorant to a considerable extent, but I have not said "we don't know so it must be God." I've created an argument which says that I believe there's a reasonable possibility that the supernatural exists. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but if I'm to respond to criticism then that criticism needs to be specific to my argument. I don't see an illogical step in my argument. If there is one, then quote it.

Ok, this post will do. You say "I believe there's a reasonable possibility that the supernatural exists" based on what you view as one possible explanation for the creation of the universe.

Will you also say ""I believe there's a reasonable possibility that the supernatural does not exist" based on these previous posts?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67643168&postcount=38

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67648203&postcount=77

So what would you say the possibilty of the supernatural existing is? 50/50? Why 50/50? Why not?

Your belief in the supernatural is based on not being able to contemplate another way for the universe to arise. Now (if you read the above posts) you know there is another possible way. The other possible way seems to conform to all the present understandings of mathematics and physics. Your possible way conforms to nothing really other than "I don't know how it happened, so maybe the supernatural that is inherently impossible to understand caused it".

That's your supernatural point addressed.

But how, even if you were right, would it point to a god?

sink

OP I'm going to try and put the failings in your argument across to you in as polite and condense as I possibly can.

Your argument is fundamentally based on an unfounded principle, which you have arbitrarily held up as an axiom. Namely that everything natural must have a cause and the prime cause which brought the natural universe into being must be uncaused as there was no preceding event to cause it. Therefore the prime cause since it is itself uncaused cannot be natural and therefore must be supernatural.

There are a number of flaws in this "axiom" but the primary flaw is that you are basing it upon the laws of physics as they are apparent now in the universes present state at our macro level of experience. However the early universe was a very different place. It was unimaginably hot and dense, to the extent that normal matter (atoms) and it's composite subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, etc.) could not exist.

In that intense heat and density the universe consisted of even more fundamental elementary particles (quarks, leptons, bosons) which do not behave as one would expect. These elementary particles behave according to quantum mechanics which is completely outside the scope on normal human experience and can only be described and explored mathematically.

According to the laws of quantum mechanics things happening in the future can be the cause of things that happened in the past, particles can pop in and out of existence from nothing, everything and anything is possible based on a scale of probability. Your "axiom" does not apply to the universe in this very early state.

If we go even further back in time to a few microseconds after the big bang, even the laws of quantum mechanics break down. We currently do not know how the universe behaved during this period. Quantum mechanics is weird enough, but what was happening during this period we simply can not describe at present, we can merely speculate.

So base assumption of causation is completely without foundation. We currently do not know what happened at the time of the big bang and as you've rightly pointed there is no before the big bang as time as we know it did not exist.

Our current lack of knowledge in this area can't be used as an excuse to bring in a supernatural agent, because that is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance and can be summarized as "We do not know, therefore we do know". It is patently false that not knowing can lead to knowing.

eefie

All of these ideas are taking for granted that something or ( re: believers) someone causes things to happen. Is it unreasonable to ask people to accept that, rather than things being actively created, things can just happen? Rather than concentrating on the 'creator' or 'inventor', would it not be time more constructively spent to focus on the result of random or inexplicable beginnings, and to move forward, consciously and responsibly paying heed to the now and the future. By accepting that we were totally passive in our origin does not negate our ability to determine our lives.

liamw

Zillah wrote: »

We don't know anything about the ultimate origin of existence, nor, if such exists, do we know anything about a greater existence beyond space/time/bigbang. It's really that simple. Trying to create rules about nothingness and ultimate sources is an imagination game, nothing more.

use_logic_please, would you agree with the statement above?

stevejazzx

sink wrote: »

OP I'm going to try and put the failings in your argument across to you in as polite and condense as I possibly can.

Your argument is fundamentally based on an unfounded principle, which you have arbitrarily held up as an axiom. Namely that everything natural must have a cause and the prime cause which brought the natural universe into being must be uncaused as there was no preceding event to cause it. Therefore the prime cause since it is itself uncaused cannot be natural and therefore must be supernatural.

There are a number of flaws in this "axiom" but the primary flaw is that you are basing it upon the laws of physics as they are apparent now in the universes present state at our macro level of experience. However the early universe was a very different place. It was unimaginably hot and dense, to the extent that normal matter (atoms) and it's composite subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, etc.) could not exist.

In that intense heat and density the universe consisted of even more fundamental elementary particles (quarks, leptons, bosons) which do not behave as one would expect. These elementary particles behave according to quantum mechanics which is completely outside the scope on normal human experience and can only be described and explored mathematically.

According to the laws of quantum mechanics things happening in the future can be the cause of things that happened in the past, particles can pop in and out of existence from nothing, everything and anything is possible based on a scale of probability. Your "axiom" does not apply to the universe in this very early state.

If we go even further back in time to a few microseconds after the big bang, even the laws of quantum mechanics break down. We currently do not know how the universe behaved during this period. Quantum mechanics is weird enough, but what was happening during this period we simply can not describe at present, we can merely speculate.

So base assumption of causation is completely without foundation. We currently do not know what happened at the time of the big bang and as you've rightly pointed there is no before the big bang as time as we know it did not exist.

Our current lack of knowledge in this area can't be used as an excuse to bring in a supernatural agent, because that is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance and can be summarized as "We do not know, therefore we do know". It is patently false that not knowing can lead to knowing.

As much as I don't agree with the OP I don't think the above explains why he is wrong. For the OP's axiom he's not concerned about what atoms are doing minutes after the big bang; he's simply concerned with the question
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
The idea that a supernatural casue explains the natural world is one which carries certain caveats. The major caveat is that this approach bypasses natural explantion and very prematurely concludes that magic is the answer. This is a flawed approach and this explnation does not advance our understanding in any way, it is however 'an' explanation.

Again the idea is, that a being/thing/consciousness exists outside our understanding and created existence as we know it. In this existence nearly everything can be explained following certain rules and laws we have devised over time; the one thing it can't explain is existence origin, or matter origin - not how oddly matter can behave in a big bang setting, ot quantum fluctuations - actual origin i.e the first plop of matter, or perhaps the infinitely condensed pinpoint before the BB. And even if you could explain that with mind bending math what did this matter it plop into? Existence origin (i.e space and time in this example) and matter origin (i.e the pinpoint) either always existed in a way we don't yet understand or indeed were created by a 'something'. The latter approach seems flawed because it appears to borrow on observation from natural existence and attempts to explain the unknowable using methods which explain the known. So in the natural world when we see say, a house for example, we know that someone put that house there. Applying the same reasoning to a universe however doesn't work because there are endless variables we simply don't understand.
However, it is not entirely unreasonable to presuppose a creator or prime mover as the OP does. The real magic trick is how you get him/her/it to fit snugly into a religious world view.

Obni

use logic please wrote: »

I should say that my argument depends on an the axiom "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time."

If you could come up with a single sentence to define our current understanding of how we have arrived at this point in our existence, that would satisfy the enormous variety of professional and amateur science-fiends here, then it would probably win you a Nobel prize. Such an axiom would be so overloaded with parenthetical remarks and conditional clauses that it would collapse under its own weight and form a black hole.

zebeedee

:DLike that

krudler wrote: »

We did.

Obni

use logic please wrote: »

I should say that my argument depends on an the axiom "Natural existence must occur in space and "linearly"* in time."

I'm willing to accept that this is a more than reasonable attempt to state the most commonly held idea of how humans understand and experience the universe.

use logic please wrote: »

I think I've argued a reasonable case for the existence of the supernatural here.

Having defined what you termed 'Natural existence', and having correctly pointed out that it leaves some question unanswered, you then declare the answers to be the found in realm of the complementary term 'supernatural'. Unfortunately, 'supernatural' is culturally loaded with the ideas of gods, spirits, souls, etc...; and your selection of that particular word is not justified by anything you said beforehand. Why not choose the more fitting antonym 'unnatural'? If I stated that everything that science represents is 'natural', and everything else is 'unnatural' and therefore god is unnatural, then the negative sense in which 'unnatural' is otherwise normally employed would probably cause offence.
I appreciate that you are trying to keep your points clear and concise, but there is still the problem that your conclusions are points that you choose to make, rather than points that necessarily follow your premise. That makes your case a matter of opinion rather than of proof.