T
traillius
Guest
Notwithstanding differing views on the specific nature of God, here is Occam’s philosophical proof of something beyond the universe, and not part of it, called ‘creator x.’
Creator x’s only established point of nature, for this argument, is that X is self-complete( requiring only itself for existence ) and unified with "it"self. X also exists beyond physical reality as we know it. Based solely on this definition, X ( independent of theological interpretation of the specific nature thereof ) is an explanation of one element ( X alone ) for origins of the universe. Thus X is all that is necessary and sufficient to explain. extrapolation into the specific nature of or views on X, or the methods employed by X in creating existence beyond "it"self, do not negate the sufficiency and necessity of X alone.
Zero elements ( something from nothing ) is extremely unlikely because
a) the laws of thermodynamics
and
b) there are infinitely many possible explaining elements as to how something arose from nothing.
This is not an argument for or against any specific belief about the nature of X, only that Occam’s razor cuts on the side of X being the most likely explanation for universal origin, independent of how any human theology views the specific nature of X ( excluding self-completeness, unity, and existence beyond all physical reality )
Creator x’s only established point of nature, for this argument, is that X is self-complete( requiring only itself for existence ) and unified with "it"self. X also exists beyond physical reality as we know it. Based solely on this definition, X ( independent of theological interpretation of the specific nature thereof ) is an explanation of one element ( X alone ) for origins of the universe. Thus X is all that is necessary and sufficient to explain. extrapolation into the specific nature of or views on X, or the methods employed by X in creating existence beyond "it"self, do not negate the sufficiency and necessity of X alone.
Zero elements ( something from nothing ) is extremely unlikely because
a) the laws of thermodynamics
and
b) there are infinitely many possible explaining elements as to how something arose from nothing.
This is not an argument for or against any specific belief about the nature of X, only that Occam’s razor cuts on the side of X being the most likely explanation for universal origin, independent of how any human theology views the specific nature of X ( excluding self-completeness, unity, and existence beyond all physical reality )
