You people are too longwinded. I don't really know if whoever made this claim, but if logic is an entity and it governs the universe, is it not analogous to God? Furthermore, logic can't prove or disprove anything. It can be used to analyze something, which can then be assigned a value or have a quality described. Logic is not absolute nor is it infallible.

"If there is no logical reason why God exists, then the Universe could exist for no logical reason, and so does not require a creator." Hm...:rolleyes:

I think that anyone can disprove anything based on definitions arbitrarily pulled out of their *******s.

What is the fallacy in that logic?

The perception that the Universe must have been created stems from the assumption that everything must be created, that everything is governed by cause and effect.
If God doesn't require creation, if God doesn't require 'cause', then why does the Universe?
Instead of assuming that God 'just exists' for no logical reason, then it would be simpler and more rational to assume that the Universe 'just exists' for no logical reason. 'God' is simply an unnecessary, superfluous element.



That is another way of saying:
"I am far too lazy to even attempt to join in any intellectualisation, but I'll try to hash up a meaningless and wholly unimaginative attempt at mockery to fulfil my inferiority complex against those that do"

Mort, you subscribe to Occam's Razor too strongly, it's a general guide to logic, not an axiom.

Yes, I think that is valid criticism, it does assume that Occam's Razor is true.
The validity of Occam's Razor depends on what version you use. The rough guide that you're referring to is probably the generally useful but very vague statement;
"The simplest theory must always be chosen"
The obvious problem to overcome is to decide what is actually more 'simple'.

The more specific version of Occam's Razor states:
"A theory must not have any more entities than is strictly necessary"
Which is of course much better than the above.

Applying it to this, the "Universe 'just exists' theory" has 0 additional entities, and the "God" theory has 1 additional entity - God. So in accordance to Occam's Razor, the former must be chosen.

But yes, it does rely on Occam's Razor. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a fallacy or a flaw, but it is.. not nice, not as elegant as it could be.
I'd much prefer it if I could avoid it. It is one downside.

Just the way I think about heaven/hell based religions. Other than that, I don't see a need for any supreme force. Can't say there isn't one, but I can't see there is one.

Axis, if you want to stay up to date with the criticism of that particular site (prophecies), take a look at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116943. Interesting info has been added, and the thread will probably be added to in the future.

Again, any comments, type em up into word.

Adios