Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
This is loaded with logical flaws.

First you take the scientific model of the universe (moments ago we agreed scientific models cannot be used to prove the existence of a formless god so why use it as a base to argue that god exists);

Then you assume an absolute state of nothing (whatever that would be - science has made no claims) is the opposite of the scientific model of the universe;

Then you make the leap to "for the universe to be created", which presupposes it was indeed "created" out of nothing, by a creator who is apparently "something" (which undermines the claim of absolute nothing, unless he is exempt from logic as a special case) not subjected to the physical laws of the universe as we currently understand them.

Somehow this is meant to prove the existence of a creator god?
The universe is everything, without the universe there is nothing. So for the universe to be created there must have been something before it, a creator. It goes against all logic to deny that nothing has created the universe.
Sorry that came out wrong, got lost in my thinking. I meant to say there is nothing in terms of creation ( that which has been created by the deity ) .I use it as a base argument because the universe is proof that a deity exists. We are living proof that a deity exists. What you are arguing for is that everything came about by chance. The absolute precision with which the universe was designed came about by chance.

You say he is a special case, I wouldn't put it that way. If we call the deity the creator of the universe , then why should he be subject to the laws which he created? The main point I'm arguing for is that 'something' , in my case a omnipotent deity, has created the universe. You can't deny that there was something.

But thanks for stating your argument so clearly, I will get back to it tomorrow with a clearer head.