Yes, (1) is true.
Yes (2) is your definition, but there are more scientifically supported "original cause/creators" than some mythical being for which no evidence exist.
The most widely believed by scientists to be the true primary cause is that a zero energy and mass state had a "statistical fluctuation" that conserved total energy and mass at zero. I.e. equal amounts of positive and negative energy spontaneously appearing. Much like on a smaller scale, "zillions of times each second" a +0.511Mev and -0.511Mev rest mass electron and positron spring into existence from nothing. (That not only conserved energy, but also net charge of zero.)
The positive energy when its temperature cooled some let quarks form, and then at still lower temperatures, they coalesced, three at a time, to form neutrons and protons. Then later still, stars with planets formed , on which various forms of life evolved, in a still continuing process.
The negative energy part is less well understood, but seems to make the force that is causing the observed acceleration of the separations between the stars (galaxies, actually, as we can't observed very distant stars). This cause is often called dark energy or dark matter and is an active astronomical research area. For reasons not yet well understood, dark matter only interacts with normal matter via gravity.
This is no doubt why both positive and negative matter /mass energy exist. IE unlike the positron and electron that spontaneously appear in a small scale "statistical fluctuation" and usually quickly mutually self destroy with the production of two 511Mev gamma rays, there does seem to be some law of physics keeping the dark matter and normal matter from mutually self destroying each other.
I am not an expert on the above, so may have some slight errors of fact.
The point is that defining a mythical being as the cause of the existence of our universe, is not "necessary."
This was noted long ago. Laplace wrote a huge five volume series on the heavens. I'm sure Napoleon did not have time to read it, but some one who did, mentioned to Napoloeon that "God" is not even mentioned once in those five volumes. Thus when Napoleon and Laplace met some years later, this exchange is said to have occurred:
Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
Your whole point is based on the ASSUMPTION that only God could make the universe and you then DEFINE god as its creator. That, however, only reflects your ignorance of more scientifically supported causes.
Defining mythical Arkfuncle as the cause of desk top computers getting correct computation results, would be equal proof of Arkfuncle's existence, IFF there were no other explanations more consistent with scientific knowledge.
Only with extreme ignorance of other alternatives can one postulate a mythical agent, like God or Arkfuncle, is the cause of something that is observed.
Why not start smaller as mankind once did in ignorance and postulate that the god Thor caused the lightening; Neptune caused the violent storms at sea which sank ships, etc. IE, give a definition of Thor as the cause of lightening, etc, then note that lightening is observed to exist, thus, by the definition, Thor must "necessarily" exist. QED.
Last edited:
