Logical difference categorization - the basis for creating theories which happens to prove God

And if things are created by nothing, then all things exist or there is a reason why some things dont exist.

If all things exist, God exists.

If there is a reason which decides what things will exist and what things wont exist, that reason would be regulator of all existence, and responsible for all existence as is, and thus it would fit definition of God.

The statement "if all things exist then god exists" is 

a philosophical argument that suggests a necessary cause or first principle for the existence of everything. It is often used in theological and philosophical contexts to argue that since everything in the universe has a cause, and this chain cannot go back infinitely, there must be an uncaused first cause, which is identified as God. However, the validity of this argument depends on definitions of "all things" and "God," and it is a subject of ongoing debate. 

Hmmm, there are Approximately 21,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (22 sextillion) planets in the observable universe.

Creator1: We want to create a Universe that will create life accidently, but the chances of that are one in 22 sextillion!

Creator2: No problem, we just put enough energy in the Universe to create 22 sextillion planets!

There are vastly more planets than life because 

life requires a specific, complex combination of factors that are rarely all present on a single planet, whereas planets are common and form naturally. The conditions for life, such as a stable atmosphere, liquid water, and an appropriate distance from a star (the habitable zone), must align, and even then, the evolution of life itself involves highly improbable steps. 

Typical mumbo jumbo that will not prove the existence of an infinite Mr Magic.

For example, the basic category for theory of existence is: Something exists or nothing exists.

The syntax of the phrase makes no real sense. How can ‘nothing’ be a something which does not exist?

"Nothing' and "exists" are mutually exclusive terms, it makes no sense whatsoever to declare that nonexistence exists

"Nothing' and "exists" are mutually exclusive terms, it makes no sense whatsoever to declare that nonexistence exists

It means that there is no existence, if you need translation.

Typical mumbo jumbo that will not prove the existence of an infinite Mr Magic.

I dont see a response to theory of existence.

"Nothing' and "exists" are mutually exclusive terms, it makes no sense whatsoever to declare that nonexistence exists

It means that there is no existence, if you need translation.

No shit, and that's my point, to say that "no existence" exists, is a meaningless statement, if you need an explanation of simple logic.

"no existence" exists, is a meaningless statement

If you need a more simple translation, it means there are no things which exist.

Saying that something must exist, doesn't mean that it must exist.

So you dont believe in logic.

I don't believe in anything.

But my previous statement was perfectly logical.

So if you dont use logic, then I can see why atheists cant reach God. Logic is path to God.

First logical step is an actual GOD, rather than a make believe one.

First logical step is an actual GOD, rather than a make believe one.

You cannot explain why things exist without a cause. So first cause is needed.

The statement that everything must have a cause is a core tenet of the philosophical 

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). This principle, prominently associated with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, posits that everything must have a reason or cause for its existence or occurrence. However, this idea is subject to ongoing philosophical and scientific debate, and several alternative perspectives and arguments challenge the absolute necessity of a cause for everything. 

Key viewpoints on the necessity of a cause include:

Philosophical Arguments

1. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): This principle argues that the universe is an orderly and rational place, and that no fact or event occurs without a sufficient explanation or cause. Adherents to this view often use it as a premise in cosmological arguments, suggesting a need for an "uncaused cause" or a necessary being (like God) whose explanation for existence is found within its own nature.
2. Infinite Regress vs. Uncaused Cause: If everything has a cause, that cause must also have a cause, leading to an infinite chain of causes (infinite regress). To avoid this, some arguments propose the existence of a first uncaused cause that began the chain of events.
3. Brute Facts: In contrast to the PSR, some philosophers, like Bertrand Russell and Sean Carroll, argue for the existence of "brute facts"—fundamental facts that simply exist without a deeper explanation. Russell famously stated, "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all".
4. Causality as a Human Construct: Philosophers like David Hume and Immanuel Kant have suggested that causality is a concept we apply to our experience of the world, rather than an inherent feature of reality itself. Our minds are structured to perceive cause and effect, which can make it difficult for us to conceptualize an uncaused event, even if it is logically possible. 

Scientific Perspectives

1. Quantum Mechanics: At the subatomic level, some events, such as the exact time of an individual atom's radioactive decay or the spontaneous emergence of virtual particles from a quantum vacuum, appear to be fundamentally random and without a deterministic cause in the classical sense. The laws of physics describe the probability of these events but not their specific occurrence.
2. Origin of the Universe: Modern physics theories regarding the Big Bang sometimes explore the possibility that the universe originated from a quantum fluctuation in a state that had no prior cause in the conventional sense (as time and space would not have existed "before" it). The existence of the physical laws themselves might be the underlying explanation. 

Ultimately, the question of whether things can exist without a cause is a profound metaphysical question with no single, universally accepted answer. Different fields offer various perspectives, ranging from the philosophical assertion of a necessary cause to the scientific observation of apparently uncaused events at the quantum level. 

First logical step is an actual GOD, rather than a make believe one.

You cannot explain why things exist without a cause. So first cause is needed.

You cannot explain why a first cause exists without a cause. So first cause is not needed.

The first cause argument, also known as a cosmological argument, is 

a philosophical and theological argument that asserts the universe's existence requires a first, uncaused cause, which is identified as God. The argument suggests that everything in the universe is caused by something else, and this chain of causation cannot go on infinitely, so it must start with a prime mover or uncaused cause. 

The argument's logical structure

1. Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause.
2. Premise 2: The chain of causes cannot be infinite.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause (God) that initiated the chain. 

Examples and variations

1. Thomas Aquinas's argument: St. Thomas Aquinas formulated influential versions of this argument, such as the argument from motion, which states that change requires a mover, and the chain of movers must end with a first mover that is not moved by anything else.
2. The domino effect: A common analogy is a line of dominoes, where each domino falls because the one before it knocked it over. The chain of falling dominoes can only exist if there is a first domino that was pushed to start the process. 

Common objections and criticisms

1. Infinite regress: Critics question the premise that the chain of causes cannot be infinite, arguing that an infinite regress is a possibility.
2. God as an exception: Many philosophers, like Bertrand Russell, have pointed out that if everything must have a cause, then God must also have a cause. The argument seems to make an exception for God without sufficient justification.
3. The fallacy of composition: Some argue it is fallacious to assume that if every part of the universe has a cause, then the universe as a whole must also have a cause.
4. Causality beyond experience: Immanuel Kant argued that causality is a principle of our experience and cannot be legitimately applied to a transcendent, uncaused cause. 

You cannot explain why a first cause exists without a cause. So first cause is not needed.

It is eternal or self caused.

Saying that something must exist, doesn't mean that it must exist. - SergeantLynch

So you dont believe in logic. - SatanLucy

That doesn't follow, what he said is he doesn't believe in magic.

Saying that something exists isn't a magical incantation that makes things exist. Over here in the real world, you can't just speak things into existence, you didn't even say "Abracadabra" first.

It is eternal or self caused.

You are contradicting your previous statement.... you are still not getting the logic thing.

The first cause argument, also known as a cosmological argument, is 

a philosophical and theological argument that asserts the universe's existence requires a first, uncaused cause, which is identified as God. The argument suggests that everything in the universe is caused by something else, and this chain of causation cannot go on infinitely, so it must start with a prime mover or uncaused cause. 

The argument's logical structure

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause.

Premise 2: The chain of causes cannot be infinite.

Conclusion: Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause (God) that initiated the chain. 

Examples and variations

Thomas Aquinas's argument: St. Thomas Aquinas formulated influential versions of this argument, such as the argument from motion, which states that change requires a mover, and the chain of movers must end with a first mover that is not moved by anything else.

The domino effect: A common analogy is a line of dominoes, where each domino falls because the one before it knocked it over. The chain of falling dominoes can only exist if there is a first domino that was pushed to start the process. 

Common objections and criticisms

Infinite regress: Critics question the premise that the chain of causes cannot be infinite, arguing that an infinite regress is a possibility.

God as an exception: Many philosophers, like Bertrand Russell, have pointed out that if everything must have a cause, then God must also have a cause. The argument seems to make an exception for God without sufficient justification.

The fallacy of composition: Some argue it is fallacious to assume that if every part of the universe has a cause, then the universe as a whole must also have a cause.

Causality beyond experience: Immanuel Kant argued that causality is a principle of our experience and cannot be legitimately applied to a transcendent, uncaused cause. 

AI - Can nothing exist?

No, “nothing” cannot exist, especially in a physical sense, as even the vacuum of space is filled with energy and virtual particles. Philosophically, "nothing" is a contradictory concept because the idea of existence is inherently tied to "something," even if that something is a thought or a void with properties. 

Philosophical and conceptual arguments

1. Contradiction: The very concept of "nothing" is difficult to grasp because it's defined as the absence of existence, making it a self-contradictory idea.
2. A conceptual tool: "Nothing" can exist as a concept in our minds, representing the opposite of "something," but it cannot exist as an independent entity in reality.
3. Absence vs. nothingness: While there can be an absence of a specific thing (e.g., "nothing in the basket"), this doesn't mean true, absolute nothingness exists. The basket itself and the air inside it are still "something". 

Scientific perspectives

1. The vacuum is not empty: According to modern physics, the vacuum of space is not truly empty. It is filled with fluctuating quantum fields, a phenomenon known as "quantum foam" where virtual particles constantly pop in and out of existence.
2. Energy is always present: Even in the coldest, emptiest possible space, there is still energy, which is a form of "something".
3. Physical laws: The laws of physics, such as the uncertainty principle, suggest that "nothingness" cannot exist in the physical universe and that there will always be some form of energy or field present. 

Sidewalker - Can the Universe be created?

No, the generally accepted Standard Model of Cosmology assumes conventional physics, especially the General Theory of Relativity, and utilizes the FLRW metric. Logically speaking, our current scientific model represents the Universe as uncreated.

Here’s what is meant by that, logically, for something to be created, it must temporally move from not existing to existing, there must have been a time when the universe did not exist, followed by a time when the universe did exist. But per the General Theory of Relativity, the Standard Model of Cosmology says that this is not the case, temporally speaking, the Universe is finite, around fourteen billion years old, but there was not a time when it did not exist, so it was not “created”.

The Standard model says that time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, which means time began when the universe began, consequently, there was no "before" the Big Bang as the concept of time itself is considered to have started then. The question of "what came before" is generally considered to be meaningless within the Standard Model of Cosmology. If there was no time when the Universe did not exist, then it is meaningless to say it was “created”.

Nothing cannot exist, and therefore, something could not have come from nothing,

Even if you say "Abracadabra" first.

I think it is easy to explain The Big Bang Club!

1. For many decades, people conflated the hot Big Bang, describing the early Universe, with a singularity: that this “Big Bang” was the birth of space and time.  
2. However, in the early 1980s, a new theory called cosmic inflation came along, suggesting that before the hot Big Bang, the Universe behaved very differently, pushing any hypothetical singularity unobservably far back.  
3. Earlier this century, some very strong evidence arrived showing that there was a Universe before the Big Bang, demonstrating that the Big Bang wasn’t truly the start of it all.

But beginning in the 1970s, scientists started identifying some puzzles surrounding the Big Bang, noting several properties of the Universe that weren’t explainable within the context of these two notions simultaneously. When cosmic inflation was first put forth and developed in the early 1980s, it separated the two definitions of the Big Bang, proposing that the early hot, dense state never achieved these singular conditions, but rather that a new, inflationary state preceded it. There really was a Universe before the hot Big Bang, and some very strong evidence from the 21st century truly proves that it’s so.

You are contradicting your previous statement

Not really. All my statements prove God.

The Standard model says that time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, which means time began when the universe began, consequently, there was no "before" the Big Bang as the concept of time itself is considered to have started then. 

Do you know what "time" is? Let me guess, no.