There was a question asked within a discussion group:
“What evidence do you have to prove that our universe never had a Creator as an atheist?”
To which a fellow who shall be known as ZL commented:
“The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. I could just as easily say there was never a creator but there will be an evil spaghetti monster that will destroy Earth. That which is asserted without evidence should indeed be dismissed without evidence.”
Which is fair enough and I thought it deserved a reply to satisfy my inner desire to make an inquiry and see what would come to light should we proceed further beyond what was written.
I will continue the rest of the conversation without narration in between.
FCP: “JL, you are claiming there is no creator đ”
JL: “FCP would you claim there is no Tooth Fairy, or do you insist on being agnostic on the claim?“
FCP: “ZL we have to first define what you mean by Tooth Fairy.
If I assume you mean the one that comes in the night and exchanges teeth for money, that could just mean that the Tooth Fairy is one’s parent and I could say the Tooth Fairy exists and present one to you.
If I assume you mean the possible “magical” (seeming) being that may or may not exist, then I have to say that it’s certainly possible that they exist. I can’t say for certain until I’ve checked the entirety of the universe…. and even then, I wouldn’t know for sure because they could be hiding where I’m not looking soooo, unless I was able to simultaneously check the entirety of the universe on all frequencies I can’t say for certain whether there is a Tooth Fairy or not.
This is because it’s possible the Tooth Fairy has attributes that allows it to remain undetected on the frequencies we’re able to currently detect innately and through our developed instruments– which, in the grand scheme of things, observes a mere sliver (if even that) of the infinitely expanding infinity in which we have to search.
Comprende?”
I know, “the comprende” is almost too much. Though I imagined myself as Salt BĂŚ when I typed it.
Approximately three hours later, CRM enters the fray.
CRM: “FCP – Letâs be simple for you:You canât prove something doesnât exist. That is not logic. That is not reasonable.And so, this post is also illogical & unreasonable.(If someone infers that something exists because no one can âproveâ that it doesnât, they are just wasting time in a fallacy.“
FCP: “CRM I appreciate you being simple for me, Iâll do my best to pay you the same respect and be simple as simple as Iâm able to be while still getting the complete point Iâd like to present for you as well 
:
Iâm not inferring whether anything exists or not. Iâm inferring that nobody can say for certain whether it exists or not without proper evidence, that is infallible logic.
Nobody can say they know, they can think they know, but they canât say they know unless they know they know, and they can only know they know once they have ruled out every possibility. This is infallible logic.
You do not know what you do not know and if you think you know you then you do not know you know.
If you do think you know you know, how do you know that youâre not missing something if you search no further? How do you know that another piece of data (in any possible form) does not exist that refutes what you know if you have not reviewed it all?
Even if you were able to review it all, how would you know that you didnât make a mistake? Or that you saw it when reviewing and didnât realize it? How many times have you done something you thought you did right, and even double checked, and still ended up making a mistake or being wrong?
Anyone who says whether or not they know a God/Creator does or doesnât exist is making unfounded claims because they cannot truly say they know.
Although of course, the act of knowing/coming to an agreement is dependent on the definition of God/Creator we choose to use. This is important to define from the start as everyoneâs definition of God/Creator may be different.
Going further, letâs pretend that someone says a God/Creator doesnât exist. I would be inclined to agree with them, this is because in declaring a God/Creator doesnât exist, they affirm that a God/Creator DOES exist. This sounds like a contradiction/paradox, and you are welcome to call it that, but it is also a proof that the infinite existence in which we reside is Turing-complete. (If youâre unfamiliar the Turing explanation videos on Youtube tend to be a lot of fun to watch, at least for me)
Now, please allow me to explain my claim that declaring a God/Creator doesnât exist is the same as claiming a God/Creator does exist.
Claiming a God/Creator doesnât exist is the same as claiming a God/Creator does exist because: a state of non-existence also equals Nothing.
What is Nothing? No-thing. No thing. Nothing is the absence of any Singular Thing.
What else is Nothing? What else is the absence of any Singular thing? Every thing. Every-thing. Everything.
âI am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.â Rev 22:13
âI form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity;â Isa 45:7
Creator=God=The Universe=Source=Nature=life=death=Anima Mundi=Atman=Brahman =Goddess=Christ Consciousness=Divine Mother=Love=Shiva=The Tao=Ultimate Truth=The Law of One =Kosmos=Ultimate Wholeness=The Eternal Now=A=Z=Allah=Buddha=Jesus=Everything=Nothing=Zen=Nature=Vibration=Light=You=Me=Yin-Yang=The Good=The Bad=Left=Right=Up=Down=The Words on the Page=The Spaces Between the Words on the Page=The Page Itself=Et al.“
Should either of these fellows follow up with me or should another join in on the discourse, I will be sure to report back!
Wishing you all the best,
FCP đ
Next Article: Weight/Gravity Training
Previous article: New Page: Workout Data