ReformedCharacter wrote:GrandOiseau wrote:What form are you perceiving a "Prime Mover" to be?
If I wake up in the morning and find that the back of my car has been smashed in I don't need to know whether it was a yellow van or a black lorry to know that another vehicle has whacked it. Nor will my insurer likely claim it was an act of God Cause and effect.
You've avoided the question and come up with a spurious analogy. Can you answer the question directly?
ReformedCharacter wrote:GrandOiseau wrote:If it exists or existed I have no idea. And hence I can not say what caused the universe to come into existence or indeed (behind my comprehension) that there was no cause at all.
I agree, but having admitted that you don't know, you say that you don't believe in a PM and therefore logically you must believe in the other hypothesis which is that the 'creation' came from nowhere. As I agree with your 'don't know' I'm obviously not going to say that you are wrong but that there is a logical inconsistency in your comment.
It's an absence of belief, not a disbelief. Subtle difference. You have presented two hypothesis and said those are the only two. I have an absence of belief in whether they are only two and which one is correct. Make sense now? If I said I did not believe in something then that could be construed I had look at the evidence and disagreed with the conclusions. But if there is no evidence/explanation then you can construe my disbelief as an absence of belief. I have nothing to decide on. Make sense?
ReformedCharacter wrote:GrandOiseau wrote:You can not apply logic or explain something you can not comprehend.
But we do use logic as a tool to reason about things when we have incomplete information, Occam's razor for example.
You don't have imcomplete information aka competing answers. You have nothing. You have no information on a PM nor about a "no cause" hypothesise. Even using these terms is false and meaningless. They are made up - words on a page - nothing more.