[GodGunsGuts]

==Where’s your proof? If you don’t have any proof, it’s not a theorm.

The proof is there is no *known* law of nature, and no *known* process, and no *known* sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. If you are aware of information originating by itself in matter, please share it now.

[Jabba the Nutt]

This is the question of the first cause. Something cannot be created out of nothing. Not controversial. But then to say God created the universe is a big step. But it really doesn't solve the problem of creating something out of nothing, it just pushes one step back. Who created God? God created himself? What did he use?

Bottom line: It's a matter of faith. You can believe that God created the universe(s?) or you can have faith that the big bang happened by chance.

It's a crap shoot. Einstein was wrong, God does play dice.

[spunkets]

"The proof is there is no *known* law of nature, and no *known* process, and no *known* sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter."

The word is theorem, which only has meaning in logic and mathematics. In particular, it requires mathematical/logical proof. Without the logic, or mathematical operations, there is no theorem.

The failure, or inability to note, or know something, does not even amount to evidence, in and of itself.

[tacticalogic]

The proof is there is no *known* law of nature, and no *known* process, and no *known* sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

Paradoxically, there being no *known* law of nature, and no *known* process, and no *known* sequence of events which can cause uranium decay to accellerate by many orders of magnitude with no apparent increase in heat output not only doesn't constitute proof, it's not ever considered sufficient reason to assume probability.

[Buck W.]

No. A theorem is a statement that is proven from a set of given axioms in a logical system. The proof is constructed by starting with the axioms of the system and using the permitted logical rules to derive “true” statements. Think of how you derived the mean value theorem in elementary calculus, or established the equality of alternate interior angles in geometry.

Now, back to your post, it’s not a theorem if it has no proof, as above. Without proof, it’s a conjecture. Unless you are assuming it to be axiomatic, which wouldn’t surprise me.