Granted: A creation requires a creator. But can you prove the universe was created without logical fallacies?

There is none, just "amazement". how ridiculous

Since you want to rely on a popular science "authority," I heard Sagan say once "The universe evolved consciousness in order to look at itself," as though the universe was in infinite entity, but he didn't say why or even posit the question of why is it doing this, because, like you, he was avoiding the probability of God. The issue isn't whether God exists and if He does then who created Him, and because of that logical fallacy, then why not the universe always existing. The issue is why would and how did matter evolve life. Science also believes the universe had a beginning from the big bang, which you conveniently left from your argument, so they also must believe, logically, that the universe must have an end. What you're doing is saying that the belief in God is illogical to you and that you believe in science's narrow and illogical belief in Darwin. You can believe what you want, but it's only that, a belief, no different than the belief in God. What you're not answering still is how and why is there space, matter and energy, and how could and why would mindless and purposeless matter evolve into living forms of individual “beings” with self-centered egos that they identify with and then struggle to survive and procreate? Life and evolution of humans couldn't have happened by random chance, even over an infinite amount of time, because there is no cause for matter to do that, not unless there is a designer and a purpose for it.

Conversely; can YOU prove that there was no Creator to do so? when humans attempt to "humanize" a God or a Creator problems begin. Limitations therefore, are erected and since no human nor physical entity can produce something from nothingness the natural conclusion is God does nor exist and those believing in a God are out to lunch. God is Spirit therefore, non-limited. Science knows of well over 120 dimensions in existence for starters. I.D. (intelligent design) is not a true Science and not acceptable in the Science Community.

Scientists worth their salt will tell you that they cannot prove nor dis prove the existence of a God.

Well, the first logical fallacy is 'A creation requires a creator'.

Edit: And yet there are examples of spontaneous complexity arising without a cause. For example, I give you: Salt Crystals.

Edit Edit: Well, there you're just moving back the question of a lack of creator a step. What implies 'natural forces' can't spontaneously arise also? Cosmologists have pretty much nailed down when most universal forces arose (a few picoseconds after the Big Bang). It's not only illogical to assume these had to be set up in God's own options menu, it's also irrational.

Editeditedit: Well, your actual question GRANTS that a creation implies a creator. As I said originally, that's a fallacy on many levels. ;)

Editredux: And yet we have the phrase 'spontaneous creation', which gives us a creation without the need for a creator. You're not so much arguing logic as semantics, and not very well at that.

Not only is English my first language, it's my nationality.

Edit: And as I say, we're firmly into the ground of semantics now, rather than actual logic. I don't particularly enjoy that particular stage of an Internet fight, so I'll skip ahead to calling you a Nazi, you can invoke Godwin's Law, and I can go make a sandwich. Which will arise spontaneously in my kitchen.

Well, the Steady State theory is mostly debunked, which suggests that there was a "beginning of time," like the Big Bang, i.e. a time when the universe was different than now.

So that means that the universe was created at one point and didn't always exist.

The "First Cause Argument" is self-contradiction

One can argue that the conclusion "God is the first cause" contradicts the premise "everything has a cause", and that the first cause argument is therefore self-contradictory.

It can, however, be restated as a reductio ad absurdum, to make the contradiction a desirable feature:

1. Premise: every event has a cause.

2. Premise: there can be no infinite regress.

3. Premise: there exists some event e0.

4. From (1) and (3), it follows that e0 has a cause e1, which in turn has a cause e2, and so on, in an infinite regress.

5. From (2) we know that there can be no infinite regress, which contradicts (4).

6. Therefore, at least one of the premises must be false.

Pairs of virtual particles are created (and annihilated) all of the time, in vacuum, out of literally nothing, with no prior cause. This contradicts Aquinas's premise.

roadhorse has a good point. who can claim the universe was created. the question is up in the until some has some evidence to prove a remotely possible answer.

Wolfechu; a creation does indeed imply a creator...which doesn't in any way mean that the universe was created...

I certainly can't. Lucky for me I'm willing to say I have no idea and go on with my life. It's too bad so many people feel like they have to have an answer for everything ("God did it").

God is the Truth. All things were created according to the Truth.

God created Israel. God created the Bible. God gave us His Holy Spirit. How much more evidence do you need?

You ignore the evidence.

Not very good with comprehension?

Israel. The Bible. The Holy Spirit.

God created them all. Study them. Listen to His Spirit.

Read Matthew chapter 13. Then be honest with yourself. The Spirit will prove Himself.

Only one God has sent fire from heaven. God proves Himself. The Holy Spirit is His fire today. All you can do is deny it.

Jesus did not fail the prophecies. He fulfilled the law. Take some classes that teach the truth.

If I showed you a simple wooden chair and told you a tree just grew like that and lost it's roots, would you believe me? No, I don't think you're quite that ignorant. Most aren't. So why should I believe that something like the universe and everything in it just happened on it's own without any intelligent design? I'm sorry, I'm not that ignorant.