As I promised, I am going to present a proof that someone created the Universe. But before doing that I am going to state my philosophical position.
I am a positivist. Being one, I reject several philosophical systems including idealism, realism, scientific realism and the Popper doctrine (he called it "deductivism"). Non-positivists might reject my proof; for example, it is not acceptable to the scientific realists and to the followers of the Popper doctrine.
From the positivist's point of view a theory or a statement based on never-ending experiment is false (scientific realists hold the opposite point of view). For example, the statement "The laws of physics will always remain in their current form" is false.
Also, for the positivist a theory based on assumption that could not be proved or disproved is false. Scientific realists see thing differently -- for them such theory could be correct.
There is also another positivist assertion that not everyone accepts. Suppose you have three contradictory explanations of an event. If you can prove that the first two are false this automatically implies that the third one is true, you do not have to prove it. Not everyone accepts this rule -- Popper said that the third remaining statement must be falsifiable in order to be true. But the positivists reject Popper's idea of falsifiability (Popper rejected positivism in return).
Now, the proof itself. There are three contradictory statements:
1). The universe was not created, it always existed.2).The universe came to be by itself, as a result of some process (quantum fluctuation, maybe)
3).Someone produced the universe.
I'll start with the first statement. Suppose you met someone who claims to be as old as the universe (obviously that person is not the Creator). He might be telling the truth or he might be a liar. However, his past is irrelevant to his claim. Naturally you would ask him what kind of evidence does he have to prove that the universe always existed. The best possible evidence would be a videotape showing all stages of the universe's development. Whether the tape is authentic or it is a fake is irrelevant -- it is of infinite length and it cannot be reviewed in its entirety. Being unverifiable, this statement is false.
.... <etc>
.
Without looking at your 2nd and 3rd reasons, the first reason is obviously wrong to begin with. In fact that first statement does not even make any sense … the “person as old as the universe” and his “videotape” are totally irrelevant to, and have zero to do with your conclusion which simply claims “it is of infinite length and it cannot be reviewed in its entirety. Being unverifiable, this statement is false”.
Firstly which statement (of your own) do you say is false? Secondly, just because a universe might (hypothetically in your words) have been like an “infinitely long videotape”, that does not mean it is “unverifiable" (what exactly do you say is unverifiable? ... what do you mean by "unverifiable"?), and that supposed “infinite length” (as you just called it) does not make the existence of this universe “false”.
Your first and most obvious problem is that you have a very mixed-up, confused, set of ideas about what you imagine to be the nature of, and possible origin of, the universe that we live in.
But if you really want to know the true answers to all such questions about this universe, then modern science has shown itself to be by far the best and most accurate way of doing that. In fact, science has shown that it is the
only known accurate way for us to learn about the origin and properties of this universe.
And whilst we do not yet have a complete “Theory” of exactly how and why our universe exists, or what existed “before” the earliest phases of the Big Bang, the most likely explanation which most cosmological physicists now seem to agree on, is that the energy which produced the Big Bang (i.e. energy released by the "Bang"), always existed (i.e. various interacting energy fields existed for an unknown and/or indefinite (“infinite” if you like) “time” before the Big Bang itself).
Now, in that brief explanation I put a number of key words in parenthesis, e.g. words like “before” and “time”, and that's to indicate that those words are just shorthand for a situation where as far as we can tell, there really was no “time” (or space) before the Big Bang, and hence there really was also no “before” in that sense of an earlier "time".
I could actually explain all of that to you, in a way that any reasonable educated honest person should be able to easily understand. However, I know from previous experience that it's a complete waste of time trying to explain such concepts to theists who simply refuse to believe anything that rules out their belief in God.
