I was able to copy and paste with Preview. Anyway, here you go:

While most readers of Skeptic magazine are undoubtedly familiar with James Randi’s
$1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge (http://randi.org/research/index.html), some may not
be acquainted with Kent Hovind’s $250,000 Offer
(http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67&kws=250,000) for proof of the
evolutionary hypothesis. Dr. Hovind, who is known as “Dr. Dino” among his most ardent
supporters, is a vociferous campaigner for Young Earth Creationism. He asserts that his
$250,000 Offer demonstrates that the evolutionary hypothesis is religious rather than
scientific in nature.

Proponents of evolution who wish to collect Dr. Dino’s $250,000 must be prepared to
prove evolution—in the broadest sense of the word—beyond any reasonable doubt. Dr.
Hovind requires the proof to be empirically verifiable, and he promises to forward
submissions to an impartial committee of scientists for review. Skeptics argue that Dr.
Hovind defines evolution so broadly that only a second Big Bang would fully satisfy his
conditions, and they suspect that his committee of scientists is comprised of Young Earth
Creationists like himself.

Many claimants to the award have disqualified themselves by undertaking to prove the
evolutionary hypothesis on their own terms. By contrast, I have attempted to construct a
proof of the evolutionary hypothesis that exactly meets Dr. Hovind’s conditions. I
reproduce the same as succinctly as possible below.

Proof of Hovind’s Third Hypothesis

In his challenge guidelines, Hovind presents this problem:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 ... under "known
options" ) is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into
existence.

Hovind also provides these options as possible explanations for the Universe:

Option 1: The Universe was created by God.
Option 2: The Universe always existed.
Option 3: The Universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as
evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

We formalize these options by phrasing them in more rigorous terms:

Hypothesis 1: God is the unique necessary cause of the Universe.
Hypothesis 2: Nothing is the unique necessary cause of the Universe.
Hypothesis 3: The Universe itself is its own unique necessary cause.

We then simplify our hypotheses by expressing them symbolically:

Hypothesis 1: ~G ⇒ ~U
Hypothesis 2: ~∅ ⇒ ~U
Hypothesis 3: ~U ⇒ ~U

Please review the Table of Definitions below for explanations of the symbols used in this
proof.


Table of Definitions

G the set representing “God” or “purely supernatural reality”; it contains all
existing sets that are neither U nor subsets of U

∅ the set representing “nothing”; it has no existing subsets other than itself;
all sets contain it as a subset

U the set representing “the Universe” or “purely natural reality”; it contains
all existing sets that are neither G nor subsets of G

( ) the operators representing grouping of other symbols

= the operator representing identity and called “equals”

~ the operator representing negation and called “not”

∨ the operator representing strict disjunction and called “exclusive or”

⇒ the operator representing implication and called “therefore” or “if-then”

⊂ the operator representing subset; it is logically equivalent to ⇒ insofar as
all conditional propositions are directly translatable into universal
categorical propositions; proper subsets are not equal to the sets that
contain them; improper subsets are equal to the sets that contain them

∩ the operator representing intersection of sets; the intersection of disjoined
sets is always ∅; the intersection of any set and its subset is always that
subset


The relationship between causation and logical implication is relatively uncomplicated;
however, what we mean by “unique necessary cause” requires a brief explanation. If we
say that X is the “cause” of Y (X ⇒ Y), we do not mean that Y could not be apart from
X. In other words, if we say that the grass is wet because it rained, we do not mean to
suggest that rain is the only explanation for wet grass. X may be an accidental cause of Y
rather than a necessary one.

We define a “necessary cause” of a thing to be that without which that thing is not. If X is
a necessary cause of Y, then X is something without which Y is not (~X ⇒ ~Y). For
example, photosynthesis does not occur without light, so we say that light is a necessary
cause of photosynthesis. Of course, a “necessary cause” is not necessarily a “unique
necessary cause.” Photosynthesis does not occur without light, but neither does it occur
without CO2. In this sense, photosynthesis has at least two necessary causes.

We discern a unique necessary cause by disjoining all available necessary causes: (~X1 ⇒ ~Y) ∨
(~X2 ⇒ ~Y) ∨ (~X3 ⇒ ~Y) ... et sequens. We then eliminate necessary causes until only the unique necessary cause remains. Because we are seeking to identify the unique necessary cause
of the Universe, we preclude the possibility of multiple causes a priori. Thus, our hypotheses are
strictly disjoined: (~G ⇒ ~U) ∨ (~∅ ⇒ ~U) ∨ (~U ⇒ ~U). We now evaluate each hypothesis for
logical consistency.

First Hypothesis: ~G ⇒ ~U
(God is the unique necessary cause of the Universe.)

1. ~G ⇒ ~U Given
2. U ⇒ G Modus Tollens
3. U ⊂ G Definition of Subset
4. G ∩ U = U Definition of Intersection
5. G ∩ U = ∅ Definition of Intersection
6. U = ∅ Lines 4 and 5


If we begin with the assumption that God is the unique necessary cause of the Universe,
we deduce by modus tollens that the existence of the Universe implies the existence of
God. (Modus tollens is a well-established rule of inference that states that if X ⇒ Y then
~Y ⇒ ~X; conversely, if ~X ⇒ ~Y then Y ⇒ X.) Equivalent set notation describes the
Universe as a subset of God. Now, if the Universe is a subset of God, then the
intersection of God and the Universe is the Universe itself; however, we know from the
definition of intersection that the intersection of God and the Universe is exactly nothing.
If we combine these propositions, we conclude that the Universe is equal to nothing,
which is a contradiction. Therefore, our assumption that God is the unique necessary
cause of the Universe must be false.

Second Hypothesis: ~∅ ⇒ ~U
(Nothing is the unique necessary cause of the Universe.)

1. ~∅ ⇒ ~U Given
2. U ⇒ ∅ Modus Tollens
3. U ⊂ ∅ Definition of Subset
4. only ∅ ⊂ ∅ Definition of ∅
5. U = ∅ Lines 3 and 4


Next, we begin with the assumption that nothing is the unique necessary cause of the
Universe. We deduce by modus tollens that the existence of the Universe implies the
existence of nothing. Equivalent set notation describes the Universe as a subset of
nothing; however, we know from the definition of nothing that only nothing is a subset of
nothing. If we combine these propositions, we conclude a second time that the Universe
is equal to nothing, which remains a contradiction. Therefore, our assumption that
nothing is the unique necessary cause of the Universe must also be false.

Third Hypothesis: ~U ⇒ ~U
(The Universe itself is its own unique necessary cause.)

1. ~U ⇒ ~U Given
2. U ⇒ U Modus Tollens
3. U ⊂ U Definition of Subset
4. U = U Definition of Subset


Finally, we begin with the assumption that the Universe itself is its own unique necessary
cause. We deduce by modus tollens that the existence of the Universe implies the
existence of the Universe. Equivalent set notation describes the Universe as a subset of itself. Since the Universe cannot be a proper subset of itself without contradiction, we
determine that the Universe is an improper subset of itself, which means also that the
Universe is equal to itself. Therefore, our assumption that the Universe itself is its own
unique necessary cause is true by definition. Of course, we can do this in one step, but we
choose to follow the same line of reasoning we use in the first two cases in order to avoid
any appearance of having handled this hypothesis prejudicially.

Now, because Kent Hovind demands empirical proof, we also test our hypotheses against
what we observe. We have demonstrated that our first and second hypotheses are
reducible to the equation U = ∅, which describes a non-existing Universe. Since the
existence of the Universe is self-evident, we can safely reject the first two hypotheses.
Moreover, the third hypothesis is reducible to the equation U = U, which describes an
existing Universe. This agrees with what we observe and is absolutely incontrovertible,
for even if we deny the existence of the Universe, we ourselves must exist to deny it.

We conclude that the evolutionary hypothesis is the only one of our hypotheses that is
both logically consistent and empirically demonstrable; and even if we initially believed
it to be an improbable explanation, we have reduced both alternatives to absurdity.
Q.E.D.

Conclusion

I dispatched my proof to Dr. Dino shortly after committing it to paper. Many weeks later,
I received a terse reply from Hovind in which he dogmatically rejected my proof. What
was his justification? “The Universe is proof of a Designer—not proof that there is no
Designer.” Hovind’s response suggests that he is unwilling or unable to produce
legitimate objections. Nevertheless, the burden of proof now rests squarely on his
shoulders.

I contend that either my proof is technically correct or Hovind’s $250,000 Offer is
fundamentally flawed. If my proof is correct, then Hovind is constrained by the terms of
his offer to release the prize money. On the other hand, if Dr. Hovind’s $250,000 Offer is
flawed, then he is morally obligated to withdraw or modify it.

Because Hovind has neglected to forward my submission to the aforementioned
committee of scientists for review, I appeal to the readers of Skeptic magazine to judge
my case. Still, I am skeptical that Dr. Dino will change his mind. In fact, James Randi
agrees that this would constitute indisputable evidence of the miraculous. So, in the
unlikely event that Hovind does change his mind, I’ll be collecting Randi’s prize as well!

About the Author

Adam Kisby is delightedly married and lives with his wife and four children in South
Carolina. He received his undergraduate education at the University of Chicago and
briefly attended Seminary before becoming dissatisfied with traditional theology. He is an active member of several high-IQ societies and pursues interests in philosophy,
physics, psychology, and religion. Adam is currently employed as a certified counselor
but also accepts projects as an Internet research analyst and consultant. e-mail contact:
[email protected].

I don't know if it's your version of Acrobat that won't let you copy/paste, or just the program in general.  Since I use a Mac, I opened it up in Preview and was able to copy/paste. However, I couldn't copy the text formatting - it copied as plain text (Notepad) , not rich text (MS Word) .

The bit at the top that is centered - I did that, but in the original the first line is a bigger size. 

My propositional calculus is pretty rusty, but I can follow it well enough to see that the proof is internally valid.

But many credible theists (i.e. not Hovind) would object to the definition of God as "purely supernatural reality." Because that definition leads inevitably to "the intersection of God and the Universe is exactly nothing" which creates the internal contradiction at the conclusion of this proof, it's an assumption that most theists won't agree to.

Instead, the more widespread assumptions are that God is sometimes/partly material, or that God cannot be definied within the categories "material/immaterial."  These alternative assumptions don't lead to the same conclusion as the original writer here. 

Since neither assumption can currently be known to be true, any proof that uses either assumption as a premise can be valid, but not sound.

I guess the question I was asking was, given the terms, are the arguments valid?  They look completely internally consistent to me, but then it's been 15 years since I was in college, so I just wanted to have backup on that opinion.

Once it's established that the argument is valid, would it be wrong to say that this proof demonstrates the incoherency of the term, G, by showing that the argument won't work with G involved?

1. ~U ⇒ ~U Given
2. U ⇒ U Modus Tollens
3. U ⊂ U Definition of Subset
4. U = U Definition of Subset

Also this. All this says is that the universe is the universe. To imply from that the universe caused itself from this is....dumb.

U = U

the 'universe is the universe'

No shit Sherlock.

Guess what? Nothing is also a subset of the universe (by definition)

{I would use actual math notation, but don't know how to put it on the board}

So all elements of U is contained in U. So one element say Sn is also an elemnt of U. However, there is no uniqe element between U and U therefore they are symmetrical. I can easily interchange the two. But guess what? Unless they define the subset I can also interchange 'nothing' to it since 'nothing' is also a subset of the universe. 

I just want to clear up my previous post by addressing his logic.

It's simple. Replace 'Universe' with anything else (a toaster, deck of cards) and you can get the same conclusion. 

I've just read this so called "proof" that the universe made itself and I must say that this is pretty laughable. This guy is using laws of logic to argue that there is no cause for the existence of the Universe, knowing that there is one law of logic that says that every effect must have a cause. The Universe being an effect, it must have a cause outside itself. This may be arguable so I will explain my point. I will then show that for one to say that the universe doesn't have a cause, he must stop using logics because he doesn't believe in logics.

Firstly, in the so called "proof", it is said that the Universe would be a subset of God if God would have created the Universe. Well, if this is true, knowing that God was the same before and after the creation of the universe, because he must be intemporal, then he couln't have created the universe (the Universe would still be a subset of God before its creation). Therefore, it is obvious that the Universe isn't and can't be a subset of God. If this wasn't the case, the word creation wouldn't mean anything.

I must also reply to the last post that the Universe cannot equal zero. Even if there is positive and negative energy, both are something. If you take some piece of nothingness, you cannot get something else which is less something than this. Nothing is an absolute absence of something. Even if a negative energy exists, that energy is still positive in the fact that it is something. The Universe is not a set of mathematical numbers. It is real. And if someone thinks the contrary, let him place himself in front of a train if he really believe that.

Lets take that problem from the beginning, starting with the definition of some variables. I won't use them too often.

G = God (a supernatural being, timeless, spaceless, outside matter, which has a mind with freedom).

∆ = any supernatural force

U = Universe (the recollection of all matter which is inside time space and matter).

Ø = nothing (the total absence of anything either material or non-material).

→ = causation

∞ = infinite

As it was said before, but I must correct these assertions to be more rigorous, there is four possibles ways the Universe could have come into existence. either:

∆ → U (any supernatural cause caused the Universe. I don't put G there because there is no possible way to know if it is God or something else at this stage).

U → U (the universe caused itself by natural processes. The existence of the Universe was necessary). Some Evolutionists perspective.

Ø + chance → U (nothing made the Universe, by chance). The Universe wasn't necessary by laws of nature, but we're still here and that's all. Some Evolutionists perspective.

U = U   (The Universe just is. It has no cause).

A. Lets take each possibility one at a time. Firstly, lets consider U caused U. In this perspective, it says that this Universe was nothing before. But there was non-material laws before the first moment of time which made Time-Space-Matter and this was necessary. There are many problems with this assertion.

1. Laws of nature are Ø if nature doesn't exist. Laws of nature are only there in our mind to help us explain the activity of matter. Laws of nature are real, but they are nothing more than concepts. For example, if we take the law of gravity, it is obvious that no apple would fall if there were no apple. If laws of nature do not exist outside nature, then the laws that could have created the Universe need to be outside nature, supernatural. Lets keep that in mind.

2. Some people say that there is a multiverse beyond this universe that produces billions of random universes and that this multiverse created the actual laws of nature by chance according to the laws of nature that exist in that multiverse. Then, a problem arise which is what caused that multiverse. In order for that multiverse to have made our universe by a serie of predetermined rules, then that multiverse must have steps in it fonctioning which means that the multiverse is subject to time since time is a succession of events. This theory just push farther the problem of the beginning of time. Some could say that the laws existing to cause the Universe were outside time, like in a non-material computer. I'll adress this later since this doesn't change the fact that these laws would be supernatural ending the assertion that the material universe made itself.

3. In the end, this option must be changed either to U = U, Ø + chance → U or ∆ → U, either the Universe was always there or the universe was made from nothing without laws to cause it, or the Universe came from a supernatural cause was it God or a supernatural computer.

B. Could U = U ? could the universe have been there always? In other words, could there be not only an potential infinite amount of time, but also an actual infinite amount of time? That would mean that right now, an infinite amount of time have passed in the past. There are some problems with this also.

1. Scientists say that the Universe is burning out, so at an infinite point in the future, the Universe will be infinitely cold and unstructured and infinitely large. But if the Universe is without beginning, why has this not already happened?

2. One could say that the Universe might have a way to stabilize itself and to recuperate the lost energy and therefore, even if we do not know how that happen right now, this would allow the universe to be infinite in time. Aristotle was the first to show that this is impossible. He said that it is impossible to travel through an infinite medium. someone cannot walk an infinite road and arrive at the end. This is easy to understand:

 ∞/2 = ∞

If that person would have travelled half the infinite road, there would still be an infinite amount of distance between both points. And it is even impossible to travel half the infinite because this is also the infinite. In the same way, if the Universe had no beginning, it would be as if we would make an infinite regress in time. At that point, there would be an infinite amount of time between the theorical first moment of the Universe and today. We would then wait until today. But since there would be always an infinite amount of time to go through, we would never get to the point we would be waiting for. Therefore, today would never come into existence. But since we know that today does exist, we are forced to conclude that the Universe must have had a beginning in time.

3. That option must therefore be changed into either ∆ → U or Ø + chance → U.

C. Could the Universe come out of nothing by no laws but chance? This theory is the same as if I would say that if I watch a number 1 during enough time, it could become a number 2. Even though this sound idiot to think that, I'm not sure this would convince evolutionists that they are stupid to think the Universe could come into existence by chance. So, I will explain in details the problems relating to this assertion.

1. In real life, would we expect a ball to fall if there was no thrown ball? One should understand that the notion of chance is not an almighty concept. Chance is always dependant to some laws. In order for a lucky event to happen, there must be laws limiting the possibilities for that event to happen. If we could expect a ball to hit a bird one mile away by chance, it would still be necessary to throw the ball. The ball would never throw itself. In the same way, if we would throw dices to decide whether or not the universe would be created, it would be still necessary for us to throw the dices in order to get the lucky number. A dice has 6 faces, right angles, dots on it and obeys to gravity and to the dice thrower in order to show a result. this is something complicated. Even if the event of getting a precise number on a dice is something lucky, the process by which you get it is not. By the same way, if the Universe was made by a result of luck, the process that made the result was not caused by chance.

    Why can I assert this? It's pretty simple. Lets imagine the Universe was made by chance by a result of a thrown dice, but not thrown, a dice with no law. Then, why should there be only one result. We could get a universe existing and not existing at the same time, subject to time and timeless at the same time, etc. It is pretty easy to see that this is impossible. Even if the universe was made by luck, we know that it couldn't get two contradicting results. This law is a law that is supreme even to the event of the appearance of the Universe. The laws of logics are above the Universe. If chance had to obey to the laws of logics in the event of the appearance of the Universe even if logics do not exists materially, then there must be some supernatural mechanisms that caused the Universe.

2. Also, it is very easy to understand that such an assertion contradict the fondation of logics since there is a law in physics that says: "nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed". 0 do not equals 1.

3. Another point to make is that if the Universe was caused by chance, what caused that chance isn't the supreme law of the Universe anymore? I know that I've already showed that chance does obey the laws of logics, but we need to understand that if chance alone had caused the universe, then chance alone should be governing  it. Then, the events that we would see everyday would be all spontaneous and not obeying any law. If chance made the world, then we should be surprised that we stay alive more than 10 seconds. If we happened to be by chance, we should also disappear by chance and not rationally. This only fact shows the stupidity of believing in chance as the only cause of the Universe. How can we explain the constistancy of the laws of nature if these laws were made by chance? Shouldn't they disappear also by chance?

4. In the end, it is way more rational to say that the Universe came into existence by some sort of supernatural mechanism or caused by a supreme being.

D. Is the question closed? not really. Even if we know that the Universe must have had a supernatural cause, how can we know for sure what it is? The supernatural cause of the universe could be either a supernatural computer or a supernatural mind known as God. Either:

∆C → U (the supernatural computer caused the Universe)

∆G → U (the supernatural mind caused the Universe)

1. Lets explore first the possibility of a supernatural computer to be the cause of our existence. This hypothesis would predict that according to it own laws, the infinitely powerful computer would create a world perfectly structured like the one we look at. By some sort of mechanism working on it own, the computer could create a perfectly structured world without the obligation for us to obey to moral laws. In fact, this hypothesis is a retake of the U → U hypothesis. The main difference is that it doesn't say that natural laws existed before time existed. it says that supernatural laws existed in a mindless supernatural entity that created the actual Universe according to its own predetermined fonctions. In short, this hypothesis does say that the existence of the Universe is necessary. It only remove the problem of time in the second hypothesis. But there is an important problem with that theory.

2. Since this mindless supernatural being is outside of time and that there are no steps in its decisions, how can it decide at one point that it won't create the Universe and that it will create the first moment of the Universe in a certain way and then stop creating the Universe. If that supernatural computer was really programmed to work in a certain way, how can it produce different results without causes according to the moment we are at in time and that, at the same time, these results neither follow constant laws neither are they a result of chance.

3. This also poses the problem of Who programmed the supernatural computer. If the computer didn't have the freedom to program itself, how did it get programmed? Since we can observe in our life that no computer can program itself, then we must conclude that either this supernatural computer had a cause or it had the freedom to program itself which therefore doesn't make it a computer anymore, but a mind. But a supernatural entity cannot have a cause since there is no succession of events outside time. Therefore, the cause of the Universe must be a supernatural mind.

E. Comes now the question whether or not a supernatural mind could have created the Universe (a God). Some would say that this is not possible since we should then ask the question: what made God?

1. Since a supernatural cause is timeless, there cannot be a cause to it (there is no succession of events outside time). There is no need to tell why God is such or such. Since a mind is free to be as it wants to be, it can program itself as it likes. Some could ask why God loves us or why he did so, but the farther we can understand rationally is what follows logics, but it is impossible to understand rationally why someone makes a decision when he has nothing to gain from that decision.

Logics can guide you to God, but it can't make you love him.

Thanks for the reply butterbattle;

    I may have to clarify my last point even if I think I had provided the answers in my post, but must explain myself for the sake of rationality.

 In my last two hypothesis, I meant to say that there are two possibilities of a supernatural cause for the Universe. Either the Universe was caused intentionally by an entity which has the freedom to do it or the Universe was caused by a supernatural set of laws (I said that this is contained in a supernatural computer).
A. Lets explore the hypothesis of a supernatural set of laws causing the Universe. Since laws are just explanations of what is seen, you need to have an entity (anything existing which would also be timeless) that causes the laws. Either this entity is a very basic trigger like you said or a complicated trigger (automatons thanks for the word!)
∆A → U (the supernatural automaton caused the Universe)
∆T→ U (the supernatural trigger caused the Universe)

1. could a simple timeless trigger cause the Universe as we see it? What we do know about a triggers is that even the simplest must have at least two parts: the trigger and the energy to start it. Where did that energy come from? If we say that the energy come from the trigger itself then there must be either another part to the trigger that created the energy to launch it or we must say that the trigger was always started. If the first possibility is true, then we must conclude that the supernatural trigger is in fact an automaton (more complex). The second possibility cannot be true since the Universe wouldn't have had a beginning and we wouldn't be there to talk about it since we can't make an infinite regress in time. The Universe would be infinite in time because we could always ask the question: what was there one moment before the appearance of the Universe? Since the trigger was always started then the Universe was also created one moment before it was created and we can go back to infinity doing this.
    Moreover, if we take this problem differently, what simple trigger could cause the order we see in the Universe? There are only one possibility for this. It must be randomness, chance, luck. This must be so because if what is caused is not random, then it is predetermined. If it is predetermined, then the trigger must be at least as complex as the Universe since it must contain the definition of all the laws of the Universe in itself. Since we have already seen that Ø + chance → U is impossible, we must then conclude that the trigger should be at least as complex as the universe. The only possible choice is the automaton.

B. Could the Universe be caused by an automaton? This is possible, but since we've just seen that a supernatural automaton must be at least as complex as the Universe, this raises the question as to how did it get that complex? Either the automaton programmed itself or something else programmed it or someone else did it. I will make also the hypothesis that the automaton wasn't programmed at all.
By programming, I mean putting inviolable patterns of actions in a being (any kind of being). If the automaton could violate a pattern of action to do something not programmed in itself, then it would be free and therefore not an automaton.
∆A → ∆A (it programmed itself)
∆ → A (something programmed the automaton)
∆M → A (a mind programmed the automaton)
∆A = ∆A (it just is. That's all)
1. Could ∆ → A? If another mindless being would have programmed the supernatural automaton, then the Automaton wouldn't be supernatural any more and we would again need to explain how that mindless being got programmed since it needed to be at least as complex as the first automaton in order to program it. We could regress to infinity like that. At the end, one automaton must have designed itself or a mind must have designed it.

2. could ∆A → ∆A? I think this is obviously wrong, but since this was an objection to my argumentation, I must explain why. Could an automaton program itself? Lets say there was a mindless supernatural being before the Universe got here without any predetermined patterns in it. By which process could it program itself. If that being is mindless, then it must follow determined patterns. But if there are no determined patterns in it, then it must at least follow the pattern which is to do nothing. If the automaton decide to start programming itself, then it goes outside his predetermined patterns.
     Some could say that the automaton had only one pattern which was to program itself and it did it. But since the automaton must be as complex as the Universe, the process by which the automaton program itself must also be as complex as the automaton is since everything is predetermined. It is the same as to say that a manual explaining how to build a car must be at least as complex as the car. If this wasn't the case, then we could explain how a car is built by showing a grain of sand.
    If the process by which the automaton get programmed is as complex as the automaton itself, then it raises the question as to what made that process. We then go back to infinity since we can't find a valid answer. In the end, the automaton must have been programmed by a mind or it wasn't programmed at all.

3. Could an automaton not be programmed? I made the analogy that no computer can program itself and I got contradicted on that point. So, lets say that the supernatural automaton was there and that's all. We can't explain how it got programmed, but that's the truth and that's all. This raises a big problem. A computer produces results according to the information it gets from his environment. If you give it 2+ 2 =, it responds 4. But what if the computer never gets anything from its environment like the supernatural automaton? it will never produce any results other than what it is already programmed to do on it own. However, since there is no time outside our Time-Space-Matter universe, then the supernatural automaton must always be producing the same results. Without any data coming from the outside world, the automaton wouldn't start doing something else than what it is already doing. Someone could say that there was a random process in the automaton which decided when it should create the Universe. But since there are no steps outside time, there is enough time in one moment to have produced all the results of randomness. At that point, we go back to the problem we had with the supernatural trigger. We fail to explain why the Universe is not infinite in time duration if the supernatural automaton was always doing the same actions from eternity.
 In the end, the only other known possibility for an automaton to have created the Universe is that a supernatural mind made the automaton which made the Universe. ∆M → A → U
But this is absurd in the sense that if the automaton is as complex as the Universe and that this automaton is purposeless outside the fact that it creates the Universe, why should the supernatural mind create that automaton. This would be purposeless and as we can see in this Universe, nothing is purposeless. Therefore, a purposeless automaton doesn't exist.

4. Finally, I come back to my first conclusion that logics leads us to a supernatural mind as the first cause of the Universe. But why a mind? because a mind is the only thing that is free to do something without following patterns of actions, but that his actions still have a purpose. A mind is the only thing that can explain why the entity creating the universe did not create the Universe one moment before it did and that it did it one moment after. Also, A mind is the only thing that can program itself like I wrote in my last post. I meant by this that a mind can make his own patterns of actions and change them without cause but at the same time with purpose. This is what best explain our World. We live in a Universe which has purpose, but since we can't go back to infinity to explain the cause of that purpose, we know that there must be an uncaused cause. The combination of both points leads to a mind as the first cause of the Universe.

From that to conclude that this mind is the Christian God, or the muslim God or else, I won't push the argumentation farther. The only known thing is that the Universe was caused by a mind. You may accept it or reject it, it stays the truth anyway according to logics.

Also Butterbattle, I must tell you that I'm not stuck on the notion that the Universe must be caused by an incredibly powerful puppet master. Firstly, I don't think I'm a puppet. Secondly, I'm not stuck on a notion, but logics lead me to the fact that only a mind can cause the Universe. But for you, ARE YOU STUCK ON THE NOTION THAT THERE CAN'T BE A MIND BEHIND THE UNIVERSE? I've nothing to do with your anger against christians or other religions. I love logics and science and this debate has nothing to do with religion. It's a philosophical one.

There is no evidence whatever to propose that "a mind is the only thing that is free to do something without following patterns of actions".

It seems to follow the assumption that there is something meaningful about the philosophical/religious idea of "free will", of a decision or choice being non-deterministic in the sense of not being in any sense based on prior 'causes'.

To me, that makes a mockery of my idea of 'making a decision'. In what sense can I make choice in a total absence of criteria or influences or urges or personal preferences or reasoning processes etc? How would such a decision be any different to tossing a coin?

Conscious choices, decisions, are , AFAICS, based on the net balance of all those factors, and more. ie they are 'causal' consequences of such factors, which in turn are consequences of other states and events, and so on. What else could there be? it may help to realize that any identifiable state of existence is rarely 'determined' solely by any unique identifiable 'cause', but rather is affected by an indefinitely large set of contributory events or states of its environment.

The conceptions of medieval and earlier philosophers about the nature of causality, and many other things, were hopelessly simplistic.

There is no justification for assuming that a 'purpose' exists outside the context of an individual consciousness, that it could meaningfully be ascribed to the Universe.

Examination of things happening within our Universe show that causes may easily be 'lesser' than the effects they cause, by whatever criteria you want to use, in duration or energy involved. Once you realize this, it follows that any event can perfectly well be the result of a notionally infinite chain of cause-and-effect, that nevertheless will have a finite duration and involve finite energy, and require a hypothetically infinitesimal origin at a finite time in the past. This only requires that in the sequence, each cause is effectively smaller that what it causes by a factor that is a finite value less than unity.

In fact, Science, in the form of Quantum Mechanics, rescues us from even the notionally tricky idea of an infinitesimal 'first cause', in that below some finite scale, uncertainty, indeterminism dominates, and Planck scale 'events' effectively fire at random.

So no mind is required to somehow 'will' something to happen, in fact that really makes no sense.

Another thing is that order does not require a mind. The reality is the reverse, the emergence of complex ordered processes such as 'mind' requires an inherent level of ordered processes and structure to exist already.

Order only requires that the fundamental structural components of reality, be they quarks and/or something more elementary, be essentially identical and simple.

In the same way that a collection of identical spheres will settle into a single layer arranged in a perfect triangular pattern when shaken on a sloping table, order and pattern is an emergent thing.

So, the minimal background for emergence of our Big Bang universe, and mind, is a an absolutely minimal background of raw potentiality, energy, as close as is possible to nothingness.

We try to be good in order to live in a more pleasant environment, with more positive relationships with our neighbours, and with the expectation that acting positively toward our fellow members of society will encourage positive actions toward us in return. The mental processes and the underlying brain structures, the 'mirror-neurones' have been detected.

Such interactions and behaviour and reactions have been identified, at a somewhat simpler level, among many social animal groups, from elephants to primates to wolves.

So, in general, there is utterly no justification for proposing a supervening 'supernatural' entity to 'explain' human behaviour and motivations, rather our understanding of psychology provides a broad explanation for the persistence of such supernatural beliefs.

God is an effect, not a cause, that is not an ultimate explanation of anything.