I reject your claim

How do you know there are no other options? Why could the universe in some form or other not have always existed? Or simply popped into existence? Or not really exist except inside your mind? None of these hypothesis can be disprove. That is the problem with proving a negative. It is also impossible to disprove the idea that some creator is responsible but that does beg the question (in the cases as this one in which the claim is that existence necessitates a creator) where did this creator come from? Does its existence not necessitate a creator creator?

What about cause and effect necessitates that the universe was created rather than simply happening? 

Your previous replies show a disturbing lack of scientific understanding. Cause and effect are the foundation of modern science. Nothing happens unless something causes it to happen. This refutes everything you have said.

What about causality necessitates a creator? A cause can be literally anything.

Also can you prove that nothing happens without a cause or only that we have not observed such a thing? Also also if nothing can exist without a creator then what created whatever created the universe?

We discuss this more in depth. Theism is better evidenced than atheism, and by atheism I mean the view that there's no God.

It is not impossible to prove a negative. 

Uncreated means that God did not come into being, but is eternally existent.

Everything else came into beimg, that is, was created. Fabrication.

The idea that the universe created itself is ridiculous, because the universe wouldn't have existed to create itself if it was created.

When I  say reject I merely mean nonacceptant. I thought that was clear when I stated that rejecting your claim is not the equivalent to an opposing claim.

It's not impossible to prove a negative? Please demonstrate by proving there is no Russell's flying teapot.

By your definition god/reality could simply be the universe. If it is possible for something to be eternal why could that eternal thing not be the universe? On the other hand I don't see how we could ever confirm or deny that anything was eternal as any test would also need to be eternal.

Allow me to amend that tautologically one can prove a negative. Nothing unreal exists, there are no round squares etc but these are definitional truths they are qualified not quantified. 

Universe definition courtesy Merriam-webster...

"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"

The Ultimate Reality, God, is not contingent on observation or postulation, and is greater than any postulation that can be made of God.

So you could say that God is the universe, and that would be pantheism. My view is closer to panentheism.

There is no evidence of anything outside the observable universe. Something may exist beyond this (like more physics reality for example) but we have no evidence to base our hypotheses on. I therefore have no choice but to reject any claim about anything that is not contained within oir observable physical universe. If the observable physical universe does not actually exist this would still not prove your position it would only prove that we actually have no evidence of anything. Your claims would still need to be demonstrated.

There is no evidence that things exist outside of what we observe?

Mmmmmkay.

See, instead of rejecting, you could take the more sensical and honest approach which is... I don't know...

You know, if the idea that things happen that we aren't aware of is too wild of an idea for you.

I don't know is all I mean. As I have said over and over in this thread rejection of your claim is not a claim in and of itself it just means I don't believe your claim. I reject any claim about anything beyond our observable physical universe. I equally reject any claim that nothing could exist outside our observable universe.I reject both if those claims until such time as any hypothesis can be verified. Until then as you say and as I have said repeatedly I don't know, and unless you can provide evidence of your position you are making a case to special knowledge.

There is a difference between knowing there are things outside of our observation and knowing ahat that is.

I know there are things outside of our observation.

I don't know what those things are.

What do I know?

I know that The Ultimate Reality encompasses the entire universe, and if there is anything beyond that, it would encompass that as well. How do I know this? By understanding what The Ultimate Reality means as a concept.

And I know God through the concept, but do I know God? Only through a veil. The concept being that veil. But I know God exists because I understand the concept. I know the concept.

This is the difference between The Father and The Son in The Trinity, and it is tied together by The Holy Ghost, which is The Spirit of Truth.

But it's not a matter of "I don't know".

I do know that "There is no evidence of anything outside the observable universe

If there is more than the universe, it is greater.

That is what The Ultimate Reality means.

It is the greatest reality.

If the universe is it, that is The Ultimate Reality.

It's the difference between pantheism and panentheism. Panentheism leaves room for more. That is all.

There is room for more, more just has not been demonstrated. If you can demonstrate your claims I will have no choice but to believe you. Until you demonstrate your claim I have no choice but to reject it. I can consider it as a hypothetical but at the end of the day you have to give me a reason to believe.

There is nothing hypothetical about The Absolute, it is The Necessary Existence.

You already know The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists.

I am saying IF there is reality outside of the universe, The Ultimate Reality by definition must be greater than that.

You've never defined the ultimate reality and a dictionary doesn't create existence. Your arguments are the vapours of your imagination.

You have not demonstrated that this ultimate reality is any more than the universe. Quite frankly while I'm open to new evidence I'm not sure how you could demonstrate that.

I don't need to do any of these things, it is not necessary.

As I said, plenty of people understand the universe as being God. That is called pantheism. 

I am saying there is a multiverse or anything beyond the universe, it would have to be grounded on God. There is nothing greater than or is existent independent of God.

The vast majority of the people on this planet reject your nonsense. So stop with your ad populum fail.

It doesn't matter if everyone in the world says God doesn't exist, The Ultimate Reality exists.

Hows that for a popularity argument?