What About... Existence? Occam's Razor

I don't follow the logic that there must be an operator to explain our existence.

I'll think on it.

Well, an AI would almost certainly follow this logical/mathematical route in understanding human belief, so I like the idea in your story.
As for us humans....hmmmm.

I have some thoughts on this:

Simply because something has "the greatest probability to be correct" doesn't mean it is correct. The improbable, while less likely perhaps, can also exist. Otherwise, why speak in probabilities? Why not simple statements of truth?

How do you know our universe had a beginning and will have an end?

Finally I agree with the curmudgeon that it is not clear at all why there must be a Creator. Even more fundamentally, just because something logically must exist does not establish that it does exist.

Well formed logic holds up. When it fails, it's usually because one of the given assumptions is incorrect. It is often argued that since every effect has a cause, if you trace them back to the original cause, then that's god, since it has no cause other than itself. This only holds up if we consider time to be linear though. I think we will find that it is much more complicated than it appears, and seems only so simple inside our own brains. The theory of relativity chafes at our model of time as completely linear, as does the double-slit experiment for our understanding of cause and effect.

Reality is likely so complex that our current understanding only brushes at the surface. Gods are very human personifications that try to explain this complexity, but becomes less plausible the more we know about the universe. However, since what we know is so insignificant compared to the likely mystery, gods are still useful enough as understandable mental substitutes for something we can't understand right now.

Well-formed logic does hold up, but that really begs the question (in the true logical sense of presupposing aspects of the answer) of whether logic can really define our universe. I suspect logic is more of a way for us to process what we observe in a way that matches our ability to understand, but perhaps the observations are inherently limited (like, I suppose, the way we cannot see certain light on the spectrum) or our logical structure can only process what fits into a logical structure and by definition excludes anything that is deemed "illogical" (or I suppose classifies it as not yet sufficiently understood). Even Christianity talks about things that "surpass understanding" and must be taken on faith.

I don't know why "the probable" should ever necessarily "become eventual." The best we could really say logically is that the probable is very likely to become, but that's far from saying it absolutely will become.

We can only see a limited spectrum of light with our eyes, but we can measure much more than that using technology. Our species has already developed far beyond our evolutionary limits. Future advancements will be artificial rather than natural, and as we get the capability to bioengineer our own bodies, we will begin to redefine what it means to be a human being. The possibilities seem limitless, but it will take time.

Our understanding of reality consists of rules that we have assigned to meet observed patterns. The universe does adhere to them, at least as we have observed so far. Laws of science become innacurrate when we zoom in to the tiny levels of detail, which necessitates more specific laws that better model what we observe. Even if logic is another human construct, it has served us well so far in what it can discover and acheive. If there is something better, perhaps we will discover it in time.

The possibilities are limitless if only we continue to survive and make steady, even if small, progress. Our civilization may not survive forever. But if it does, the things we could do. The stars could become our playground.

Please excuse me for going all hippie here, but this all reminds me of a Byrds' song, Fifth Dimension (5D) from the mid-60s or so:

And I opened my heart to the whole universe
And I found it was loving
And I saw the great blunder my teachers had made
Scientific delirium madness

By Roger McGuinn

It just seems (to me) human vanity to presume that the universe is subject to our logical constructs. To say that we can someday explain it all because we have so far explained much of what we have observed is not logically sound; to say that the universe is scientifically verifiable is, again, begging the question of whether the scientifically verifiable is all that there is. We come from unimaginable unknowable darkness, and we will return there.

Or to go back to the empiricists (David Hume I think, it's been 50 years) all that we know for certain is what we can experience, but all our experience is limited to our senses (and the extensions thereof); beyond the end of our fingertips and our vision and our instruments lies the noumena, the unknowable untouchable immeasurable source of all we experience.

How about we agree to disagree here? I'm interested to see how you develop this. Perhaps the Seeker will ultimately conclude that knowledge of the Creator is beyond its ken.

Nothing is eternal. This is so because to maintain -eternalness- it needs replenishing which means an input of energy. Therefore an energy source. It may exist by sucking the energy out of a universe and thus a universe ends so it may continue. But if there is only one universe then then -eternal entity- will dissipate through entropy. However if there are multiple universes then perhaps the -eternal- will continue. However given this -eternal- exists through other laws of physics to our laws of physics we will never even get to ascertain its existence. This is not my view this is from astrophysicists. The invariance alone does this. So it can never be proven for the -eternal- to exist. As for the steady-state-universe, I am thinking of Hoyle et.al., back in the '70s even the theory then posited no void as you suggest. How can it? Why should it? Ying and Yang projection? There actually are voids in this universe. Areas between clusters of galaxies where there is no -space. Now that is something. [paradox].

I think it's a mistake to discuss the "laws" of physics, because they are not really "laws" in the sense of directives the way our human laws are; the "laws of physics" are really axioms, e.g. shorthand terms for quantified observations. There's no reason the universe must behave in certain ways; it simply does and has done so in our observations of it. There is no reason it cannot/could not behave differently in the future.

Why do you say that "eternalness" (e.g. eternity) must need replenishing? Why can't eternity simply be?