Mathematical Proof of God?

[TagliatelliMonster]

The KCA concludes that the universe had a cause

LOL!

Didn't you just spend 3 posts telling me that this isn't so?

and that the cause has to be timeless, immaterial space less,

A "timeless cause" is an oxymoron.
Like a married bachelor.

and personal that may or may not be intelligent

Blatant assumed conclusion.

Something timeless space less immaterial and personal sounds a lot like God, but strictly speaking it doesn’t follow

It's fallacious nonsense from start to finish.

 

[leroy]

Please don't speak in my name.
When I say that the universe came to be somehow, then I don't mean what you would like it to mean.

What I actually mean is that expansion / inflation of the space-time continuum started at T = 0.
Or at least, that's what it looks like. We don't know for sure since we can't go back further then Planck time. All of physics breaks down "beyond" that point.

I'm not going to pretend to understand it. If memory serves me right, I think that if you try to go further back in the model, you end up dividing by zero or something making you end up in lala-land.

So when I say that the universe came to be, what I'm referring to is the beginning of the big bang. Inflation / expansion. The start of time and space itself.

Have I said anything different from that?

 

[leroy]

Examples por favor.[]

mrrr
This is simply and uncontroverstial stuff, we should send much time on it, yes there are discordances some can be explained some cant (yet) ….. it´s not a big of a deal, this doesn’t disprove common ancestry it simply shows that there are mechanisms that we dont know about


Disentangling Sources of Gene Tree Discordance in Phylogenomic Data Sets: Testing Ancient Hybridizations in Amaranthaceae s.l

Obviously false.
Unfalsifiable models can't be tested or confirmed.

Well why? Just because you say so?

Negative claims are useless.

Not always

And I explained how it could be falsified anyway. Funny how you blatantly ignored that part and just repeated the claim that has just been dealt with in the ignored part.

.[/QUOTE]
I didn’t ignored it, I granted your claim

I simply pointed to the fact that negative hypothesis are unfalsifiable and supported by evidnece at the same time.

Such as “there has never been a female president in the US”

This is

1 unfalsifiable

2 supported by evidnece

1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive.

Agree? Yes? no? or would you avoid a direct yes no answer again?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Isn't this a variation Kalam Cosmological argument? "V is not self-caused" is essentially the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused. And the conclusion is that the universe V must have a cause that is not V or an element of V, is also in Kalam.

I don't find this argument compelling

And why don't you find this argument compelling?

, but lets stipulate to this proving that the universe has an uncaused cause. Why does this cause need to be a god?

Because, if the universe all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM), then obviously, if STEM began to exist, then whatever gave STEM its beginning could not itself be a product (or comprised of) STEM.

The multiverse hypothesis fits this formulation as well.

Nah, the multiverse hypothesis cannot save you.

Never mind the fact that there is no evidence for it, you would still have a problem with infinite regression which the multiverse (and any model) are subjected to...and the infinite regression problem is a philosophical problem, and independent of the physical world and contemporary science.

Craig makes the same error in his Kalam argument - simply assuming multiple characteristic about this cause that point to the god he believes in without acknowledging much less excluding other potential first causes.

You are incorrect. Craig acknowledges all of the latest cosmological models which are meant to negate the finitude of the universe, and he explains why they all fail.

He has been pushing the Kalam since 1979 and there is no argument against the KCA that he hasn't seen and refuted yet.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

It makes two assumptions: that a cause is required for V, and that the cause is a God. This proof can be defeated by eliminating the assumption that V was caused.

Sure, you can eliminate the assumption, but you would do so without any logical or scientific merit.

However, if you are eliminating it because there is a strong urge to maintain your atheism/agnosticism, then by all means, go for it.

 

[rational experiences]

In natural law. A banana exists on a tree first and no human is there...its end is fixed. The banana. Otherwise no banana could exist.

A human is compatible with the banana so eats it.

How is the banana known?

A human sees it. Knows where it grows. Yet isn't there in its first place naturally.

A human abiding natural law. Picks and eats it.

A human pretending they are the God themselves that caused anything to exist is just an egotistical liar.

Each separate form. You see. You know it's separate. It was created as it exists.

If you tried to add onto the body banana it's end as banana would not exist.

So you ask just a human. Why are you pretending you are the God that created anything?

As he wants new energy created as a resource.

So if you ask him so where does that energy that doesn't own any end exist?

Reasoned...so you can take it and make it into any type of end you want. Being just a resource.

All his answers then say I don't expect anything I study owning natural ends presence to exist afterwards. Not when I find my answers as I want it all changed by my data correlation as ends. To not end.

I want it to be present and non stop. But not as natural form.

Real answer he intends to destroy everything.

As a theist he only looks back and he was never there personally as the human when it first existed. His known answer that he ignores.

 

[F1fan]

Sure, you can eliminate the assumption, but you would do so without any logical or scientific merit.

There are two assumptions I referred to. And neither are justified in either logic or science. In logic you need valid and true premises to build a sound argument, not assumptions. That's why theists can never form a valid logical argument for a God. And in science you conduct work with the least number of assumptions possible, and assuming a supernatural exists is an assumption that is absurd in science.

However, if you are eliminating it because there is a strong urge to maintain your atheism/agnosticism, then by all means, go for it.

Assuming any supernatural phenomenon only to benefit religious beliefs. Since there is no factual basis for religious concepts why would any rational mind entertain supernatural concepts seriously? It's irrelevant to any valid and factual understanding of reality.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

There are two assumptions I referred to. And neither are justified in either logic or science. In logic you need valid and true premises to build a sound argument, not assumptions. That's why theists can never form a valid logical argument for a God.

First off, who is assuming anything?

The KCA is based upon valid/true premises..

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of a state of nothingness).

2. The universe began to exist (which is based on contemporary science).

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (logically follows from 1 and 2).

That is a deductive argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows.

And in science you conduct work with the least number of assumptions possible, and assuming a supernatural exists is an assumption that is absurd in science.

No one is assuming a supernatural exists.

Saying that the universe began to exist is a religiously neutral statement and can be found in any textbook on cosmology...and chances are, the person who wrote the text book probably won't be a theist.

The question is; what can be the cause of a universe which began to exist..and it can't be a natural cause, because nature is exactly what began to exist.

It is an easy process of elimination, and you just don't like where the evidence is going...but it is going there, regardless.

Assuming any supernatural phenomenon only to benefit religious beliefs.

Ok, so lets use that logic. Ok, so assuming any natural phenomenon only benefits materialism (atheists) beliefs.

So now what?

Since there is no factual basis for religious concepts why would any rational mind entertain supernatural concepts seriously? It's irrelevant to any valid and factual understanding of reality.

Well, here is the factual understanding of reality; nature cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain.

An external cause is necessary.

And again, you may not like those implications, but the evidence doesn't concern itself with personal opinions.

 

[rational experiences]

A human only lives on earth. Exact.

So there is no theory. Cosmic before anything and everything.

As a rational advice.

If you think against natural existence it is to pretend natural existence doesn't exist by natural laws. Exact terms thought just in a humans head.

Actuality of that thought already human chosen acted upon is inside a machines reaction only. Breaking laws he had already theoried for science.

As you impose your laws not for theory cosmic but for a machine design and a machines reaction.

As a rational human owns no need to pretend a human idea is truth.

Only egotists as irrational human destroyers behave that way.

Science of men stated you must accept that only evolution is acceptable in scientific terms now.

As we will not continue to exist in biology if evolution is not successful. Evolution is species type supported by cooling status held. Isn't species progression.

Natural law to continue existing is fixed cooling only. Still applying cooling. Evolution the only law...no other thesis allowed.

To evolve from a heated past is to exist where it's cooled only.

Rational advice. The law of freeze holding was gods Inheritor law. Held body of anything once separating yet now held.

Wasn't a supernatural teaching it was a humans relativity teaching in human science.

If you ask a human Theist. Wasn't it just a human want to not personally as a human die bodily as a human does die and just be eternal?

As a want only?

Didn't you claim as a human theist that only energy remained eternally in its fixed highest presence?

Yes.

But humans didn't.

So you'd ask an irrational human scientist did you try to convert biology into just existing as a type of energy?

Yes would be his historic evil scientific belief. He theoried how to convert human biologies life supporting heavens into just an energy mass.

Review...burning everything to death his answer.

Why a human satanist in human behaviour as scientific theists had been exactly explained before. Behaviour. Theory. Want. Motivation...human choice and human belief only.

 

[F1fan]

First off, who is assuming anything?

The KCA is based upon valid/true premises..

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of a state of nothingness).

2. The universe began to exist (which is based on contemporary science).

Wrong. The state of the universe changed from being a singularity to expanded energy. No energy came into existence, it already existed as a singularity.

So now you have to demonstrate and explain that any sort of God exists and it is necessary for the singularity to expand. What true premises do you have for us?

 

[shunyadragon]

Quantum mechanics is ether random or deterministic (depending on what’s your favorite interpretation on QM)

The important difference is Quantum Mechanics is based on objectively verifiable evidence, and God is a subjective human belief not based on evidence. The behavior of matter and energy in quantum mechanics follows predictable patterns and is not random. As a matter of fact, the only thing truly random in nature is the timing of cause and effect events, but all cause and effect events follow a predictable pattern within the limits of Natural LAws and processes.

God is personal (with libertarian free will)

Based on belief and faith without evidence.

So there is an important difference

True, but not as you describe.

If there was a timeless quantum era then it remains inexplicable why our universe began to exist 14B years ago // if the quantum era is timeless (permanent) then it would have collapsed an infinite amount of time ago, and the Big bang would have occurred in infinite amount of time ago

The above is a terribly confused misinformation concerning the nature of Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics that underlies the physical nature of our universe remains boundless and timeless as far as we know. The occurrence of the Big Bang and the existence of our universe is a time/space dimensional existence that is a manifestation of the Quantum World that underlies it. Simply if we take matter and the energy of our macro world ti the smallest scale of Quanta you have matter and energy behaving by the rules observed in Quantum Mechanics.

 

[shunyadragon]

It simply means that there is no time between the cause and the effect, both occurred at the same time.

What some describe as 'occurring at the same time ' in the Quantum World is the limited human perspective of observation of Quantum behavior and not Quantum Mechanics as a whole.

No, it does not. At the Quantum Mechanics scale, the behavior of matter and energy can be measured in terms of Quanta, but they of course are not the continuous time in a three-dimensional world of our universe.

Again you agree with this so what are you arguing for?

Again, again and again . . . I do not remotely agree with anything you have presented so far in this thread. We both believe in God, but I admit that the belief in God is without objectively verifiable evidence. Also, the ultimate nature of God is beyond human comprehension and the scripture and beliefs of all diverse conflicting religions have a distinct limited human comprehension of God within the cultural perspective of the time the Messianic figure lived on earth.[/QUOTE]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have I said anything different from that?

Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

mrrr
This is simply and uncontroverstial stuff, we should send much time on it, yes there are discordances some can be explained some cant (yet) ….. it´s not a big of a deal, this doesn’t disprove common ancestry it simply shows that there are mechanisms that we dont know about


Disentangling Sources of Gene Tree Discordance in Phylogenomic Data Sets: Testing Ancient Hybridizations in Amaranthaceae s.l

gene tree discordance is not what is being talked about.

Well why? Just because you say so?

By definition of what it means to be "unfalsifiable".

I didn’t ignored it, I granted your claim

I simply pointed to the fact that negative hypothesis are unfalsifiable and supported by evidnece at the same time.

You say you didn't ignore it, and then in the next breath you ignore it by simply repeating your absurd claim as if it wasn't dealt with.

Such as “there has never been a female president in the US”

This is

1 unfalsifiable

Showing that any of the presidents was actually female wouldn't falsify that claim?

2 supported by evidnece

1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive.

You haven't shown that. It's not an unfalsifiable claim.

Agree? Yes? no? or would you avoid a direct yes no answer again?

Will you ignore your blatant mistakes again and just continue repeating them, like always?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because, if the universe all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM), then obviously, if STEM began to exist, then whatever gave STEM its beginning could not itself be a product (or comprised of) STEM.

How does that lead you to a god?
You didn't answer the question.

Nah, the multiverse hypothesis cannot save you.

First, it's not a hypothesis.
Second, we aren't the ones who's argument requires any "saving", as we are not religiously invested in any particular answer that must be insisted upon as some kind of religious duty / requirement.

In short: we aren't the ones trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow....

Never mind the fact that there is no evidence for it

That's not actually true.
There's indirect evidence for it, as it flows as a prediction out of other theories and hypothesis that DO have evidence.

, you would still have a problem with infinite regression which the multiverse (and any model) are subjected to...

Why? Time is a property of the universe. For an infinite regression, wouldn't you require an infinite past? How can you have an infinite past if the universe (and thus also time) had a beginning?

And why wouldn't your god model suffer from the same problem?
(I expect a special pleading argument as an answer to that last question)

and the infinite regression problem is a philosophical problem

Right, so not a real problem.

[qutoe]
, and independent of the physical world and contemporary science.[/quote]

So it can be safely ignored then.

Like extra-dimensional unicorns. They also are only philosophical and independent of physical reality and science.

You are incorrect. Craig acknowledges all of the latest cosmological models which are meant to negate the finitude of the universe, and he explains why they all fail.

Yes. It's very funny to see a religious apologetic who's only claim to fame is being a professional "debater", try and "refute" world class cosmologists, astronomers, theoretical physicists, etc as if he has any expertise in any of those fields.

He has been pushing the Kalam since 1979

Like a broken record.

and there is no argument against the KCA that he hasn't seen and refuted yet.

KCA is a cesspool of logical fallacies that requires no refutation. It only requires the pointing out of the fallacious nonsense. Him ignoring those won't make them go away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, you can eliminate the assumption, but you would do so without any logical or scientific merit.

However, if you are eliminating it because there is a strong urge to maintain your atheism/agnosticism, then by all means, go for it.

You got that exactly backwards.

It's the assumption that requires a basis in logic and scientific merit.
Assumptions that are made without any evidence, can be safely ignored without any evidence.

 

[joelr]

This is a Baha’i article I came across. Please kindly share your views. I had it sent to me by email so there is no link to it so I had to screenshot it if that’s ok.

No, this proof isn't proving anything but say it did, all you have is a G. Maybe a creative force, maybe not. It doesn't show where it's conscious? Maybe it's quantum fields or the early universe in a quantum size when all the forces were united into one force. Maybe it's spacetime. Energy.
Maybe space existed eternally and time is G. Which began time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First off, who is assuming anything?

The KCA is based upon valid/true premises..

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of a state of nothingness).

2. The universe began to exist (which is based on contemporary science).

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (logically follows from 1 and 2).

That is a deductive argument. If the premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows.

1. in quantum mechanics, uncaused things 'happen' all the time. So this premise is false.

2. is debatable. What we know for sure is that space-time started to expand / inflate.

3. is absurd. causality is a phenomenon of physics of the universe. The phenomenon of the universe don't exist if the universe doesn't exist.

No one is assuming a supernatural exists.

Then EVEN if I grant the absurd premises above, it could never get you to a god, because that is a supernatural thing that isn't demonstrated to exist. And since you say that it isn't assumed that the supernatural exists, then god is not a valid candidate as the "cause".

Saying that the universe began to exist is a religiously neutral statement and can be found in any textbook on cosmology...and chances are, the person who wrote the text book probably won't be a theist.

Yeah. Smart educated people tend to not believe fantastical stories . (sorry, that one was too easy and couldn't help myself )

The question is; what can be the cause of a universe which began to exist..

Again, "cause" is very likely the wrong word.
Given what we know about quantum mechanics, the universe is likely uncaused.

and it can't be a natural cause

How have you determined that?

, because nature is exactly what began to exist.

Now you are contradicting yourself.
If I would grant you the premises above, then that means that the universe bubble exists in some kind of environment that is subject to temporal conditions. Since the cause of the universe would have to occur BEFORE the universe exists. If in that environment causality exists, then there is a time dimension and plenty of physics that is enabled through that.

In other words, that would be part of "nature".

In science, this is even taken into account.
If there is an existence of whatever "outside" of the universe, then that stuff, whatever it is, IS part of reality. Of nature.

So scientists use the word "cosmos" to refer to the entire set of existence (both the known and the unknown). While the word "universe" would be only our space-time bubble, which would be a subset of the cosmos.

Obviously what, if anything, exists outside the universe is at this point mostly speculation. But lets grant it for the sake of argument that there is "other stuff" out there. After all, your very premises REQUIRE such to be the case. Your premise REQUIRES and environment that is NOT the universe within which is a flow of time and where a "cause" for the universe can occur.

How have you determined that the physics of that environment, whatever it is, aren't capable of producing universes naturally?

It is an easy process of elimination, and you just don't like where the evidence is going...but it is going there, regardless.

What evidence?
All you have done so far is demonstrate your ignorance and just assert "god dun it", in a nutshell.

Ok, so lets use that logic. Ok, so assuming any natural phenomenon only benefits materialism (atheists) beliefs.

So now what?

Pretty poor / dishonest logic.
Natural phenomenon demonstrably exist and require no assuming..

Well, here is the factual understanding of reality; nature cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain.

An external cause is necessary.

What's the external cause of your god?

And again, you may not like those implications, but the evidence doesn't concern itself with personal opinions.

And reality doesn't concern itself with your religious beliefs.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

How does that lead you to a god?

Easy.

Why?

Because if you only have two options (either God did it, or mother nature did it), and one of those options is negated, then the last (and only) option wins by default.

It is called law of excluded middle, and like I said prior, an easy process of elimination.

You didn't answer the question.

Looks to me like I just did.

First, it's not a hypothesis.

It must be...because it sure as heck doesn't have any empirical backing.

Second, we aren't the ones who's argument requires any "saving", as we are not religiously invested in any particular answer that must be insisted upon as some kind of religious duty / requirement. In short: we aren't the ones trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow....

In a way, you are.

The multiverse has gained a cult following by naturalists and fans of science-fiction.

Those folks are invested to entertain any idea that doesn't involve the forbidden "G" word.

They are willing to believe that the universe popped in to being, uncaused, out of nothing before they believe in a supernatural transcendent cause.

Sounds very religiousy to me.

That's not actually true.
There's indirect evidence for it, as it flows as a prediction out of other theories and hypothesis that DO have evidence.

That is false.

First of all, in order for the multiverse to even get its feet off the ground as a valid theory, it would have to serve as a valid defeater of philosophical arguments, namely, like the argument against infinite regression (which demonstrates the finitude of the past).

There is no scientific theory that can accomplish that, because philosophical arguments are independent of science.

Second, again, there isn't any evidence supporting it anyway. It is all conjecture with no evidence supporting it whatsoever.

Multiverse - Wikipedia

Why? Time is a property of the universe. For an infinite regression, wouldn't you require an infinite past? How can you have an infinite past if the universe (and thus also time) had a beginning?

That is my point. You can't.

And why wouldn't your god model suffer from the same problem?
(I expect a special pleading argument as an answer to that last question)

Because no one is saying God endured through past infinity, are they?

It is not special pleading because again, you only have two options.

1. God did it.

2. Nature did it.

Well, nature couldn't have done it because nature began to exist.

What is the only game left in town? God, to your chagrin.

Right, so not a real problem.

Not only is it a real problem, it is a real unsolvable problem, from your side of things.

So it can be safely ignored then.

Ignoring the problem won't make it disappear.

Like extra-dimensional unicorns. They also are only philosophical and independent of physical reality and science.

The God that exists beyond physical reality can manifest itself into virtually anything...yes, even a extra-dimensional unicorn.

Yes. It's very funny to see a religious apologetic who's only claim to fame is being a professional "debater"

It is also very funny to see a disbeliever of God take time out his day to debate the nonexistence of a God that he doesn't believe in.

And I am a professional debater. I am employed by God (the owner of the company), and my supervisor is Jesus Christ (of whom I answer directly to and take orders from).

And eternity in heaven is my reward (paycheck).

, try and "refute" world class cosmologists, astronomers, theoretical physicists, etc as if he has any expertise in any of those fields.

How do you know my level of expertise in any of those fields?

Like a broken record.

So are those objections to the Kalam.

KCA is a cesspool of logical fallacies that requires no refutation. It only requires the pointing out of the fallacious nonsense. Him ignoring those won't make them go away.

Wow. You've convinced me. I didn't know how bad the KCA was until YOU pointed those things out to me.

Yeah, right.

 

[Kharisym]

Easy.

Why?

Because if you only have two options (either God did it, or mother nature did it), and one of those options is negated, then the last (and only) option wins by default.

It is called law of excluded middle, and like I said prior, an easy process of elimination.

Establishing some definitions: Natural law (ie, mother nature) is limited only to interactions within our universe. God is an omnipotent and intelligent being.

From what I see, intelligence is an unnecessary assumption. Its equally reasonable that the universe began with an unintelligent force.

So, why does it have to be an extra-universal god, why not an extra-universal and non-intelligent force?