Mathematical Proof of God?

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so using your logic, at least 95% of Christians believe in the second coming of Jesus.

So I guess that means that they are correct.

SMH.

No, we are talking about the sciences of evolution and the science of cosmology and physics based on 'objective verifiable evidence,' and not subjective religious beliefs without any objective verifiable evidence.

Dogs may have evolved from the wolf, but they are still clearly the same kind of animal.

True, so what????

When you discover a fossil, you don't know if that fossil had any children, and you certainly don't know if it had different kinds of children.

Yes, we have closely related fossils alive at the same time and linked genetically throughout the history of life and today. Your self-imposed ignorance of science based on a religious agenda is clearly apparent. Your statements concerning the sciences of evolution are incoherent,

What is your background in science to make such outrageous statements?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

No WE don't. We have evidence it exists, but a beginning in the way you describe, outside of time space, is a rational contradiction.

I will continue dialogue with you once you learn how to respond to a single post at one time.

Until then, see you in traffic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense. Anything within physical reality exists within time...and quantum phenomena is not exempt.

Actually no, you are incorrigibly ignorant of Quantum Mechanics making outrageous statements.

In Quantum Mechanics at the 'Quanta level' scale, it has been objectively observed that the Quantum world that underlies our three-dimensional time/space universe does not have three dimensions and continuous time like our maco scale universe, Time only exists as a momentary time of discontinuous events of the basic particles of matter. as observed in cyclotrons.

Please get an education in science so that you can be coherent in your discussion of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The standard Cosmological model does not say that in all scenarios. That is for Big Crunch or Big Bounce. Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia
Or in theist Hinduism, once in 317 trillion years.

Taking away the religious issues, this is not much different than what I stated. I, of course, did not go into detail. The bounce is a cyclic model and the big crunch is simply the fate of universes in a greater cosmos after expansion.

 

[Kharisym]

What particular claim are you talking about? Based on the quotes that you referenced, I am not seeing what is being misunderstood.

The quote was about the age of the universe, which I said was 137 billion years ago (when I meant 13.7)...besides that minor error, I do not know what you think isn't being clarified.

However, speaking of misunderstandings, I have spent practically the entire thread (since I joined the discussion) pointing out misunderstandings that YOU GUYS have been having as it relates to the KCA.

So, that is where the misunderstandings have been coming from. Not from me.

The universe began 137 billion years ago: What is the significance of that time frame?

Think about it. If the past is eternal, then why did the universe began only 13.7 billion years ago? Why not sooner? Why not later?

If the past is eternal, then the conditions which allowed our universe to begin would have been met an infinite amount of time ago...so what was so special, specifically about 13.7 billion years ago, as to why the universe began at that time, and not Y time? Or A time? Or B time?

The answer to that question is simple; the universe began 13.7 billion years ago, because that is when the causal agent wanted it to begin.

The universe began at that time because the causal agent wanted it to begin PRECISELY at that time, and not at a sooner or later time.

And the ability to chose between X and Y time is to have a freedom of the will..and to have a freedom of the will is to have a mind.

Otherwise, you have a philosophical problem of arbitrary times.

I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a great deal of confusion about why the universe having begun X years ago is any proof of intent. I've tried a couple of times to answer your question here and I think we can both agree that I've failed to properly respond to your intended argument because I keep misunderstanding what that argument is.

My initial rebuttal to this argument was phrased differently, but essentially meant to refute the same expected argument as everyone else. During the course of our discussion I came to understand that the argument I was trying to refute wasn't the argument you were trying to make, and my subsequent attempt failed as well. This to me seems like its a failure of communication, not a failure of argumentation from either side.

I don't think your intended argument is coming through in a way others (atheists at least) understand, and that's okay. It just means you might need to rephrase what you're trying to say.

 

[F1fan]

This is nonsense.

That is like me saying “I will mow my lawn at whatever time I mow my lawn”, that doesn’t negate the fact that it is I who makes the choice on what specific time (or instance) that I mow my lawn.

And it doesn’t negate the fact that the question of “why did time begin to exist in the first place” has yet to be answered.

But when you decide to mow your lawn there is time existing and moving. This allows you to make a decisions at all. If we did not experience time we would have no way to change the state of our thinking. We couldn't even think, because "to think" is an act, and acts occur in time. How does a God act to create anything when time is what is part of what is created?

You might claim that God can do anything. But to "do anything" is action, and that means time. Your God would need time existing to do anything.

If time began to exist, then whatever gave it its beginning could not be a product of time, and everything within physical reality does in fact exist within time, so it is irrational to even consider a naturalistic explanation.

prove this is true. Right now this is a claim that lacks any facts or coherent explanation of the facts. Claims are meaningless.

Obviously, I owe my existence to something outside of myself. Just like time would owe its beginning (and existence) to something outside of it.

parents. Which exist in time.

So again, what could give time itself its beginning?

Natural causes, like everything else we observe.

If time had a beginning, why did it begin, PERIOD?

There could be no reason. Can you accept that? It takes courage and self-confidence.

What kind of atemporal reality can be the foundation of temporal reality?

So far it's the imaginary.

You are logically prohibited from using ANY naturalistic explanation…so I am curious to see what can you appeal to which will explain the effect.

Who says? Thus far we see nothing but nature at work. Nothing suggests magic exists.

You are WRONG. I am using God to explain the origins of the universe not physics.

This is your mistake. Gods are not known to exist. But physics does.

 

[rational experiences]

When satanist scientists said in alchemic banned outlawed documents. In secret orders against the church historic said the devil was mowing the crop circles.

They knew.

As the crops were standing upright was humans holy food supply. It had already proven it was against existing.

That unnatural changes had been caused above.

As rock was sealed as rock owned no patterns. It was rock the seal.

Only men of science draw circles and apply designs angles to cause separation in converting mass. And it was evidence man had tried to convert earth planet rock into a burning mass.

Like the sun was...and a planet O once was before it became rock.

They already knew.
It was already taught why.

It was named nuclear causes and fallout above.

The heavens no longer enabled to be holy. It was against life existing.

Fall of man meaning man existed already when he caused fallout.

 

[shunyadragon]

We both know that you are desperately trying to hide the fact that you have failed to meet your toh. But I am happy to watch you try to pretend otherwise. By all means continue.

Mwah!

'Both' is not the justification for your case, nor any claim o superficial plurality. I had a good dialogue with @Kharisym that concluded that there is merit to both views that the KCA is used by some in history as a stand-alone argument, and it is also used collectively in other Kalam arguments to justify the existence of God, but I would use this to justify my case, because we both may be wrong, and retrospect you may be wrong clinging to your rigid stance regardless of others that agree.

 

[Kharisym]

But when you decide to mow your lawn there is time existing and moving. This allows you to make a decisions at all. If we did not experience time we would have no way to change the state of our thinking. We couldn't even think, because "to think" is an act, and acts occur in time. How does a God act to create anything when time is what is part of what is created?

Hah! I have the same thought regarding the claims of a timeless intelligence. Thought is not instantaneous and requires time to operate. If there is no time, there is no thought.

Have you also considered arguments by which omniscience means having perfect knowledge of your own actions, therefore locking you into the necessity of performing those actions and removing free will? IE, God would lack free will.

...If you can tell, this is probably one of the first times I've seen someone independently come up with an argument I also independently came to.

 

[rational experiences]

If science by human men one species human says.....

A human in science human terms is human. Equals and exact. It owns no argument whatsoever.

We stand on rock that empty space voiding heat removed radiation itself to make rock form. Zero space no radiations rock.

In space created exact cosmic human science holy realisation.

No radiations.

The radiating heat expressed for gas in a vacuum was volcanic only. Heavens

Also known.

So no thesis as science exists expressed about a human as one. Every one the same advice harmed or not harmed. One human.

We all die. Because some humans are damaged by inferred sin in genetics by sex...
They die early age death. So called karma to humans for accepting nuclear science.

Therefore legal said.....wait a minute. Family were forced into slavery by a human male changed brain conscious brothers...by star fall. Star fall that had eradicated the giant race of cold blooded life....dinosaurs.

An origin biology on earth... pre history...looking back first is about biology. Even before you say rock. Then looking back past rock you say dust by huge atmospheric radiating mass fall out. Converted rock mass seal.

Sun stars.

So an assessment Theist. Expressed human criminality already.

Destructive thoughts about a mutual one human life. Criminals say I'll murder you before your lived life length is lost in natural. I'll still exist however as thinker causer of it.

Legal hence knew scientists owned self mind destructive criminal thoughts. Criminal behaviour is human only. First place it's thought upon.

As one human in science terms is every human.

You thesis a changed atmosphere against one human in science terms. It's all humans.

So criminal minds in science experiment and choose a human victim. See them attacked. Saying you'll die before natural would own cause your human death.

I say I know liars so will you. Your using human criminal behaviour thinking yet you are using science exact terms about creation. Not a human. Science not a criminal. Human behaviour is.

Bible said review science had become a criminal murderer. Different review not is a murderer.

You're the only human whose wrong. As already employment is paying for destructive thinking use. Of humans natural life first.

Civilisation manipulation behaviour greed and control of humanity. Lying. One self living Multi and the exact same mutual human history....same experiences

As some of us are still conscious we speak on your behalf. Human survival as a natural life non criminal activity.

The teaching for one human.. any just a one self.

Who if lived by one self would not be a scientist. Fact.

Therefore on human species one human is meant to only consciously assess their owned one self human.

Always first. To give a questioning mind the correct one self human answer.
Machines are not human. One human life. Own no history of one human life as living oxygenated biology either.

Nor does the machine use an oxygenated bio life details. One human the species one human.

Therefore as a machine extends human criminal behaviour. It does not state science is hence correct.

As it's just chosen human behaviour.

The theist one human first observation as sciences first place in a humans life.....says a natural human is exactly placed.

Owns no argument nor was it an argument it was legal.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We know the universe began with an an intelligence force for at least 3 reasons.
1. If the past is eternal, then why did the universe began only 13.7 billion years ago? Why not sooner? Why not later?..
..The universe began at that time because the causal agent wanted it to begin PRECISELY at that time, and not at a sooner or later time.
2. The argument from design: Our universe is fine tuned for human life...fine-tuned and balanced with mathematical precision.
So, what does this mean? This means that our universe was engineered for human life ..
3. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence: .. you may have the matter needed to form a brain, but where will you get the thoughts and mental states?

You claim to know it, science does not say that.
1. "If the past is eternal, ..": Science does not say that the past is eternal. We know only what happened after 'inflation' and not before that (though it is being researched). You say 'casual agent' as if it was Biden or Putin. So, we should say 'cause' rather than 'casual agent'.
2. Say, life is tuned to the conditions at present today (not that the universe is fine-tuned for humans. That will be too much to say). It may not last for ever. The climate has changed in the past (causing extinctions of life) and the climate is changing even now. Who knows what will happen in future (except that life will be impossible on Earth after about a billion years because the sun is going to get much hotter. That science knows for a fact.)? There have been five major extinction events in Earth's history (Extinction event - Wikipedia).
For 4.541 billion years, there were no humans on Earth. We are only about 200,000 years old, that is less than 0.0044% of Earth's life. And who knows how l0ong will we exist? So, clearly human life is not the reason for existence of Earth.
3. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence: This is how brain developed ..
Plants are not limited to automated sensory-motor responses, however, they are capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences and of "learning" (registering memories) from their past experiences. They are also capable of communication, accurately computing their circumstances, using sophisticated cost–benefit analysis and taking tightly controlled actions to mitigate and control the diverse environmental stressors.
Intelligence - Wikipedia
Another approach to understanding brain evolution is to look at extant organisms that do not possess complex nervous systems, comparing anatomical features that allow for chemical or electrical messaging. For example, choanoflagellates are organisms that possess various membrane channels that are crucial to electrical signaling. The membrane channels of choanoflagellates’ are homologous to the ones found in animal cells, and this is supported by the evolutionary connection between early choanoflagellates and the ancestors of animals. Another example of extant organisms with the capacity to transmit electrical signals would be the glass sponge, a multicellular organism, which is capable of propagating electrical impulses without the presence of a nervous system.
Before the evolutionary development of the brain, nerve nets, the simplest form of a nervous system developed. These nerve nets were a sort of precursor for the more evolutionarily advanced brains. They were first observed in Cnidaria and consist of a number of neurons spread apart that allow the organism to respond to physical contact. They are able to rudimentarily detect food and other chemicals but these nerve nets do not allow them to detect the source of the stimulus.
Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia
The brain is small and simple in some species, such as nematode worms; in other species, including vertebrates, it is the most complex organ in the body. Some types of worms, such as leeches, also have an enlarged ganglion at the back end of the nerve cord, known as a "tail brain".
Brain - Wikipedia

So, to sum up. KCA is BS and your defense of it is very ill-informed.

 

[rational experiences]

I say eternal. As I had to argue versus science of man using burning.

To claim where a human had come from. Walked across spiritually already owning a spirit body.

If a human asks how could I be so intelligent. The answer you came as the spirit type that had caused change. You identify.

Who cares if you a human wants to believe or disbelieve youre here just human now. As in life a human owns machines as science. We aren't machines nor is creation a machine.

You thesis to build new machines for new human caused reactions only.

Stories are said about a chosen subject of anything you look at then observe. You make up a story about it. The topic a human chooses.

If I say eternal isn't human. You argue as a human. You owned that status by using inferring the meaning of that word. As a human. No longer anything eternal. You just exist survive by oxygenated water.

Pretty simple minded not to realise realisation.

Eternal is not science and never was science and never will be science.

Created creation is science.

So father human first quotes a word inference. Seeing. Asks you brother human. Do you have energy?

No says the scientist.

Where is it?

In the light.

Do you have light?

No...it was burning gas first. I'm not a gas. I'm not burning.

What is it now?

Given fuel to be light and is given it. By sun mass. Cold mass first then heated.

So scientist first you do not own energy and you lied.

You look to find energy.

Hence to know why is life on earth. Is to be amongst family and science so wrong.

Theist designer man. Now rich man. It's all your fault liar. Bully. Criminal past. Your fault. Theists as human egotists who know how to destroy.

Natural humans knew how to heal our life when it got hurt.

You learnt a sun stone mass returned...fallen star. Stone returned to earth he says. The star Satan taught you how to convert earth mass stone to get energy. As a human.

Scientists memory says I got energy I gained energy as a human. You forget to say by my practice science.

As AI interferes with humans free thinking. Some human minds don't express natural awareness. Use of words in correct order.

Science taught itself to talk a false language.

Pretty basic advice.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

No, we are talking about the sciences of evolution and the science of cosmology and physics based on 'objective verifiable evidence,'

I disagree that the origins of the universe, life, species, and consciousness all owe their origins to natural law and phenomenon.

and not subjective religious beliefs without any objective verifiable evidence.

I am not convinced by any evidence that has been presented thus far.

True, so what????

So what? If a dog and a wolf are the same kind of animal (same genus), then this is not an good example macroevolution, is it?

That is "so what".

Yes, we have closely related fossils alive at the same time and linked genetically throughout the history of life and today.

Nonsense. Hash browns and french fries can be genetically linked to the same potatoes.

That doesn't mean that over time, one dish evolved to the other in a frying pan.

It means that the chef created two diverse dishes using the same material.

Your self-imposed ignorance of science based on a religious agenda is clearly apparent. Your statements concerning the sciences of evolution are incoherent,

What is your background in science to make such outrageous statements?

Reminds me of Jesus, when they asked Jesus by what authority is he doing those things lol.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree that the origins of the universe, life, species, and consciousness all owe their origins to natural law and phenomenon.

Disagree?, please present the scientific basis for your disagreement with references based on science.

I am not convinced by any evidence that has been presented thus far.

What is your qualifications in science to make this decision? At present your rejection is only based on a religious agenda.



[qyote] So what? If a dog and a wolf are the same kind of animal (same genus), then this is not a good example macroevolution, is it? [/quote]

No, the specific evolution of one species is not macroevolution So what?!?!?!

Macroevolution has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt based on objectively verifiable evidence. Where is the science to base your objection?

Nonsense. Hash browns and french fries can be genetically linked to the same potatoes.

That doesn't mean that over time, one dish evolved to the other in a frying pan.

Dead organisms do not evolve.

It means that the chef created two diverse dishes using the same material.

This ancient mythological assertion is based on a religious agenda, no science. Where is the science to justify your assertion?

The problem remains: What is your scientific education that your assertions are based on?

 

[shunyadragon]

Straw man, no one is arguing that theists have not tacked on assumptions, to this FIRST CAUSE argument.

Nothing tacked on. They just base their proof of the existence of God on KCA.

Provide citation that anything is tacked on,

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Actually no, you are incorrigibly ignorant of Quantum Mechanics making outrageous statements.

In Quantum Mechanics at the 'Quanta level' scale, it has been objectively observed that the Quantum world that underlies our three-dimensional time/space universe does not have three dimensions and continuous time like our maco scale universe, Time only exists as a momentary time of discontinuous events of the basic particles of matter. as observed in cyclotrons.

Please get an education in science so that you can be coherent in your discussion of science.

That is nonsense.

Unfortunately for you, your anger/frustration towards me wont make your argument better.

For every event that happens at the quantum realm, you can count how many seconds, minutes, hours, etc. expired since the event, making the events themselves temporal...thus subjected to the logical impossibility of infinite regress.

Or, if that isn't good enough for you, we don't have to use the concept of time, we can just use the concept of counting, and the problem is still not negated because even at the quantum level, the total amount of events within the set (without an absolute beginning) would be infinity...and that is what the argument against infinity proves, that actual infinite sets (of anything) cannot exist in reality.

So either way, no matter how you look at it...you lose.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

I'm just pointing out that there seems to be a great deal of confusion about why the universe having begun X years ago is any proof of intent.

Gotcha.

Did I not address this by explaining that, if the conditions/factors needed for the universe to begin had been in place (infinitely long ago)..then it is inexplicable as to why the universe would begin to exist at a finite proper time?

This is illogical.

However, only with intent comes "the universe will begin....NOW".

Do you follow?

I've tried a couple of times to answer your question here and I think we can both agree that I've failed to properly respond to your intended argument because I keep misunderstanding what that argument is.

My initial rebuttal to this argument was phrased differently, but essentially meant to refute the same expected argument as everyone else. During the course of our discussion I came to understand that the argument I was trying to refute wasn't the argument you were trying to make, and my subsequent attempt failed as well. This to me seems like its a failure of communication, not a failure of argumentation from either side.

I don't think your intended argument is coming through in a way others (atheists at least) understand, and that's okay. It just means you might need to rephrase what you're trying to say.

I hope it is clear now...if not, we will keep on digging.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

But when you decide to mow your lawn there is time existing and moving. This allows you to make a decisions at all. If we did not experience time we would have no way to change the state of our thinking. We couldn't even think, because "to think" is an act, and acts occur in time. How does a God act to create anything when time is what is part of what is created?

I have a theory on this...still working out the kinks.

You might claim that God can do anything. But to "do anything" is action, and that means time. Your God would need time existing to do anything.

I agree.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

You claim to know it, science does not say that.
1. "If the past is eternal, ..": Science does not say that the past is eternal.

I agree, and perhaps you should tell certain scientists to stop with the formulations of these pre-big bang models which are meant to restore an eternal existing universe.

We know only what happened after 'inflation' and not before that (though it is being researched).

I agree...thanks for that admission.

You say 'casual agent' as if it was Biden or Putin. So, we should say 'cause' rather than 'casual agent'.

I will say something even bolder than your suggestions.

I will say...God.

God is the agent.

2. Say, life is tuned to the conditions at present today (not that the universe is fine-tuned for humans. That will be too much to say). It may not last for ever. The climate has changed in the past (causing extinctions of life) and the climate is changing even now. Who knows what will happen in future (except that life will be impossible on Earth after about a billion years because the sun is going to get much hotter. That science knows for a fact.)? There have been five major extinction events in Earth's history (Extinction event - Wikipedia).
For 4.541 billion years, there were no humans on Earth. We are only about 200,000 years old, that is less than 0.0044% of Earth's life. And who knows how l0ong will we exist? So, clearly human life is not the reason for existence of Earth.

Irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument.

3. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence: This is how brain developed ..
Plants are not limited to automated sensory-motor responses, however, they are capable of discriminating positive and negative experiences and of "learning" (registering memories) from their past experiences. They are also capable of communication, accurately computing their circumstances, using sophisticated cost–benefit analysis and taking tightly controlled actions to mitigate and control the diverse environmental stressors.
Intelligence - Wikipedia
Another approach to understanding brain evolution is to look at extant organisms that do not possess complex nervous systems, comparing anatomical features that allow for chemical or electrical messaging. For example, choanoflagellates are organisms that possess various membrane channels that are crucial to electrical signaling. The membrane channels of choanoflagellates’ are homologous to the ones found in animal cells, and this is supported by the evolutionary connection between early choanoflagellates and the ancestors of animals. Another example of extant organisms with the capacity to transmit electrical signals would be the glass sponge, a multicellular organism, which is capable of propagating electrical impulses without the presence of a nervous system.
Before the evolutionary development of the brain, nerve nets, the simplest form of a nervous system developed. These nerve nets were a sort of precursor for the more evolutionarily advanced brains. They were first observed in Cnidaria and consist of a number of neurons spread apart that allow the organism to respond to physical contact. They are able to rudimentarily detect food and other chemicals but these nerve nets do not allow them to detect the source of the stimulus.
Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia
The brain is small and simple in some species, such as nematode worms; in other species, including vertebrates, it is the most complex organ in the body. Some types of worms, such as leeches, also have an enlarged ganglion at the back end of the nerve cord, known as a "tail brain".
Brain - Wikipedia

I want to you to take all of the physical matter needed to configure a human brain.

And I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you may be able to shape and mold the perfect human brain.

Next step...

Give this brain consciousness.

Go ahead, have at it.

If you can accomplish this, not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

So, to sum up. KCA is BS and your defense of it is very ill-informed.

Opinions.

 

[Kharisym]

Gotcha.

Did I not address this by explaining that, if the conditions/factors needed for the universe to begin had been in place (infinitely long ago)..then it is inexplicable as to why the universe would begin to exist at a finite proper time?

This is illogical.

However, only with intent comes "the universe will begin....NOW".

Do you follow?

At one time I thought I did, but for me that seems contradictory to the idea that time did not exist outside our universe until God created our universe.This, to me, is confusing.