Mathematical Proof of God?

[setarcos]

setarcos said: ↑

Unless in fact your existence is sustained by and a manifestation of that Gods infinite power. Is this not correct? How are you defining power, that God, and the finite entity?



No it's not correct.

Power is energy expended over time.

If a god has unlimited power they must utilise infinite energy. If a god takes all the energy there is none left for mass, i.e. you cannot exist if an omnipotent god exists.

Energy and Power are simply arbitrary labels given to observed material phenomena. The so called “Laws” concerning energy are derived from observation over time not by proof.

How you relate God to its power and energy use is necessarily defined by how you define or consider definitions of God.

For instance the existence of the Christian God is not subject to considerations of time/space, nor is it composed of matter.

You have not shown why a God not composed of matter should be subject to the limitations of the material universe.

You’re taking a finite beings experience of material phenomena, expanding it to infinite proportions, trying to derive logical conclusions therefrom, and then attempting to apply those conclusions to a being defined as that which transcends space/time and matter/energy without composing a coherent theory as to why such an infinite being would be subject to a finite beings understanding of those terms as applied to itself.

 

[setarcos]

(or multiverse assuming that there are parallel worlds)

Isn't it interesting that the multiverse theory wasn't derived from some forgone conclusions in the math.
It wasn't derived from some forgone conclusions in the science.
It was derived from an attempt at removing the possibility of an intelligently created universe from any forgone conclusions derived from either of those disciplines.

 

[ChristineM]

Energy and Power are simply arbitrary labels given to observed material phenomena. The so called “Laws” concerning energy are derived from observation over time not by proof.

Wrong, the universe is comprised of energy/mass.

The laws of thermodynamics coalesced soon after the universe began its expansion

How you relate God to its power and energy use is necessarily defined by how you define or consider definitions of God

I did not make a god omnipotent. I am arguing against omnipotence

For instance the existence of the Christian God is not subject to considerations of time/space, nor is it composed of matter.

You have evidence of this?

You have not shown why a God not composed of matter should be subject to the limitations of the material universe.

And why should i, i have not written the bible or any other god book. However to exist in a universe one mist be subject to that universe, to say otherwise is simply special pleading without evidence for support

You’re taking a finite beings experience of material phenomena, expanding it to infinite proportions,

Are you saying omnipotence is finite?

What i am doing is providing the logical conclusion of Einsteins mass/energy equation in relation to a bronze age story based on ignorance of physics.

 

[ChristineM]

Isn't it interesting that the multiverse theory wasn't derived from some forgone conclusions in the math.
It wasn't derived from some forgone conclusions in the science.
It was derived from an attempt at removing the possibility of an intelligently created universe from any forgone conclusions derived from either of those disciplines.

Do you have evidence of this? Because as far as i know, dr Mersini Houghtons hypothesis had nothing to do with intelligent design but rather come conclusion of 3 observed phenomenon.

And Andrei Lindes hypothesis is based on hard mathematics.

I have never heard of a multiverse theory. I have heard of several multiverse hypothesise though. Two are mentioned above

 

[Alien826]

For those that are puzzled by the concept of infinity, here is a way to think of it that may help.

Imagine an RF thread on the existence of God. It goes on for ever, or at least seems to. It never gets anywhere.

 

[leroy]

Do you have evidence of this? Because as far as i know, dr Mersini Houghtons hypothesis had nothing to do with intelligent design but rather come conclusion of 3 observed phenomenon.

And Andrei Lindes hypothesis is based on hard mathematics.

I have never heard of a multiverse theory. I have heard of several multiverse hypothesise though. Two are mentioned above

Isn't it interesting that the multiverse theory wasn't derived from some forgone conclusions in the math.
It wasn't derived from some forgone conclusions in the science.
It was derived from an attempt at removing the possibility of an intelligently created universe from any forgone conclusions derived from either of those disciplines.

There are many independent multiverse models /hypothesis , each of this is independent in the sense that they are not mutually exclusive (2 or can be true at the same time ) and disproving one doesn't disprove the other.

Some multiverse hypothesis are just excuses to avoid theological implications, other hace their own merits based on science

 

[shunyadragon]

Condescending? Take a look in the mirror, i only give what i receive.

What references? you gave opinion as you usually do and you have not addressed your claim that you know what conditions weren't prior to the BB

I think the best way to solve this silly dispute over what happened prior to 10e-43 of a second after the bb is the ignore button. Your thoughts?

Go ahead and hit the ignore button. I do not spoon-feed the intentionally ignorant that do not do their own homework and persist in 'arguing from ignorance' claiming science is clueless about the origins of the universe.

I gave some references and you have failed to respond.

Again science nor I 'know' anything. Simply the current evidence demonstrates that likely either a singularity formed in the Quantum World or the universe is possibly cyclic. When more evidence becomes available other possibilities may come to light.

We have been through this before,

 

[shunyadragon]

There are many independent multiverse models /hypothesis , each of this is independent in the sense that they are not mutually exclusive (2 or can be true at the same time ) and disproving one doesn't disprove the other.

Some multiverse hypothesis are just excuses to avoid theological implications, other have their own merits based on science

Some?!?! In terms of science which are and which are not?

There are no theological considerations in science because science cannot falsify theological questions without objective verifiable evidence,

 

[rational experiences]

If a theist said my science language is numbers.

Stop speaking. As you speak constantly your whole life. Non stop speaking is human recorded voice. Is in a state.

The state to own cause recording exists before life. Speaking is before life where science put it.

You are conscious and human.

You look at the sun and moon. Two bodie you know affect earth. Are seen as O O.

So you say the other entity not a human in created creation is O O.

In science it's language you say 0.

And can't say anything else. Language of science.

 

[KWED]

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.

View attachment 65231 View attachment 65232

I don't understand that. Could you explain it to me in your own words, in simple terms? Feel free to use any analogies that you feel might help.
Thanks.

 

[KWED]

One cannot prove the existence of God through argument, for argument is a sterile intellectual exercise. But if we take time to nurture the garden of the soul, we can become conscious of God’s presence, and thus we can know for ourselves that all things are the manifestation of His divine light

So basically, god only exists in our imaginations.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So basically, god only exists in our imaginations.

Without imagination, nothing would exist for us at all, for it is only in our imagination, that we conceive a model of the world which allows us to navigate it and to try to understand it.

“The fact that religions throughout the ages have spoken in images, parables and paradoxes, simply means that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality.”
- Niels Bohr

 

[ChristineM]

There are many independent multiverse models /hypothesis , each of this is independent in the sense that they are not mutually exclusive (2 or can be true at the same time ) and disproving one doesn't disprove the other.

Some multiverse hypothesis are just excuses to avoid theological implications, other hace their own merits based on science

Ok so you dont have evidence, fair enough

Actually all have there merits based on either mathematics or science, theological woo is irrelevant

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Form the context of your comment we are assuming at least for the sake of discussion that the first 2 premises of the KCA are true right…?

Well universe (or multiverse assuming that there are parallel worlds) in this context means all space time and everything in it (which includes all matter)

1 so the cause of matter has to be immaterial, this is necessarily true ,( if the cause of matter is something with matter then it wouldn’t be the cause of matter)

2 the cause of time has to be timeless (permanent)

3 that cause of space has to be space less

Again this are just tautologies, these are obviously and necessarily true statements

Those are irrational statements.
Causality is time dependend. To ask for the "cause of time" is nonsensical.
It's like asking about "north of the north pole". It makes no sense.
It requires a "before time" to exist.

It's absurd.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Those are irrational statements.
Causality is time dependend. To ask for the "cause of time" is nonsensical.
It's like asking about "north of the north pole". It makes no sense.
It requires a "before time" to exist.

It's absurd.

The North Pole is the point at which 2 dimensional co-ordinates of longitude and latitude converge, in similar manner that the Big Bang is the point at which 4 dimensional space time co-ordinates theoretically converge. But the earth is not a 2 dimensional object, and it’s magnetic field extends well beyond the poles.

It may be no more absurd to consider causality beyond the four dimensional Euclidean geometry of the observable universe, than it is to question the Earth’s magnetic field beyond it’s poles. Whilst observational evidence is somewhat more challenging in the former case than the latter, you must be aware that much of modern physics consists of mathematical modelling of theories which cannot currently be confirmed by observation.

 

[leroy]

Those are irrational statements.
Causality is time dependend. To ask for the "cause of time" is nonsensical.
It's like asking about "north of the north pole". It makes no sense.
It requires a "before time" to exist.

Causality is time dependend

Why? Just because you say so? Or do you have some evidence in support of that claim ?




It's absurd.

Maybe that has nothing to do with the original comment I am responding to.

 

[ChristineM]

Go ahead and hit the ignore button. I do not spoon-feed the intentionally ignorant that do not do their own homework and persist in 'arguing from ignorance' claiming science is clueless about the origins of the universe.

I gave some references and you have failed to respond.

Again science nor I 'know' anything. Simply the current evidence demonstrates that likely either a singularity formed in the Quantum World or the universe is possibly cyclic. When more evidence becomes available other possibilities may come to light.

We have been through this before,

Your choice, snd ignorant, try looking in the mirror, it may help you consider giving oit insults when you are quite clueless of my knowledge of cosmology.

You have given me no references. And still not bothered to answer how you know what was/wasn't before the BB. Seems to me you are waffling to avoid admitting you have no answer.

And i have told you i know of 28 (now 32 because unlike you i do my homework) hypothesis concerning how the bb came about. All have their merits and all are either mathematically or scientifically feasible and all are accepted as possibilities. But not all rely on QM or Penrose's outdated cyclic idea (which incidentally, he now does not believe has as much going for it as other models).

As i have previously told you and you apparently deem to ignore, perhaps because it does not fit you narrow belief system. I personally favour the hypothesis of Dr Mersini Houghton because it explains 3 previously unexplained phenomena observed in our universe. And that has nothing to do with QM.

One thing is sure, no one will currently commit to knowing what happened before 10e-43 of a second after the bb because all models break down.

Finally, yes we have been through it before and no doubt we will again. As long as the various hypothesis remain valid i will keep my mind open.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The North Pole is the point at which 2 dimensional co-ordinates of longitude and latitude converge, in similar manner that the Big Bang is the point at which 4 dimensional space time co-ordinates theoretically converge. But the earth is not a 2 dimensional object, and it’s magnetic field extends well beyond the poles.

Good job missing the point of the analogy.
The analogy being that you can't go further north then absolute north.

Just like you can't go further back then the start of time itself.

It may be no more absurd to consider causality beyond the four dimensional Euclidean geometry of the observable universe, than it is to question the Earth’s magnetic field beyond it’s poles. Whilst observational evidence is somewhat more challenging in the former case than the latter, you must be aware that much of modern physics consists of mathematical modelling of theories which cannot currently be confirmed by observation.

To infuse doubt in pretty established scientific theories, only makes the case for kalam type arguments even worse. Because it pushes us even further into unknowns and Kalam is all about making assertions about unknown things, as if they are facts.

Nevertheless, we can only go by what we actually do know.
And what we do know is that what we refer to as time is an inherent part of the universe itself - and so is causality as it is time dependend as well as a phenomenon of physics of the universe.

Neither time nore the physics of the universe exist if the universe itself doesn't exist.

So to try and posit "causes" for the universe, flies in the face of current understanding.

 

[shunyadragon]

Energy and Power are simply arbitrary labels given to observed material phenomena. The so called “Laws” concerning energy are derived from observation over time not by proof.

How you relate God to its power and energy use is necessarily defined by how you define or consider definitions of God.

For instance the existence of the Christian God is not subject to considerations of time/space, nor is it composed of matter.

You have not shown why a God not composed of matter should be subject to the limitations of the material universe.

You’re taking a finite beings experience of material phenomena, expanding it to infinite proportions, trying to derive logical conclusions therefrom, and then attempting to apply those conclusions to a being defined as that which transcends space/time and matter/energy without composing a coherent theory as to why such an infinite being would be subject to a finite beings understanding of those terms as applied to itself.

Your choice, snd ignorant, try looking in the mirror, it may help you consider giving oit insults when you are quite clueless of my knowledge of cosmology.

You have given me no references. And still not bothered to answer how you know what was/wasn't before the BB. Seems to me you are waffling to avoid admitting you have no answer.

And i have told you i know of 28 (now 32 because unlike you i do my homework) hypothesis concerning how the bb came about. All have their merits and all are either mathematically or scientifically feasible and all are accepted as possibilities. But not all rely on QM or Penrose's outdated cyclic idea (which incidentally, he now does not believe has as much going for it as other models).

As i have previously told you and you apparently deem to ignore, perhaps because it does not fit you narrow belief system. I personally favour the hypothesis of Dr Mersini Houghton because it explains 3 previously unexplained phenomena observed in our universe. And that has nothing to do with QM.

One thing is sure, no one will currently commit to knowing what happened before 10e-43 of a second after the bb because all models break down.

Finally, yes we have been through it before and no doubt we will again. As long as the various hypothesis remains valid i will keep my mind open.

It is an overstatement and not true that .all models break down.' References, please. I provided references and you failed to respond. How does the cyclic universe concept break down? There are, of course, many unanswered questions, but the origins of our universe and all possible universes from a Quantum World based on Quantum Mechanics is sound science.


Go ahead and hit the ignore button. I do not spoon-feed the intentionally ignorant that do not do their own homework and persist in 'arguing from ignorance' claiming science is clueless about the origins of the universe.

I gave some references and you have failed to respond.

Again science nor I 'know' anything. Simply the current evidence demonstrates that likely either a singularity formed in the Quantum World or the universe is possibly cyclic. When more evidence becomes available other possibilities may come to light.

We have been through this before, and you have presented no references to support your subjective assertions.

 

[ChristineM]

It is an overstatement and not true that .all models break down.' References, please. I provided references and you failed to respond. How does the cyclic universe concept break down? There are, of course, many unanswered questions, but the origins of our universe and all possible universes from a Quantum World based on Quantum Mechanics is sound science.


Go ahead and hit the ignore button. I do not spoon-feed the intentionally ignorant that do not do their own homework and persist in 'arguing from ignorance' claiming science is clueless about the origins of the universe.

I gave some references and you have failed to respond.

Again science nor I 'know' anything. Simply the current evidence demonstrates that likely either a singularity formed in the Quantum World or the universe is possibly cyclic. When more evidence becomes available other possibilities may come to light.

We have been through this before, and you have presented no references to support your subjective assertions.

Same old same old, including a fair amount of copy and paste from your previous post <yawn> and no references but lots of opinion, and condescending ignorance. Seems typical.

I am not the one claiming to know what happened before the BB. When you provide references for that bold claim i will consider accommodating you for what it's worth, chances are you will probably ignore any reference i provide because it doesn't fit in your bubble.