INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Mr. Franklin if this was directed at me I have very limited time. All the time I have comes from one factor. Science (even application science is very unreliable). If it was more reliable I would have virtually no time to debate. Please post what in that paper you wish to stress and I will evaluate it if that is what you wish. I have no time to read anymore books or papers that I already have to. Sorry.

I put it for anyone to read. I think it's really interesting as it investigates the issues when people say what energy is and what matter is.

I find that having establish definitions help arguments a lot better.

 

[metis]

A hypothesis that has no evidence and contradicts the evidence we do have, and has virtually no reason to think possible has little power to explain or contradict anything.

I'm going to skip over most of what you wrote, so let me focus o n just these two paragraphs.

What is the evidence for infinity? Well, math suggests there is as I've explained, plus we know about sequencing when it comes to cause and effect. Now, the only thing we don't know that's pertinent here is whether this cause and effect goes back into infinity. If we knew the answer to that with any certainty, then our hypothesis would no longer be a hypothesis.

OTOH, we really have no objective evidence a god or gods exist, and because of this, many scientists won't even call a supposed theistic causation a "hypothesis". IOW, there has to be some objective evidence or maybe it's just a guess. However, I'll give the theists the benefit of the doubt here and call it a "hypothesis".

That is not the most common model of cosmology and the argument it is will not work any better for you, than it did for the previous person that claimed it. The two dominant cosmological models/theorems are the BBT and the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. One is inconsistent with an eternal universe and the other flat out states in it's name that is not a reliable claim. In fact Vilenkin apparently got tired of the slight allowance he made for the possibility that maybe someday the infinite would be more logical than it is now, (that was dishonestly distorted into his agreement with it by atheists) that he went through the eternal models one by one and pronounced most impossible and all virtually impossible. I am not going through what it takes to convince someone who does not want to be what cosmology today posits as the most accepted models every few days. Look back at my discussion in this thread the last time this was claimed and the link to Vilenkin's claims will be found as well as the more exhaustive discussion concerning cosmological models.

No way, no how, is a past eternity consistent with the most accepted and evidenced modern cosmology.

You can repeat this until you're blue in the face, but the reality is that this model is not the most favored model that most cosmologists lean to as surveys have clearly indicated. Just because it's your favorite doesn't make it theirs.

And, as I repeated on another post, if you believe "God" always was, then you do believe in infinity.

 

[metis]

A circle doesn't have an infinite circumference.

But if you keep going round and round without stopping, then that's still infinity.

 

[metis]

I am quite familiar with pi.

No you didn't as you didn't realize that the numerical value of pi is infinite, which I posted and you first denied. You can song and dance all you want, but the truth is the truth, and you didn't know it in this case. You can pat yourself all day long on how much math you know, but you still blew pi.

That doesn't make you a bad guy by any stretch of the imagination, but your attempt to cover it up is quite disingenuous.

 

[PolyHedral]

But if you keep going round and round without stopping, then that's still infinity.

But that's not how you measure length.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Again with he claims to what you do not know. This is dishonest. You could not know what I did even if you were right (which you are not).

Um, yes, since you've basically admitted it...

I actually tried to download his book several times in PDF but no link ever worked. For some reason my server blocked most links to anything about him. I only found 4 I could access. Two were critiques from non-theists, one from a theist, and one that just talked about the book in general.

Ok, how about the interview with the actual author that I posted on this very thread?

It does not take a PHD or even a high school diploma to know his nothing is not nothing. The critique I gave made no sophisticated Boolean calculus claims or partial differential equations. It stated what would be obvious to a 7th grader.

And if you think a credible scientific hypothesis can be refuted on the basis of what is "obvious to a 7th grader", then this is a pretty sure sign you haven't understood the claim in question.

That is not how I have ever heard the cause and effect relationship described. Matter is energy. In fact everything is energy. If it was not known that matter and energy are two states of the same thing how did we invent nuclear power? Cause and effect even as it existed thousands of years ago never said causes must be material.

Really? So can you give us instances of effect in the absence of any antecedent material/physical cause?

 

[Ouroboros]

But that's not how you measure length.

How we measure length might not be the same as actual length.

The only reason you would stop at point such-and-such going around the circle is because we'we decided that's how we do it. Thinking outside the box a little, we could technically measure around in circles forever.

 

[1robin]

I'm going to skip over most of what you wrote, so let me focus o n just these two paragraphs.

That post was not very long. Why would you do this? It is certainly your right, but it kind of makes justifying the typing out of a sufficient explanation of things hard to do.

What is the evidence for infinity?

Philosophical and theoretical.

Well, math suggests there is as I've explained, plus we know about sequencing when it comes to cause and effect. Now, the only thing we don't know that's pertinent here is whether this cause and effect goes back into infinity. If we knew the answer to that with any certainty, then our hypothesis would no longer be a hypothesis.

Math is not an actual natural thing. It is a symbolic and representative thing. I may say I have one apple but the number one does not exist outside of intelligence. Saying an infinite number of apples is possible in mathematics is no help whatever in getting an actual infinite number of actual apples. Math does not ever indicate actual infinites exist outside of the thought world of mathematics it's self. Infinity is almost always a boundary in math (an asymptotic condition) and cause it to blow up.

Cause and effect can't possibly go back infinitely. There is no such thing as an infinite regression of causation. If there was you would never get anything to look for the cause of. An infinite regressions of causes is a logical absurdity that would never create anything. Things must have an uncaused first cause to exist and the characteristics of the effect dictate the characteristics of the first cause. I have been through the proofs on why many times even in just this thread. Do you have any background in causation philosophy or math? This is very basic stuff.

OTOH, we really have no objective evidence a god or gods exist, and because of this, many scientists won't even call a supposed theistic causation a "hypothesis". IOW, there has to be some objective evidence or maybe it's just a guess. However, I'll give the theists the benefit of the doubt here and call it a "hypothesis".

We do have mountains of evidence that God is the best explanation for. We do not have objective proof but the evidence gets very close. What a scientists thinks about a theological matter has no more significance than a golfers would. However most of the fathers of the fields of science themselves were Christians and most scientists throughout history believed in deity. In fact one of the greatest motivators of science was the faith that a rational being put rationality into the universe that rational beings could access. The greatest scientist of all time wrote more on theology than science. However the experts on natural law have no more relevance to the supernatural than cable repair men would.

You can repeat this until you're blue in the face, but the reality is that this model is not the most favored model that most cosmologists lean to as surveys have clearly indicated. Just because it's your favorite doesn't make it theirs.

And, as I repeated on another post, if you believe "God" always was, then you do believe in infinity.

That is absolutely wrong. The most prevalent model by huge margins is the BBT and it in no way posits anything beyond one finite universe. No one has not lived in a cave for the past 50 years could doubt this. The most prevalent theorem is Vilenkin's. If fact is no longer a common ground by which you will settle issueS then this whole conversation is meaningless.

What is the currently most accepted model for the Universe?

The current best fit model is a <A href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FLAT">flat &#923;CDM Big Bang model where the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and the age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years.
Back to top.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?


The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of <A href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm#CO">observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

• The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
• The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
• Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
• Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
• Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

• Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
• Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
• Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
• Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

Back to top.
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

Did you notice all those finite dates in the BBT? All those egg shell, multiverse, oscillating universes, and bubble universes science fiction speculations are classified as non-standard cosmology for a reason.

 

[1robin]

But if you keep going round and round without stopping, then that's still infinity.

Then find something going round and round infinitely and then you would have evidence it can occur. Hypotheticals are called that because they do not exist.

 

[1robin]

No you didn't as you didn't realize that the numerical value of pi is infinite, which I posted and you first denied. You can song and dance all you want, but the truth is the truth, and you didn't know it in this case. You can pat yourself all day long on how much math you know, but you still blew pi.

That doesn't make you a bad guy by any stretch of the imagination, but your attempt to cover it up is quite disingenuous.

What does that even mean? No I did not what? Pi is a hypothetical abstract concept. It exists no where in infinite form. 8th graders know this. Pi has never been written in infinite form, does not actually exist in infinite for. In fact Pi actually exists no where in reality. It is a ration. Ratios are abstract constructs that only mean anything to intelligence and do not exist in natural realities as infinite anything's. I have known Pi is a hypothetical infinity since I was in middle school, I have no idea what your talking about and am starting to wonder if you do. I have an easy way to you to prove at least one thing you claimed. Prove Pi is an infinite reality. Give me evidence that it exist anywhere in reality as an infinite. You do know you can't see ratios, you can't pick them up, you can't take pictures of them.

Look if reality and truth are not the common ground where you will allow any issue to be resolved then that is fine but this discussion is meaningless and I would have wanted to know so up front. There are no actual infinities known or even have good evidence they could exist, give it up.

Post my statement where I claimed what you said I did or retract that accusation.

 

[1robin]

How we measure length might not be the same as actual length.

The only reason you would stop at point such-and-such going around the circle is because we'we decided that's how we do it. Thinking outside the box a little, we could technically measure around in circles forever.

All circles are composed of a finite circumference. The idea that circles represent anything infinite is absurd and only has one theoretical exception. Find anything that is going in circles infinitely and then they would represent an infinity but that was the original necessity anyway. The circle did not make that any less impossible. In fact if anyone or everyone combined actually measures around one forever I will concede the point. The introduction of a circle does not help infinity claims at all.

 

[metis]

Post my statement where I claimed what you said I did or retract that accusation.

I'm not going to waste my time. If you are unwilling to look it up, along with my subsequent post that pointed out you were wrong about pi, then why should I spend more time with you? You have this strong tendency to elevate your beliefs up to the level of slam-dunk facts, such as we're seeing you do over and over again on this thread. We've seen you list all sorts of characteristics about "God" and declaring them to be facts, and yet, logically, how can one really do that? Beliefs are not the same as facts, but for some reason you don't seem to understand that.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Beliefs are not the same as facts, but for some reason you don't seem to understand that.

Indeed. Oddly enough, 1robin seems quite able to make this distinction with respect to others- just not with respect to himself.

 

[metis]

All circles are composed of a finite circumference. The idea that circles represent anything infinite is absurd and only has one theoretical exception. Find anything that is going in circles infinitely and then they would represent an infinity but that was the original necessity anyway. The circle did not make that any less impossible. In fact if anyone or everyone combined actually measures around one forever I will concede the point. The introduction of a circle does not help infinity claims at all.

Apparently you never heard of Einstein's Theories of Relativity, because what I posted he also posited. A light sent in one direction will come back through from behind and keep going round and round. That's math for ya.

 

[1robin]

I'm not going to waste my time.

That is pretty much what I thought since it does not exist. I know way more than you ever will about what I have known and been taught. I have never thought Pi was finite in theory nor infinite in actuality. No number is. Your claim is dishonest.

If you are unwilling to look it up, along with my subsequent post that pointed out you were wrong about pi, then why should I spend more time with you? You have this strong tendency to elevate your beliefs up to the level of slam-dunk facts, such as we're seeing you do over and over again on this thread. We've seen you list all sorts of characteristics about "God" and declaring them to be facts, and yet, logically, how can one really do that? Beliefs are not the same as facts, but for some reason you don't seem to understand that.

Apparently reality is not grounds for resolving anything with you. Not one thing you have said about PI or me has been true so far. I give up looking for truth in what you state. Claiming what you do not know, have no access to, or exists no where in reality are bad enough. Defending those same claims at all costs just does no justify anything.

 

[1robin]

Apparently you never heard of Einstein's Theories of Relativity, because what I posted he also posited. A light sent in one direction will come back through from behind and keep going round and round. That's math for ya.

There is no math anywhere in there. That is not what relativity says. I mentioned what relativity actually does speculate about and this is not it. It actually disproves infinites and creates unbounded finites out of the few areas left where infinity might have actually existed. I have been sure you will defend absurdities against all facts and evidence at all costs for some time now. I have more evidence than was necessary to conclude evidence and facts are of no value against your cognitive dissonance. I even gave you half a dozens ways to prove even the least absurd claims you made true, not one attempt was made. I leave you to it. Get the obligatory claims of victory always made when someone gives up on another's ever being logical or proving anything and lets move on.

 

[PolyHedral]

There is no math anywhere in there. That is not what relativity says. I mentioned what relativity actually does speculate about and this is not it.

AFAIK, there's nothing that prevents the universe from being closed in that manner, in which case yes, that would be the result.

It actually disproves infinites and creates unbounded finites out of the few areas left where infinity might have actually existed.

Did you miss the post where I asked you to elaborate on why an infinite homgenous universe is impossible?

 

[metis]

OK, let's deal with the facts:

Infinity (symbol: &#8734 is an abstract concept describing something without any limit and is relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics... In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers. In number systems incorporating infinitesimals, the reciprocal of an infinitesimal is an infinite number, i.e., a number greater than any real number. Georg Cantor formalized many ideas related to infinity and infinite sets during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the theory he developed, there are infinite sets of different sizes (called cardinalities).[2] For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the infinite set of real numbers is uncountable...

Leibniz, one of the co-inventors of infinitesimal calculus, speculated widely about infinite numbers and their use in mathematics. To Leibniz, both infinitesimals and infinite quantities were ideal entities, not of the same nature as appreciable quantities, but enjoying the same properties...

Infinite-dimensional spaces are widely used in geometry and topology, particularly as classifying spaces, notably Eilenberg&#8722;MacLane spaces. Common examples are the infinite-dimensional complex projective space K(Z,2) and the infinite-dimensional real projective space K(Z/2Z,1)...

Cosmologists have long sought to discover whether infinity exists in our physical universe: Are there an infinite number of stars? Does the universe have infinite volume? Does space "go on forever"? This is an open question of cosmology. Note that the question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has no edge. By travelling in a straight line one will eventually return to the exact spot one started from. The universe, at least in principle, might have a similar topology. If so, one might eventually return to one's starting point after travelling in a straight line through the universe for long enough.

If, on the other hand, the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe.[citation needed] The Planck spacecraft launched in 2009 is expected to record the cosmic background radiation with 10 times higher precision, and will give more insight into the question of whether the universe is infinite or not.

The concept of infinity also extends to the multiverse hypothesis, which, when explained by astrophysicists such as Michio Kaku, posits that there are an infinite number and variety of universes... -- Infinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The above is simply a very short version of what is written as there was too much to fit here.

 

[metis]

And if infinity is not used in math, explain what you see at this site: Limits and Infinity ...

or this from Cornell University on cosmology and infinity: [1212.6737] Structure of infinity in cosmology ...

or this: The Infinite and Eternal Nature of the Universe ...

or this from Harvard University: Structure of Infinity in Cosmology

 

[1robin]

AFAIK, there's nothing that prevents the universe from being closed in that manner, in which case yes, that would be the result.

I did not say the universe was not closed. I said light does not return from it's source from the opposite direction. Even if it did relativity is not the science that would be involved. However even if it was there existed no math in the description of it was provided at all. There was three layers of dysfunction in one sentence.

Did you miss the post where I asked you to elaborate on why an infinite homgenous universe is impossible?

I did not see where you asked me anything Poly. I never said all infinites are impossible. I said there are good reasons to think they are and no evidence any exist. If you meant homogeneous (instead of homgeneous) I will check into it's particular issues if you wish.