Mathematical Proof of God?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again the claim is that common ancestry is not falsifiable not that there is no evidence

And that claim has been shown incorrect multiple times by now.

A space laboratory that affirms to have created bananas and humans independently would count as evidence against common ancestry but it wouldn’t falsify it

/facepalm

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The KCA concludes that the universe (space time) came to be somehow, and you already accepted that claim.

No. It claims that it was CAUSED.

Everything else is secondary and irrelevant, for sake of discussion “you win” the term cause is not appropriate apologetics should use a different word (any suggestion)

Why would I have to suggest what words your own argument should use?

But these are all secondary semantic issues.

No. "Cause" has loads of implications. And your argument USES those implications as hidden premises.
So this is neither "secondary" nor "semantic". It in fact cuts right to one of the many problems this PRATT argument includes.

We both agree that the universe came to be someone and that is all what the KCA aspires to show

So the KCA is fine with an uncaused universe?

 

[leroy]

I don't think you understand what falsifiability means, but I'll humor you. If a claim cannot be falsified, then evidence against it cannot exist. Since you admit here that evidence against common ancestry can exist, it stands to reason that common ancestry could be falsified.

It doesn follow

The fact that there can be evidence for or against a claim doesn’t mean that the claim is falsifiable.

My mistake was to use evolution as an example because people in this forum tend to love and worship}p this theory such that any critique (even if minor) tends to upset everyone.

Take this an example

The claim

1 God created life is unfalsifiable (agree? Yes)

2 The fact that life is not perfect counts as evidence against “God did it” (agree ?yes)

You can accept both 1 and 2 they are not mutually exclusive

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It doesn follow

The fact that there can be evidence for or against a claim doesn’t mean that the claim is falsifiable.

You are just confirming that you don't actually understand what falsifiability of claims is actually about.

This is quite funny, tbh.

My mistake was to use evolution as an example because people in this forum tend to love and worship}p this theory such that any critique (even if minor) tends to upset everyone.

That smells like an ad hominin to defend your ignorant claims.

Take this an example

The claim

1 God created life is unfalsifiable (agree? Yes)

Depends. You'ld have to give more detail.
If all you have is this bare claim, then yes.
Because if we find out tomorrow how natural processes can create life, you could then just say "that's the method god used". So it's kind of a "heads I win, tails you loose" kind of scenario.

2 The fact that life is not perfect counts as evidence against “God did it” (agree ?yes)

That would depend on the details of the claim that you didn't mention.
You'ld have to define the terms like "perfect" and you'ld have to include more detail about the process used.

You can accept both 1 and 2 they are not mutually exclusive

No. You have unstated details, which would first need to be mentioned.
Why for example, would "imperfect" life (whatever that means - you didn't define it) be evidence against a god creating it?

Could god create life imperfectly on purpose?
See?

You need to add more detail in order to be able to make that assessment.

Without that detail, neither "perfect" nor "imperfect" life (whatever both would be... again, you didn't define it) would be evidence for OR against the claim.

In short: you need to define your claim in 1 in such a way that it can be determined from that claim alone what would constitute evidence against it.

All you have now are random statements that don't follow from one another.

You could just as well say that 2 is evidence FOR the claim that god did it.
And it would be based on the exact same basis as your version: nothing at all.

So first explain: WHY would it be evidence against it?

The irony is that if you answer that question, you just made the claim "god did it" falsifiable....

 

[Kharisym]

It doesn follow

The fact that there can be evidence for or against a claim doesn’t mean that the claim is falsifiable.

My mistake was to use evolution as an example because people in this forum tend to love and worship}p this theory such that any critique (even if minor) tends to upset everyone.

Take this an example

The claim

1 God created life is unfalsifiable (agree? Yes)

2 The fact that life is not perfect counts as evidence against “God did it” (agree ?yes)

You can accept both 1 and 2 they are not mutually exclusive

Given two, do you then agree that life not being perfect is evidence against god?

 

[leroy]

I've never found the KCA convincing because a claim of the cause of the universe being intelligent is not supported by the argument and intelligence is not necessary to cause a thing. If the cause of the universe is not intelligent, then its not a god.

Agree The KCA says nothing about weather if the cause is intelligent or not so what? the KCA doesn’t aspire to show that the cause is intelligent,

 

[leroy]

1. that "there has been 'no' president that...." is a negative claim
2. you seem to be confusing the act of falsification with the principle of falsifiability.

You CAN falsify the claim that all presidents were males, by finding records / evidence of female presidents.
It's that simple. That no such evidence exists or can be found only means that you can't falsify the claim. That doesn't mean it is therefor unfalsifiable.



I said: "...of the predicted nested hierarchy of genetic common ancestry,"

That means that known exceptions, such as the ones that can be caused by known mechanisms like horizontal gene transfer, are taken into account.

Not any violations can be explained with HGT.
You should read up. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

It's like in geology. There are standard expectations of how the geological columns form, how rivers cut out canyons, etc. There are phenomenon that can cause deviations from those standard expectations and geologists are able to recognize those.

Young Earth Creationists like to ignore such things also and then try and argue that "see???? geology is wrong!".

It's ridiculous and just arguing from a position of (willful?) ignorance.



No, you can't do that.
If you had the slightest clue, or a speck of intellectual honest (not sure which it is here), you'ld know that it doesn't work that way.

It's in fact the nested hierarchy that tells you on which branch it is. So your comment here is just a demonstration of your ignorance on the topic.

Violations to the NS that have no known explanation have been found, but that doesn’t (and shouldn’t) falsify universal common ancestry,

Just for clarification my 2 claims are

1 a theory / hypothesis/ model etc. can be solid good and scientifically valid even if it´s not falsifiable

2 I used evolution (universal common ancestry) as an example

So do you reject both claims or just the second ?

1. that "there has been 'no' president that...." is a negative claim

So there you are, and other example of something unfalisible that is based on solid and valid evidence


Negative claims are usually unfalsifiable, but that doesnt mean that they aren´t good valid scientific hypothesis

 

[Kharisym]

Agree The KCA says nothing about weather if the cause is intelligent or not so what? the KCA doesn’t aspire to show that the cause is intelligent,

Its used as an argument for the existence of a god, therefore if it cannot prove that a god exists, are we both in agreement that it is otherwise meaningless in theist/atheist discussions?

 

[leroy]

It's not.

We genetically determine kinship through our understanding that DNA is inherited by off spring and that it forms a family tree (nested hierarchy). We can estimate the level of kindship based on the level of shared DNA.

We can graph it out and the branches of the tree are then revealed.
It looks for matches in genetic markers, entire sequences etc.

It's what every paternity test is based on. It's how the genographic project works (look it up).
This is how we can genetically determine the level of relatedness between individuals, organisms, entire species,...

It's how we tell your bio brother from your distant cousin.
It's how we tell your uncle from your dad.
It's how we determine Y chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve.
It's how we know we are more closely related to chimps then to gorillas.
It's how we know we are more closely related to gorillas then to elephants
It's how we know we are more closely related to elephants then to crocodiles.
It's how we know we are more closely related to crocodiles then to banana's.
...


Every new genome sequenced, is a test of common ancestry.

Again both paternity tests and nested hierarchies are both based on pretty solid science but they are not the same, nor do they follow the same principles.

Falsifying one wouldn’t falsify the other, the truth of one doesn’t imply the truth of the other.

Paternity tests are based on direct observation and direct experiments, we know on average, how many genetic markers should father and son share. Paternity tests work because we have seen many individuals that are known to be father and son and many individuals that are known to be strangers

NS hierchies is just a tree pattern that live tends to follow, and common ancestry is the best explanation for that pattern. A mammal with feathers would count as evidence against common ancestry, but it would do nothing to refute paternity tests, these things are not related


Are you going to admit your mistake, or are we going to have a 100 pages long conversation of circular arguments that get us nowhere.

 

[leroy]

Given two, do you then agree that life not being perfect is evidence against god?

yes

But why is this relevant?

Do you know agree that a claim can be

1 unfalsifiable

and

2 with evidence for or against it

 

[leroy]

Its used as an argument for the existence of a god, therefore if it cannot prove that a god exists, are we both in agreement that it is otherwise meaningless in theist/atheist discussions?

Yes and the transitional fossil Tiktaalik is used as evidence in favor of evolution, but the fossils itself doesn’t say that stuff evolves though natural selection (Lamarkism would also be consistent with Tiktaalik)

But so what? Tiktaalik is not used to support natural selection over lamarkism, (presumable there are other lines of evidence)

In the same way the KCA doesn’t show that the cause is intelligent but so what? presumably there are other arguments that show that the cause is intelligent (FT arguments for example)

 

[shunyadragon]

In the same way we know (with high degree of certainty ) that the universe originated.

Actually NO, there is no degree of certainty since there are a number of hypotheses concerning the origins if our universe and all possible universes in a possible multiverse. The hypothetical beginning of our universe is from a singularity that originated in a preexisting Quantum World. Other possibilities as cyclic models of a possible eternal universe and all possible universes.

But you will not offer a fourth alternative, so unless you do provide another option the trichology will be taken as real.

No, all the alternatives that I provided are happy to accept that time is part of the universe.

The alternative of a possibly boundless and timeless Quantum Mechanics is very real in the foundation of our physical existence. Only in our time/space dimensional universe is a continuous time known to exist. It is well documented that continuous dimensional time/space does not exist in the Quantum World underlying all of our physical existence. Quantum time only occurs at the individual particle level of the Quantum World.

But offered no solution to the point that I raised.

“it doesn’t matter if the universe (including time) had a cause or if it´s eternal or if time is just man-made subjective concept in all 3 cases simultaneous cause and effect have to be a reality.

And given that you offered no 4th alternative nor refuted any of the 3 points my point remains solid and valid.

4th alternative provided above. Yes, the measurement of time and space of our universe and Quantum Mechanics is from the human science perspective, but science is objectively measuring time and space. The time/space dimensional universe.is very much a demonstrated reality. So is the boundless Quantum World that underlies all of our physical existence whether or not more than one universe exists or not.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that our physical existence is finite or temporal.

 

[leroy]

No. It claims that it was CAUSED.

In this context Caused and Came to be somehow are synomimous they mean the same thing

If you what we can reformulate the KCA

1 Whatever begins to exist came to be some how

2 the universe (space time) began to exist

3 therefore the universe begin to exist some how

So the KCA is fine with an uncaused universe?

Given that your understanding of cause is different from mine, and that I don’t understand your definition, I don’t know

But I am ok with “therefore the universe came to be somehow” weather if you what to call it cause or give it an other label is irrelevant

 

[Kharisym]

Yes and the transitional fossil Tiktaalik is used as evidence in favor of evolution, but the fossils itself doesn’t say that stuff evolves though natural selection (Lamarkism would also be consistent with Tiktaalik)

But so what? Tiktaalik is not used to support natural selection over lamarkism, (presumable there are other lines of evidence)

In the same way the KCA doesn’t show that the cause is intelligent but so what? presumably there are other arguments that show that the cause is intelligent (FT arguments for example)

If we're both in agreement that the KCA doesn't prove that the cause of the universe is a god, then I honestly have no pony in this race and I'm happy to end my discussion with you here. We can discuss claims that attempt to prove a god in threads where those claims are relevant.

yes

But why is this relevant?

Do you know agree that a claim can be

1 unfalsifiable

and

2 with evidence for or against it

Depending on whether your answer was yes or no I was going to use one of two arguments from absurdity. That said, given the above, I don't really think I need to since its relevance to the KCA doesn't have relevance to the existence of God. I'm happy to just agree to disagree at this point.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes and the transitional fossil Tiktaalik is used as evidence in favor of evolution, but the fossils itself doesn’t say that stuff evolves through natural selection (Lamarkism would also be consistent with Tiktaalik).

Correct the individual fossils themselves are not conclusive evidence of evolution. The evidence of natural selection is much broader and deeper than simple individual fossils. The genetic evidence and the objective support for natural selection must be considered.

The fact that you reject science in favor of an ancient Biblical view underlies your selective opinion of evidence without any knowledge of the science involved.

But so what? Tiktaalik is not used to support natural selection over lamarkism, (presumable there are other lines of evidence)

There is absolutely no evidence for the Lamarckian Theory of the relationship between variations in life or the history of life.

In the same way the KCA doesn’t show that the cause is intelligent but so what? presumably there are other arguments that show that the cause is intelligent (FT arguments for example)

Presumably?!?!?! There are no objective verifiable scientific arguments for Intelligent Design. Still waiting for any falsifiable hypothesis that supports ID.

 

[shunyadragon]

In this context Caused and Came to be somehow are synomimous they mean the same thing

If you what we can reformulate the KCA

1 Whatever begins to exist came to be some how

2 the universe (space time) began to exist

3 therefore the universe begin to exist some how

Somehow?!?!?! So circular it bites you in the butt. There is absolutely no evidence that our physical existence began to exist.

Natural Laws and natural processes observed by science adequately describe the nature and possible origins of our universe and physical existence without the necessity of an alternate hypothetical 'Cause.'

 

[shunyadragon]

Nobody is denying that there is solid and conclusive evidence for the claim that humans and bananas have a common ancestor

All I am saying is that the claim is not falsifiable. And the fact that you didn’t offered an example of something that would falsify that claim strongly suggests that I am right

No, your exclusive Biblical ancient perspective not only suggests but conclusively determines you are wrong based on sound objective science.

The scientific 'solid and conclusive evidence,' would be synonymous with being a falsifiable hypothesis

 

[leroy]

Actually NO, there is no degree of certainty since there are a number of hypotheses concerning the origins if our universe and all possible universes in a possible multiverse. The hypothetical beginning of our universe is from a singularity that originated in a preexisting Quantum World. Other possibilities as cyclic models of a possible eternal universe and all possible universes.



The alternative of a possibly boundless and timeless Quantum Mechanics is very real in the foundation of our physical existence. Only in our time/space dimensional universe is a continuous time known to exist. It is well documented that continuous dimensional time/space does not exist in the Quantum World underlying all of our physical existence. Quantum time only occurs at the individual particle level of the Quantum World.





4th alternative provided above. Yes, the measurement of time and space of our universe and Quantum Mechanics is from the human science perspective, but science is objectively measuring time and space. The time/space dimensional universe.is very much a demonstrated reality. So is the boundless Quantum World that underlies all of our physical existence whether or not more than one universe exists or not.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that our physical existence is finite or temporal.

That is very interesting, but you are not following the conversation

All I am saying is that cause and effect can be simultaneous events, and that this is true regardless if you think that the universe is eternal or if the universe had a beginning

 

[leroy]

If we're both in agreement that the KCA doesn't prove that the cause of the universe is a god, then I honestly have no pony in this race and I'm happy to end my discussion with you here. We can discuss claims that attempt to prove a god in threads where those claims are relevant.

The KCA concludes that the universe had a cause and that the cause has to be timeless, immaterial space less, and personal that may or may not be intelligent


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

 

[leroy]

Correct the individual fossils themselves are not conclusive evidence of evolution. The evidence of natural selection is much broader and deeper than simple individual fossils. The genetic evidence and the objective support for natural selection must be considered.

The fact that you reject science in favor of an ancient Biblical view underlies your selective opinion of evidence without any knowledge of the science involved.





There is absolutely no evidence for the Lamarckian Theory of the relationship between variations in life or the history of life.



Presumably?!?!?! There are no objective verifiable scientific arguments for Intelligent Design. Still waiting for any falsifiable hypothesis that supports ID.

You are obviously not following the conversation