Mathematical Proof of God?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Easy.

Why?

Because if you only have two options (either God did it, or mother nature did it)

You are again just assuming the existence of god here.
How did your god become a candidate?
So not only is this a false dichotomy, your second option isn't even an actual option. What is your justification for offering god up as an option? How did you determine a god even exists to BE an option?

, and one of those options is negated, then the last (and only) option wins by default.

All I see you doing is exclude an actual plausible option with but a handwave and no evidence, and then just make the bare claim that your other option, which seems invented out of thin air, is therefor by default correct.

Is this how you usually try to solve question? Just making stuff up?

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

Which doesn't work if you feed it with false dichotomies filled with assumed conclusions.

Looks to me like I just did.

You didn't. You just repeated your claim instead.

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

This only tells me that you don't understand what a hypothesis is.
It also tells me you don't know how physics stumbled on the idea of a multi-verse.
Ironically, it's through empirically backed hypothesis / theories.

In a way, you are.

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

I didn't even bring up the multiverse. You did.
I'm not presenting any argument about the origins of the universe. You are doing that. I'm just pointing out the mistakes that are included in that argument that you are defending.

Perhaps you have me confused with another poster.

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

I don't know who you are talking about.
I can only speak for myself.
And speaking for myself, I am invested in entertaining ideas that can at the very least be shown to be plausible. The more evidence, the better obviously.

I am not invested in any particular outcome. I am happy to go where to evidence leads me.

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

Quantum mechanics shows that an uncaused universe is at least plausible / conceivable.
There is nothing that makes "supernatural transcendent causes" plausible. In fact the very application of the word "cause" in that context, flies in the face of what we know today about physics.

So not only is not in evidence, the evidence that we do have literally points in another direction.

You can't blame me for not believing in unevidenced claims that are presented by people for really the sole reason that their religion requires them to believe those claims.

That is false.[/quote

It's not.

First of all, in order for the multiverse to even get its feet off the ground as a valid theory,[/quote]

Again, its not a theory. It's also not a hypothesis.

it would have to serve as a valid defeater of philosophical arguments, namely, like the argument against infinite regression (which demonstrates the finitude of the past).

First, I consider "philosophical arguments" irrelevant.
The way to learn about reality is by poking around reality and gathering intel. Sitting there and "thinking about it" and making up stuff with "common sense" is not going to yield accurate answers once we cross domains that are outside of our intuition or "common sense".

Secondly, I already explained to you how there is no "infinite regression" problem, because time is no infinite into the past.

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

No, they are not.
Our only way to validate their premises is through science.
So your philosophical argument is always only going to be as good as the scientific knowledge that backs up the premises.

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

Multiverse - Wikipedia

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist? (forbes.com)

quote:

Sure, we can look at objects at great distances, and that tells us what the Universe was like in the distant past: when the light that’s arriving today was first emitted. But we need to combine that with our theories of the Universe — the laws of physics within the framework of the Big Bang — to interpret what occurred in the past. When we do that, we see extraordinary evidence that our hot Big Bang was preceded and set up by a prior phase: cosmic inflation. But in order for inflation to give us a Universe consistent with what we observe, there’s an unsettling appendage that comes along for the ride: a multiverse.


As I said, the multiverse is something that flows from cosmological theories that attempt to model the beginning of the universe.

It's evidence that takes the lead here. The quote above basically says it all. In very simplistic terms:
They see evidence of inflation, so they modeled this in.
The equations that pop-out describe a multiverse.

This was not intended. People didn't go looking for a multiverse. People were trying to explain the evidence they gathered when studying the early moments of the big bang. THAT's what they were modeling.

The multiverse in fact pops out as some kind of prediction.
As in: if this model of physics is correct, then a multiverse exists - since the same equations describe it.

The prediction is untestable. Which is unfortunate. But it's just not true that the multiverse exists as an independent idea that has no evidence backing it and which was just invented out of thing air.

Not true at all.

That is my point. You can't.

Ok. This would mean though that the universe is uncaused.
Since at T = 0, there is no "before" for a cause to occur in.

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

Ow? So God had a beginning? What caused god?

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

1. God did it.

2. Nature did it.

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

But you just said that god also began to exist - since god has a finite past.
Seems to me you are just inventing a totally useless extra entity only to move the question one step back and then pretending that it offers a solution to a problem that isn't really there anyway...

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

Is it? How did you determine that god is an option?
At least we know that nature exists.

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

Again, no.... and you just replied to a quote where you acknowledged that. So this is a very dishonest and deliberate strawman it seems to me. Or your short term memory is really problematic.

I just told you that no infinite regression can exist because time is finite into the past. And you agreed to it.
So why would something that I don't even consider real be a problem for me?

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

Quite a claim, once again.
Do you think your bare claims are convincing?

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

Ow, right, right.
Now let's move into the ad hominems by trying to make me look bad by questioning my motivation as if that is relevant in any way to the points at hand.

sure, sure

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

And eternity in heaven is my reward (paycheck).

Ok.

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

I was talking about "dr" craig.
But someone's expertise in a certain field can oftenly be deduced by the things that person has to say concerning said field.

By that method, I expect your formal education level in anything related to physics to be sub-par.

Wow. You've convinced me.

Please. Nothing I can say or show, potentially or actual, will convince you.

No amount of evidence is going to make a dent in your evidence-less faith-based religious beliefs.
Your beliefs aren't justified by evidence, they are justified by faith.
So evidence is not going to sway you from it either as currently you don't consider evidence important. Faith is what you consider important instead.

 

[F1fan]

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

Why are you assuming a God is a valid option? Objectively there are no gods known to exist.

Can you present any evidence that any Gods exist and perform any causation that makes this idea a valid option?

No mortal can force a God into existence with clever wording, right?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

why don't you find this argument compelling?

KCA? You've seen the rebuttal elsewhere by now. It has errors in its premises and contains fallacious reasoning between them and its conclusions. No experienced critical thinker is convinced by that argument, as you have seen in this thread. People who advocate for it cannot defend it. Why? Because it's wrong. What other reason is possible? If it were correct, the critical thinkers wouldn't be disagreeing. The sine qua non of critical analysis is the ability to go from true premises and evidence to sound conclusions. Sound conclusions are correct conclusions. When one arrives at one, it cannot be successfully refuted.

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

Irrelevant, and also not firmly established. Our universe has either always existed, came into existence uncaused, or was caused by a prior substance and process. The latter can be conceived of as a conscious, intentional agent (a deity), or an unconscious substance such as a multiverse. Craig and every religious apologist I've encountered don't want to understand that. They either never conceived of or else eliminated the three other possibilities without cause, the logical fallacy called non sequitur. That's Craig's most glaring error. The first was that the universe must have a cause, and second was that if it did, it must be his god.

An interesting use of STEM, which usually refers to four other things. I include force in that group, and sometimes form, but it's all synonymous with nature. Also, you probably know the problem with claiming that time began to exist. Before time is an incoherent concept.

Nah, the multiverse hypothesis cannot save you. Never mind the fact that there is no evidence for it, you would still have a problem with infinite regression

The evidence for the multiverse is the same evidence theists use to conclude deities - the reality we experience through the senses - and it is a far more parsimonious hypothesis. Naturalism only requires that nature exist. Supernaturalism (theism) requires an alternate reality populated with an intelligence. No argument against a multiverse is not also an argument against a god. Look at your words. Just substitute a god for the multiverse. Deities cannot rescue you. If they could, a multiverse could as well, and more parsimoniously.

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

Empty claims like that have no persuasive power. Furthermore, there are no other cosmological models in the KCA. The argument ignores other logical possibilities apart from gods, one of its chief fallacies. Leroy did something similar in defending KCA when he claimed that there are words from Craig outside of the argument that repair the giant non sequitur between there must have been a first cause and that that cause was his god. If it's not in the argument, it's not part of the argument.

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

As I've just delineated, we have four options, and none can be ruled in or out. One can just wave all the non-god options away with incredulity fallacies, such is faith, but that's where the non sequitur fallacy arises. The god conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it. That's Craig's logical fallacy, and apparently yours as well.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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

Not so fast.

First off, it is funny how naturalists use quantum mechanics as if it is some cheat code or something.

It is as if they are using "Quantum Mechanics of the Gap" reasoning.

hahaha.

Anyways, you are WRONG.

There are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum physics, and no one knows which on is correct...some of those interpretations are deterministic and some are indeterministic.

The one that you are referring to here is the Copenhagen interpretation, which is indeterministic, but not all physicists agree that this is the best interpretation.

Most people who appeal to quantum mechanics (QM) don't know this, they just simply use QM as a quick retort...a quick fire (as you just did) without fully understanding or even researching the finer points of the theory and everything surrounding it.

Second, there are at least two philosophical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation, which we need not get in to...unless, you PUSH me in to it.

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

Yeah, and we also know that the singularity wasn't just sitting around since past eternity, waiting to expand.

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

That is the moot point, since we are not just talking about causality within the domain (universe), we are talking about the cause of the entire domain.

You can't logically use the universe, to explain the origins of the universe.

It is circular reasoning.

Then EVEN if I grant the absurd premises above, it could never get you to a god, because that is a supernatural thing that isn't demonstrated to exist.

Let me see if I can explain it in a different way...

The cause of space, time, energy, and matter...cannot itself be a product of space, time, energy, and matter.

The cause of the universe had to be immaterial (spaceless), and atemporal, and necessary in its existence, with a freedom of the will to create (sentient).

If you cannot understand such an elementary principle, then I cannot help you.

Certainly, you may not agree with this assessment, but systematical rejection of it is more a reflection of your personal grievances, not a reflection of the assessment.

And since you say that it isn't assumed that the supernatural exists, then god is not a valid candidate as the "cause".

I do more than assuming...I am boldly stating that God is the best explanation to provided that can produce the given effect.

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

I don't know about that...because some people who claim to be smart and educated also believe in macroevolution.

So, take that as you may.

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

And it is based on what we know about quantum mechanics, as to why it is a failed hypothesis...at least as it relates to the subject matter.

How have you determined that?

See above. If that doesn't help..then I don't know what to tell ya.

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

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

Um, no. The entire universe began to exist. The universe all physical reality. It all began to exist.

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

You are equivocating "whatever", because "whatever" doesn't mean "any possible thing".

Because "if there is an existence of "whatever" outside of the universe", this "whatever" could be God because you offered no exclusion from "whatever".

So, if God is this "whatever", then that throws your entire argument out of the window.

Not to mention the fact that, again, the universe is all physical reality, PERIOD. From the observable nature to the unobservable nature.

It is all part of the grand scheme of physical reality, which all began to exist.

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

You are WRONG.

Universe - Wikipedia

According to wiki, universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.

Keyword: ALL

You are also WRONG about the cosmos, because according to wiki..

Cosmos - Wikipedia

The cosmos (UK: /ˈkɒzmɒs/, US: /-moʊs/) is another name for the Universe.

Tsk, tsk.

Obviously what, if anything, exists outside the universe is at this point mostly speculation. But lets grant it for the sake of argument that there is "other stuff" out there. After all, your very premises REQUIRE such to be the case.

False. My very first premise (of the Kalam) is that everything which begins to exist has a cause.

All that means is that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothingness.

Your premise REQUIRES and environment that is NOT the universe within which is a flow of time and where a "cause" for the universe can occur.

Time began at the first moment of the creation (big bang).

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

Because you can't have a chain of infinite cause/effect relations, which is what you are suggesting.

This is impossible....that, followed by the fact that there isn't any empirical evidence supporting it, so we have no reason to believe it.

But I guess if you are trying to avoid the "G" word, then there is reason to believe it.

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

Then in that case, all you've done is asserted "nature done it", in a nut shell.

Look, this is not God of the Gaps reasoning. God is the best explanation to produce the effect and if there is any beef with that, I haven't heard it yet.

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

Straw man. No one is denying that.

What's the external cause of your god?

The fact that you even ask that question lets me know you have no idea what is going on here.

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

Good to know.

 

[F1fan]

My very first premise (of the Kalam) is that everything which begins to exist has a cause.

OK, so since you introduced Gods as an option for causation, how do you determine whether Gods are caused or uncaused as a matter of fact?

Or do you just assume the Gods are whatever fits what you want your conclusion to be?

I notice you offer no evidence for how and why Gods exist, and how you can assert they are an an option for causation of anything.

All that means is that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothingness.

Can you acknowledge that energy was never caused as a valid option?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Establishing some definitions: Natural law (ie, mother nature) is limited only to interactions within our universe.

I agree.

God is an omnipotent and intelligent being.

*Reads Bible*

Yup, that's what I got out of it.

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

See, that is where you are WRONG.

Let me put you up on game.

We know the universe began with an an intelligence force for at least 3 reasons.

1. 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.

The second reason is..

2. The argument from design: Our universe is fine tuned for human life...fine-tuned and balanced with mathematical precision. The initial conditions of the universe, and the constants and values which govern our universe are mathematically precise...so precise that if any of those conditions were off by the tiniest degree, life would not be permissible on earth.

Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of our universe being fine-tuned for human life by random chance is 1 chance in 10^10^123.

That is an astronomically large number...and to even call it an astronomically large number is an understatement.

So, what does this mean? This means that our universe was engineered for human life..and engineers are typically very, very smart.

So what we have here is a Cosmic Engineer...a Cosmic Super Intelligence.

And the third reason is..

3. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence: If you start off with a big bang (all space, time, energy, matter)...you may have the matter needed to form a brain, but where will you get the thoughts and mental states?

Thoughts and mental states aren't things that came with the system, but rather, placed in the system from a source that already had the capacity.

Obviously, there is more to it, but those are the highlights.

No charge for the lesson, amigo.

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

For reasons previously mentioned.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

OK, so since you introduced Gods as an option for causation, how do you determine whether Gods are caused or uncaused as a matter of fact?

The Kalam ties into the First Cause argument.

The argument is simple; there had to be an Uncaused Cause.

Listen, infinite regression is logically impossible. Therefore, there has to be an uncaused cause.

There has to be a cause of which is not dependent upon any external factors for its existence.

That is how we know.

Or do you just assume the Gods are whatever fits what you want your conclusion to be?

Remember, truth states on its own two feet, regardless of what I, you, or they think.

So it isn't a matter of what I want, because the evidence is the evidence.

I notice you offer no evidence for how and why Gods exist

This would be like me asking you to provide evidence of how and why the number 1 exists.

What answer can you provide. God is necessary, and mere existence is necessary.

That is all anyone can provide by way of answer.

, and how you can assert they are an an option for causation of anything.

Easy. Like this..

God is the ultimate source of everything.

Can you acknowledge that energy was never caused as a valid option?

No, I cannot acknowledge that energy was never caused as a valid option...but I can and do acknowledge that it is a false premise.

 

[Kharisym]

I agree.



*Reads Bible*

Yup, that's what I got out of it.



See, that is where you are WRONG.

Let me put you up on game.

We know the universe began with an an intelligence force for at least 3 reasons.

1. 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.

The second reason is..

2. The argument from design: Our universe is fine tuned for human life...fine-tuned and balanced with mathematical precision. The initial conditions of the universe, and the constants and values which govern our universe are mathematically precise...so precise that if any of those conditions were off by the tiniest degree, life would not be permissible on earth.

Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of our universe being fine-tuned for human life by random chance is 1 chance in 10^10^123.

That is an astronomically large number...and to even call it an astronomically large number is an understatement.

So, what does this mean? This means that our universe was engineered for human life..and engineers are typically very, very smart.

So what we have here is a Cosmic Engineer...a Cosmic Super Intelligence.

And the third reason is..

3. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence: If you start off with a big bang (all space, time, energy, matter)...you may have the matter needed to form a brain, but where will you get the thoughts and mental states?

Thoughts and mental states aren't things that came with the system, but rather, placed in the system from a source that already had the capacity.

Obviously, there is more to it, but those are the highlights.

No charge for the lesson, amigo.



For reasons previously mentioned.

1) The conclusion (an event happening must be initiated by an intelligence because it happened at a particular time) doesn't follow from your argument. My home town has had 2 weeks of non-stop thunderstorms. By your logic, because these thunderstorms began at X time, they must be the product of an intelligent thing. We know, however, that weather is a chaotic system that doesn't require an intelligence.

2) Fine tuning is fine and dandy, but I'm rather sure somebody would be making the same claim if our universe had 12 spatial dimensions instead of 3. Just because the universe suits *us* does not mean its the only universe that could support life. If I had a die with 4 quintillion sides and it landed on 3 (supports human life) doesn't make 3 special. If it landed on 4 then the kind of life might be the fffz'tnk species.

3) Can you prove this? You assert no evidence that intelligence requires intelligence to make it. This is like saying ferromagnetism requires ferromagnetism to create it, yet we see hydrogen end up as iron in nuclear fusion.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

KCA? You've seen the rebuttal elsewhere by now. It has errors in its premises and contains fallacious reasoning between them and its conclusions. No experienced critical thinker is convinced by that argument, as you have seen in this thread. People who advocate for it cannot defend it. Why? Because it's wrong. What other reason is possible? If it were correct, the critical thinkers wouldn't be disagreeing. The sine qua non of critical analysis is the ability to go from true premises and evidence to sound conclusions. Sound conclusions are correct conclusions. When one arrives at one, it cannot be successfully refuted.

Then we simply disagree on the power/persuasiveness of the KCA...and if there is a rational defeater of the argument, I haven't seen it yet.

Certainly not on this thread.

Irrelevant, and also not firmly established. Our universe has either always existed

False. Ever heard of the Steady State theory, or the Oscillating theory?

Those were early cosmological models, which were theorized to get a newly discovered finite universe back to infinite, you know, back to their comfort zones.

All of those failed for one reason or another, and they all continue to fail.

Newsflash: if the universe never had a beginning, there wouldn't have been a need to create models which explain its beginning, would there?

So, the fact that you even use "our universe may have always existed" as an option, goes to show that you are either out of touch with contemporary cosmology, or you are dismissing contemporary cosmology.

Hey, you do you. I am stick with the scientific evidence which states that the universe had a beginning.

, came into existence uncaused

Which is even worse than magic.

So basically, you would rather believe that rabbit popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, that believe that the magician caused the rabbit to appear out of the hat.

SMH. Irrational.

, or was caused by a prior substance and process.

Logically impossible.

The latter can be conceived of as a conscious, intentional agent (a deity)

Now we are getting somewhere.

, or an unconscious substance such as a multiverse.

Logically impossible.

Craig and every religious apologist I've encountered don't want to understand that. They either never conceived of or else eliminated the three other possibilities without cause, the logical fallacy called non sequitur. That's Craig's most glaring error. The first was that the universe must have a cause, and second was that if it did, it must be his god.

Your ignorance of WLC's work is glaring. He answers objections in his written work, in his debates, on his podcasts, and in his interviews and lectures.

And he has been doing it for 40+ years at the highest levels possible...not to mention in lectures like this, where he is standing there taking questions from physicists/cosmologists about cosmology...and answering the questions like A BOSS..

So, you are simply uninformed about Dr. Craig, his arguments, and his work and there is no point in furthering the discussion with you at this point, at least as it relates to that.

 

[leroy]

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



Based on belief and faith without evidence.



True, but not as you describe.



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

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

This is perplexing

1 you entered to a discussion that is not directed to you

2 make random and irrelevant claims

3 I respond to your cliam

4 you changed the topic.

All I am saying is:

If the big bang came from something that has always existed (like a quantum state) and if the big bang if a random event caused by a random instability of that “quantum thing”

Then the big bang would have occurred at infinite past.

So address this objection,

 

[leroy]

gene tree discordance is not what is being talked about.

ok then "what woudl falsify common ancestry?
If gene tree discordances (or inconsistencies in the NS as you call them) don’t falsify it, then what would?

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

Well one wonders which definitions are you Reading.

Source?

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

ok my mistake

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

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

Ok I guess it´s impossible to get a yes/no answer from you

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ever heard of the Steady State theory, or the Oscillating theory? Those were early cosmological models, which were theorized to get a newly discovered finite universe back to infinite, you know, back to their comfort zones. All of those failed for one reason or another, and they all continue to fail.

You still haven't established that the universe had a beginning. I am not arguing that it didn't, just that the possibility cannot be excluded.

if the universe never had a beginning, there wouldn't have been a need to create models which explain its beginning

There wouldn't be such a need, and perhaps there isn't.

I am stick with the scientific evidence which states that the universe had a beginning.

But it doesn't. It says that the universe was once much smaller, denser, and hotter, and began to expand. One can extrapolate that back to its asymptote, a singularity of infinite density and the beginning of time and space, but since you run out of physics before you get to T=0 and infinite density in zero volume, you can't claim that such a state existed or is even possible.

Which is even worse than magic. So basically, you would rather believe that rabbit popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, that believe that the magician caused the rabbit to appear out of the hat. SMH. Irrational.

This is you making incredulity arguments and waving logical possibilities away for lack of the ability to imagine them, or, more likely, a faith-based confirmation bias directing what you can see. This is you waving away what you don't like because it contradicts your faith-based beliefs. That's how non sequitur errors arise. You've dropped candidate hypotheses for why the universe exists and declared them impossible without any argument to support that conclusion.

Logically impossible.

And there you go again. You've taken the four logical possibilities I've provided, waved three away, and when you saw one you have chosen to believe by faith, affirmed that one - all without sound argument, just like Craig.

you are simply uninformed about Dr. Craig, his arguments

I'm not interested in what Craig has to say. He's a faith-based thinker and makes glaring logical errors such as those made in the KCA - the same ones you just made. Also, he has told us that hos faith trumps the evidence of his senses. I really don't need to hear any more from such a person to know that he doesn't process information properly because of a confirmation bias that did for him what it did for you - nope, not that one; nope, not that one; nope, not that one; yeah, that one, praise the Lord.

Your ignorance of WLC's work is glaring. He answers objections in his written work, in his debates, on his podcasts, and in his interviews and lectures.

 

[F1fan]

The Kalam ties into the First Cause argument.

The argument is simple; there had to be an Uncaused Cause.

Really? Who says there HAD to be?

This is a guess, not a fact. So this is not a valid premise.

Listen, infinite regression is logically impossible. Therefore, there has to be an uncaused cause.

Who says this, and demonstrates it is a fact? Site it.

There has to be a cause of which is not dependent upon any external factors for its existence.

That is how we know.

You cite no knowledge, just guesses, so we throw it out.

Remember, truth states on its own two feet, regardless of what I, you, or they think.

So it isn't a matter of what I want, because the evidence is the evidence.

No gods are kn own to exist. Fact. To assert a god, or numerous gods, are a cause you need to demonstrate at least one exists, and can then perform the way you are asserting. You haven't. You use words to form sentences that force a God into existence. But we still have no evidence of any gods existing.

This would be like me asking you to provide evidence of how and why the number 1 exists.

Because 1 is a symbol that has been assigned a certain way to represent real things.

God could be said to be a word that symbolizes a large set of ideas that do not correspond to anything in reality, thus imaginary.

What answer can you provide. God is necessary, and mere existence is necessary.

Why, because you say so? Where are the facts that any god exists? You might as well claim it is aliens from another universe that we cannot detect. Would your argument be any different? No.

That is all anyone can provide by way of answer.

It is a flawed and non-logical answer. So we throw it out.

Easy. Like this..

God is the ultimate source of everything.

Be sure to stomp your foot when you, a fallible mortal one to error, make this claim without evidence.

We don't care what you assert. We care about evidence, and you offer us none.

No, I cannot acknowledge that energy was never caused as a valid option...but I can and do acknowledge that it is a false premise.

And what is your reason for refusing to acknowledge this is possible? You think a God is possible, yet nothing suggests they exist outside of human imagination.

 

[Sheldon]

Nah, the multiverse hypothesis cannot save you.

Neither can an imaginary deity, ironically.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

You still haven't established that the universe had a beginning. I am not arguing that it didn't, just that the possibility cannot be excluded.

Please deal with what I actually said.

Educate yourself with what I said about those cosmological models, and then get back to me.

The fact that those models exist is more than enough to establish that our universe had a beginning, without even having to discuss the actual OVERWHELMING evidence of a finite universe.

There wouldn't be such a need, and perhaps there isn't.

Cool. So I will keep my responses to you short & sweet...since you refuse to engage with what I said.

But it doesn't. It says that the universe was once much smaller, denser, and hotter, and began to expand. One can extrapolate that back to its asymptote, a singularity of infinite density and the beginning of time and space, but since you run out of physics before you get to T=0 and infinite density in zero volume, you can't claim that such a state existed or is even possible.

Wow, think about that...a beginning of time and space, huh? If the universe never began (and is eternal), wouldn't time also be eternal?

Hmm.

This is you making incredulity arguments and waving logical possibilities away for lack of the ability to imagine them, or, more likely, a faith-based confirmation bias directing what you can see. This is you waving away what you don't like because it contradicts your faith-based beliefs. That's how non sequitur errors arise. You've dropped candidate hypotheses for why the universe exists and declared them impossible without any argument to support that conclusion.

The universe began to exist, point blank, period. I will not be distracted by these substance-lacking, red herring responses.

And there you go again. You've taken the four logical possibilities I've provided, waved three away, and when you saw one you have chosen to believe by faith, affirmed that one

I've explained why 3 of the 4 FAILED.

- all without sound argument, just like Craig.

If it was unsound, I would expect you to be able to refute it. But you can't.

All you can do is the same thing every other atheist does...give the typical..

"The argument is not valid"

"The argument is not sound"

"You haven't provided any evidence"

Any variation of those three^. It is as if atheists are simply hard-wired, programmed to say "You have no evidence", no matter what evidence is provided.

Me: 2+2=4

Atheist: You have no evidence.

Me: The sky is blue.

Atheist: You argument is unsound.

Me: The Earth rotates around the Sun

Atheist: Your argument is not valid.

hahaha.

I'm not interested in what Craig has to say. He's a faith-based thinker and makes glaring logical errors such as those made in the KCA - the same ones you just made. Also, he has told us that hos faith trumps the evidence of his senses. I really don't need to hear any more from such a person to know that he doesn't process information properly because of a confirmation bias that did for him what it did for you - nope, not that one; nope, not that one; nope, not that one; yeah, that one, praise the Lord.

If you people were more interested in what Craig has to say, then maybe you wouldn't continue to misrepresent his arguments and positions.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Really? Who says there HAD to be?

This is a guess, not a fact. So this is not a valid premise.

Who says this, and demonstrates it is a fact? Site it.

You cite no knowledge, just guesses, so we throw it out.

No gods are kn own to exist. Fact. To assert a god, or numerous gods, are a cause you need to demonstrate at least one exists, and can then perform the way you are asserting. You haven't. You use words to form sentences that force a God into existence. But we still have no evidence of any gods existing.

Because 1 is a symbol that has been assigned a certain way to represent real things.

God could be said to be a word that symbolizes a large set of ideas that do not correspond to anything in reality, thus imaginary.

Why, because you say so? Where are the facts that any god exists? You might as well claim it is aliens from another universe that we cannot detect. Would your argument be any different? No.

It is a flawed and non-logical answer. So we throw it out.

Be sure to stomp your foot when you, a fallible mortal one to error, make this claim without evidence.

We don't care what you assert. We care about evidence, and you offer us none.

And what is your reason for refusing to acknowledge this is possible? You think a God is possible, yet nothing suggests they exist outside of human imagination.

Well first of all, it is difficult to engage with this kind of stuff when you people just simply don't know the argument.

You (and at least 2 of others) make it seem as if you are familiar with the argument, but then you spew these false, fallacious accusations against the argument, which only demonstrates that you simply don't understand the argument.

And then you ask these questions, like above..

"Can you prove it?"

"Who says this?"

Well, if you were familiar with the argument, you would KNOW how it is proven and why we get certain implications because of these proofs.

You would see that EVERY premise of the argument is well supported through science and philosophy.

So if you don't understand it or are unfamiliar with it, then say so and we can discuss the break down of the argument.

But all of these ignorant, red herrings and straw mans is beginning to come across as disingenuous.

And also...disgusting.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Neither can an imaginary deity, ironically.

Well, we are trading one imaginary concept for another, aren't we?

 

[F1fan]

Well first of all, it is difficult to engage with this kind of stuff when you people just simply don't know the argument.

You (and at least 2 of others) make it seem as if you are familiar with the argument, but then you spew these false, fallacious accusations against the argument, which only demonstrates that you simply don't understand the argument.

And then you ask these questions, like above..

"Can you prove it?"

"Who says this?"

Well, if you were familiar with the argument, you would KNOW how it is proven and why we get certain implications because of these proofs.

They aren't proven (factual). They are assertions.

You said:

The Kalam ties into the First Cause argument.
The argument is simple; there had to be an Uncaused Cause.​

And I asked:

Really? Who says there HAD to be?​

This is a guess, not a fact. So this is not a valid premise. ​

You offer no fact that there HAD to be an uncaused cause. It is just a claim. there are other arguments to attempt justifying it, but they still face the fatal flaw of not being factual.

You would see that EVERY premise of the argument is well supported through science and philosophy.

I asked you to site a reputable source that demonstrates that infinite regression is impossible as you claim, and you offered nothing. It's just a claim, not a fact, not a valid premise, and not my problem, it's yours.

So if you don't understand it or are unfamiliar with it, then say so and we can discuss the break down of the argument.

I have serious doubts about this argument because it doesn't have valid premises. It has nothing to do with understanding the argument, and that's because it is flawed. Does "understanding" mean to ignore flaws?

But all of these ignorant, red herrings and straw mans is beginning to come across as disingenuous.

And also...disgusting.

You sound frustrated and upset that you have to answer questions and face critique. The Kalam has been criticized ever since it came out. It's not a defendable argument.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

You are again just assuming the existence of god here.
How did your god become a candidate?

After it was determined that nature is incapable of producing the effect, then that is why God became a candidate.

So not only is this a false dichotomy, your second option isn't even an actual option. What is your justification for offering god up as an option? How did you determine a god even exists to BE an option?

Well, let me make it even bolder, clear for you..

Mark my words..

It...is...IMPOSSIBLE...for...NATURE...to be...USED...as...AN..EXPLANATION..TO...EXPLAIN...THE...EFFECT...OF..THE UNIVERSE...BEGINNING...TO EXIST.

Do you not understand that?

So, what does this mean? Well.

THIS MEANS THAT I HAVE TO APPEAL TO SOMETHING BEYOND NATURE TO EXPLAIN THE EFFECT.

I hope that is plain enough for you.

This only tells me that you don't understand what a hypothesis is.

A hypothesis is an educated guess. You see a phenomena, and you forma hypothesis to explain the phenomena, and then you conduct experiments to either corroborate or falsify your hypothesis.

If it is corroborated, it becomes a theory. If it is falsified, then it is tossed in the trash.

How is that?

It also tells me you don't know how physics stumbled on the idea of a multi-verse.

They stumbled across the multiverse as an attempt to increase the chances of our universe being life permitting...if you have an infinite amount of universes out there, one of them have to be life permitting, right?

Thus, the multiverse. There is no evidence for it, though. It is just hocus pocus.

Ironically, it's through empirically backed hypothesis / theories.

Where is the evidence?

I didn't even bring up the multiverse. You did.

Did I?

I'm not presenting any argument about the origins of the universe. You are doing that.

Um, based on the title of the thread, I advocated the KCA because has a mathematical element to it...so basically, I am only responding to the title of the thread, you know, what we are supposed to do.

That is why I am doing that.

I'm just pointing out the mistakes that are included in that argument that you are defending.

Oh, is that what you are doing?

I thought you were misrepresenting the argument.

I guess we see things differently.

Perhaps you have me confused with another poster.

I don't know who you are talking about.
I can only speak for myself.
And speaking for myself, I am invested in entertaining ideas that can at the very least be shown to be plausible. The more evidence, the better obviously.

I am just merely saying that atheists/naturalists cling to theories like the multiverse just like believers cling on to religion. Both camps follow what they follow, religiously.

That is all.

I am not invested in any particular outcome. I am happy to go where to evidence leads me.

If you say so.

Quantum mechanics shows that an uncaused universe is at least plausible / conceivable.

Sure, to people who don't like the God idea. Like I said, you would rather believe that the universe popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing before you believe it God.

Crazy.

There is nothing that makes "supernatural transcendent causes" plausible.

And what makes supernatural transcendent causes implausible?

In fact the very application of the word "cause" in that context, flies in the face of what we know today about physics.

How?

So not only is not in evidence, the evidence that we do have literally points in another direction.

How?

You can't blame me for not believing in unevidenced claims that are presented by people for really the sole reason that their religion requires them to believe those claims.

You can't blame me for not in unevidenced claims (things popping into being out of nothing) presented by people for really the sole reason that their atheistic beliefs requires them to believe those unnatural claims.

Again, its not a theory. It's also not a hypothesis.

Call it what you want.

First, I consider "philosophical arguments" irrelevant.
The way to learn about reality is by poking around reality and gathering intel. Sitting there and "thinking about it" and making up stuff with "common sense" is not going to yield accurate answers once we cross domains that are outside of our intuition or "common sense".

Hmmm, funny, because there is this thing called philosophy of science..

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

That being said, your attitude towards philosophy is irrelevant...because you can't use science to refute any philosophical argument and the fact that people have been using philosophical arguments for the existence of God for centuries before any latest scientific discovery of the past century, should tell you something.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Secondly, I already explained to you how there is no "infinite regression" problem, because time is no infinite into the past.

What? Makes no sense.

No, they are not.
Our only way to validate their premises is through science.
So your philosophical argument is always only going to be as good as the scientific knowledge that backs up the premises.

You are WRONG.

Lets see...so Ontological Arguments were (and currently are) used well before any scientific revolution...and the arguments were not base on science AT all, but strictly based upon drawing logical conclusions based on logical premises.

No test tubes needed. No laboratories needed. No fancy pancy experiments needed.

Just using the mind...so don't tell me that philosophy arguments is based on scientific backing, because that is historically WRONG.

Now certainly, science can prove certain premises of a philsophical argument (as it does in P2 of the KCA), but even that isn't necessarily needed, because the argument against infinity is even more powerful than the scientific evidence which corroborates the second premise.

So no, it doesn't. You are wrong.

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist? (forbes.com)

quote:

Sure, we can look at objects at great distances, and that tells us what the Universe was like in the distant past: when the light that’s arriving today was first emitted. But we need to combine that with our theories of the Universe — the laws of physics within the framework of the Big Bang — to interpret what occurred in the past. When we do that, we see extraordinary evidence that our hot Big Bang was preceded and set up by a prior phase: cosmic inflation. But in order for inflation to give us a Universe consistent with what we observe, there’s an unsettling appendage that comes along for the ride: a multiverse.

Yeah, I'm glad you provided that link/quoted paragraph.

Keyword: Cosmic inflation.

Alan Guth (Father of Inflation theory), along with Alexander Vilenkin and Arvind Borde came up with the BGV theorem (Borde Guth Vilenkin).

The theorem proves that any inflationary (expanding universe), which has been expanding at an average Hubble expansion rate greater than zero...ANY universe which meets that ONE requirement, MUST HAVE HAD A BEGINNING.

This theorem applies to multiverses as well...and not only that, but even Roger Penrose stated that, if you propose the multiverse theory to explain the fine tuning of our universe, then guess what? The multiverse itself would also have to be fine tuned.

So even with the multiverse, the multiverse would also either have had a beginning, or is also fine tuned.

Vilenkin explains the theorem here..

There is no way out, people.

It's evidence that takes the lead here. The quote above basically says it all. In very simplistic terms:
They see evidence of inflation, so they modeled this in.
The equations that pop-out describe a multiverse.

Multiverse won't save you.

This was not intended. People didn't go looking for a multiverse. People were trying to explain the evidence they gathered when studying the early moments of the big bang. THAT's what they were modeling.

No, it was more sinister reasons than that.

haha.

Ok. This would mean though that the universe is uncaused.
Since at T = 0, there is no "before" for a cause to occur in.

You are WRONG. There was no chronological "before", but there was a causal "before".

A bowling ball that is resting on a cushion for eternity still causes the weighted dent in the cushion...even though there was no chronological "before" the indentation, the ball is still the cause of the indentation, nevertheless.

Ow? So God had a beginning? What caused god?

If you think that that is what I insinuated, then you don't understand what is going on here.

But you just said that god also began to exist - since god has a finite past.

Um, no.

I said that God did not endure through infinite time...and that statement is NOT synonymous with God beginning to exist.

See, if you were familiar with the KCA, then you would know this.

I would like to thank myself for not being that naïve to hold to a self contradictory position.

Seems to me you are just inventing a totally useless extra entity only to move the question one step back and then pretending that it offers a solution to a problem that isn't really there anyway...

Oh, please.

Typical atheistic quip which has no basis whatsoever.

Is it? How did you determine that god is an option?
At least we know that nature exists.

Nature cannot be used to explain the origin of its own domain.

Again, no.... and you just replied to a quote where you acknowledged that. So this is a very dishonest and deliberate strawman it seems to me. Or your short term memory is really problematic.

I just told you that no infinite regression can exist because time is finite into the past. And you agreed to it.

Ok, so if time is finite in its past, then what could give time its beginning?

So why would something that I don't even consider real be a problem for me?

It is a problem for you because once you acknowledge the finitude of the past, then you have to acknowledge a causal agent which transcendent time.

Now, I predict that I am going to have to sit here and walk you through the entire breakdown of why and how.

But that is what I signed up for...you know, which apologetics and educating those who need to be educated.

Quite a claim, once again.
Do you think your bare claims are convincing?

Yup.

Ow, right, right.
Now let's move into the ad hominems by trying to make me look bad by questioning my motivation as if that is relevant in any way to the points at hand.

sure, sure

Don't dish it if you can't take it.

I was talking about "dr" craig.
But someone's expertise in a certain field can oftenly be deduced by the things that person has to say concerning said field.

By that method, I expect your formal education level in anything related to physics to be sub-par.

Im no expert, but I am far from a novice. Or, let me put it to you this way, I know enough about the subject matter of which I am engaging...and that is all that is required.

haha.

Please. Nothing I can say or show, potentially or actual, will convince you.

No amount of evidence is going to make a dent in your evidence-less faith-based religious beliefs.
Your beliefs aren't justified by evidence, they are justified by faith.
So evidence is not going to sway you from it either as currently you don't consider evidence important. Faith is what you consider important instead.

I was kidding.