Mathematical Proof of God?

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

LOL. Funny.

You do know/understand different between primary causes, and secondary causes, correct?

haha.

Second, the crux of my point was not addressed.

If the conditions required for our universe to began existed infinitely long ago (before the universe began), then how did our universe only began to exist a finite time ago?

Makes no sense. This needs to be dealt with.

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.

I'm sure they would, if the odds of our universe with 12 spatial dimensions were even more astronomical than 10^10^123.

Just because the universe suits *us* does not mean its the only universe that could support life.

Well, when you discover any other universe than can support life, then we will add that other universe to the list.

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.

Not so fast. First of all, it would have to land on the 3 (which supports life) on the first and only try.

The chances of our universe being fine tuned for human life is 1 chance in 10^10^123.

1 chance.

If you have a 4 quintillion side die (which, btw, 4 quintillion is chump change compared to the value of 10^10^123), and you roll the die and it lands on 3 on the very first try....lets just say that it aint happening.

An even better analogy would be if you had 4 quintillion white balls in a very large container or bowl...and also inside the bowl, there is one single black ball.

Lets say you were blindfolded and told that you must blindly reach into the bowl, and take as long as you want...but you MUST pull out the single black ball from the bowl of 4 quintillion white balls.

And if you fail to come up with the black ball, you will be executed.

Each ball has the same probability of being pulled, but the chances of you pulling the single black ball is even more unlikely.

The black ball represents our life being "pulled" in one chance under even more ASTRONOMICALLY improbable circumstances.

It aint happening.

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.

Um, I provided a mini example with a question attached to it...and you ignored that just to give the very typical atheistic quip of "you provided no evidence".

Lord knows that is really the only thing any of you have offered by way of refutation on here...outside of straw mans and red herrings.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

If you understood the argument, then I wouldn't need to have to explain anything. I thought all of this smugness and contempt for the argument were coming from folks who knew their stuff.

I was wrong.

I should be defending the argument, not explaining it.

I asked you to site a reputable source that demonstrates that infinite regression is impossible as you claim, and you offered nothing.

First of all, I do not need to cite anything. I can prove the absurdity on my own with ease.

But before I do that, simply admit that you do are unaware what the KCA entails and then we can take it from there.

It's just a claim, not a fact, not a valid premise, and not my problem, it's yours.

"It is not a valid premise". Have you demonstrated it to be invalid? No, you haven't, which makes your statement an unsupported assertion.

See, look at that. So quick with the "your claim is not valid" quip that you wound up doing the same thing you accuse me of.

I am beginning to think these "your claim is unsupported" statements are automatic reflex kind of responses.

They are just said without thinking...just, automatically.

Anyways, the difference between my claim and your claim is, my claim is fireproof...it can be demonstrated mathematically and logically.

Your claim is just the default position of someone who doesn't like the idea of a God.

That is the difference.

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?


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.

Yup, same stuff "it is unsupported, invalid, etc, etc, etc".

Just can't help yourselves with it.

 

[rational experiences]

As it's all about men human scientist who as a human being named self a satanist by his themes.

You do an appraisal of the human who says they are God owning all of the universal powers as a human.

Pretending mass burning is inside of our biology. Pretends it does in a biological dimension.

As they don't name their man self a Godist they don't believe in the first word thought story theses they use. Proven they ignore natural law first.

Instead my life brain burnt prickled attacked...as a woman gave me their advice.

Claiming they will make me mother space owner..abominated mother of God and they will relinquish theming man human as God. By new heaven machine constant.

Where a woman attacked daily they care less about. As science can now clone. As we're aliens you know he says in science. We're copies.

In real intelligence babies copy human adult biology and become a Copy.

Instead they then title their human man self Satan. Stating as we aren't God. All themes in just a human mind telling their stories.

Is humans evil thinking behaviour.

As I was born by human sex. Theist a human in theory talk about mother father adult human selves. First position in law.

Who were not instantly created by God. By preceding two bio types as small as microbes owned our created conception. Human. Says human intelligence.

Lying. As they say just a microbe missing words in psyche use. To think correctly. Then they say must have a spirit body to put microbe into...alien they claim.

Pretending a satanist human by machine only purposes machine science invented human life with machines.

As it is all only about human designed machines. Reactions of machines in human control. As legal advice. It's not about cosmic themes. Those stories are coercion.

As man knew energy exists in mass as a singularity type. As cooling exploding burning recooling in space owned forming types.

So today owning AI mind contact he programmed transmits by out...satellite involved. Was for human life contact control to intend to find God is his thesis. Then I'll order God what to do by humans AI controls.

Believes what he's theoried. To find God then control order God what to do.

To find God then own god by machines. Control god by machines. His thesis is stated already.

His advice in science why a human therefore isn't God is we're demonic aliens. As humans. The excuse he uses.

Not humans. He says the parent of humans were aliens. Yet every term AI is his machine use.

Therefore thinking you are arguing human intelligence with another human is a moot point in science cosmic discussion.

Why legal forbade science in actual history.

 

[F1fan]

If you understood the argument, then I wouldn't need to have to explain anything. I thought all of this smugness and contempt for the argument were coming from folks who knew their stuff.

I was wrong.

I should be defending the argument, not explaining it.

If it was valid you wouldn't have to defend it. And if the rest of us are missing something then exlain what we are missing. Thus far you are making critical factual errors that you have not addressed.

I notice in other responses that you often refer to God as if it is real, and that is an error itself. No gods have been demonstrated to exist. Your argument is supposed to prove a God exists, yes?

You claim that infinite regress is impossible and I asked you how this is a fact, and you have no answer.

Let's note that these arguments don't really demonstrate any God exists, they just argue a scenario where a person can assume a God exists as a cause.

First of all, I do not need to cite anything. I can prove the absurdity on my own with ease.

But before I do that, simply admit that you do are unaware what the KCA entails and then we can take it from there.

If you are delaying defending your case to play games then I'm suspicious you aren't very confident in your position. If you were confident you would just state it.

"It is not a valid premise". Have you demonstrated it to be invalid? No, you haven't, which makes your statement an unsupported assertion.

Irrelevant game playing by you. Now you are bluffing.

See, look at that. So quick with the "your claim is not valid" quip that you wound up doing the same thing you accuse me of.

I am beginning to think these "your claim is unsupported" statements are automatic reflex kind of responses.

They are just said without thinking...just, automatically.

Anyways, the difference between my claim and your claim is, my claim is fireproof...it can be demonstrated mathematically and logically.

Your claim is just the default position of someone who doesn't like the idea of a God.

That is the difference.

So many words and not a single answer to my questions. It's almost as if you are trapped by your own unverifiable claims.

So I take it you admit defeat?

 

[Kharisym]

...

Okay, this is gonna get a bit long and complicated. If things start getting too big, I'd say either one of us can drop the scope of the conversation down to whatever we find the most fun. For me, this is more about enjoyment and challenging my beliefs, not about 'winning' and so I'm happy to leave some things in the grave if stuff gets too long winded.

Sorry for missing your points, but please don't assume that my not understanding you first try is intentional. That's what discussion is for, understanding each other. I am honestly trying to understand your claims and give them serious consideration, but I am only human and not psychic. If you doubt my honesty in discussing this with you, then let me know so we can end our discussion here--Unless we're both approaching this with trust and honesty with each other I will not achieve my goals in this conversation and it will be a waste of time.

To clarify where my stance comes from: I think we can both agree that the nature of things outside our universe is not known to us. We don't know if time exists, something similar but different to time, if nothing exists, or something other than nothing. There is no known mechanism for us to extrapolate what the rules are outside our universe. My entire belief regarding if the universe has an intelligent creator or not is premised on the fact that we do not know the rules by which the extra-universal space (if there is any) operates. This puts me in a position of weighing claims based entirely on their constituent assumptions and I try to form my beliefs without any reliance upon assumptions what what exists *out there*. I do understand that this doesn't work with where your coming from, so for fun I'll discuss this stuff with you using some of your premise about what exists beyond our universe. If you're game for it, though, I would enjoy discussing this from a framework of complete unknowing since that is really the only approach that will challenge my views.

Now to the discussion:

Spoiler: 1

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here so I'll try and frame it in ways I understand.

A few definitions:
The universe encompasses all space and time that maintains continuity with the structure and laws as we experience here on earth. This is assumed to extend past our observable universe.

What exists beyond our universe I'll call the extra-universe. The reason I'm not using the term multiverse is because multiverse assumes the existence of other universes. An extra-universe is just a statement that something exists outside our universe and makes no assumptions about what it might be. I will assume that the extra-universe is *something* such that even 0 dimensions can be something, as opposed to nothing. I think of this concept like the values 0 and null. If the universe has an external cause (and I will accept that premise for the purposes of our discussion), whether god, a force, or a computer simulation, then the extra-universe must be something other than null.

Time frames are just specifications of what time is being measured against. For now we'll assume the universe as a whole as an individual time frame, and the extra universe as a whole as its own individual time frame since I think your argument in (1) is premised on this assumption.

If I understand you correctly, then what you're saying is that a) Both the universe and extra-universe experience time, b) The extra universe's time frame extends infinitely into the past, and c) our universe has a start point that is some real number value in the past.

There are a few answers to this. a) the extra universe does not experience time at all, b) We're not the only universe (multiverse boogeyman!), c) Experiences in how time is perceived is drastically different between the universe and extra-universe d) The time frame of the extra-universe is finite.

I'm going to discount D. Circular time in the extra-universe runs into several problems with our measurements of the CMB, and an infinite regression of finite time frames is really tough for people to wrap their heads around (I don't think this is impossible, but we've both probably had that discussion and it just doesn't sound fun).

I think C is the absolutely most bizarre and would not be sufficient with such simple considerations like time moving faster or slower in one or the other. A mere difference in the speed of each time frame would not make a finite value match an infinite value. This would have to be something far more bizarre such as time in the extra universe being in a different spatial axis to our own, or even fluctuating axis. There can be some *really* fun thought experiments with this like 'if the time axis in the extra-universe coils onto itself like a coil of ropte, this could result in an infinite number of universes with starting points both serial to each other (one time 1t, another at 2t, all the way to nt), but also with starting points at the exact same moment.' I could probably come up with crazier models, so I'll discount C too. But its really fun to think about.

This leaves us with only A and B, however reading your other discussions, you seem bored with B (multiverse), so let's assume A (time doesn't exist in the extra-verse).

If time doesn't exist in the extra-verse at all, then that reasonably encompasses the possibility that we're the only universe, and constrains the origin point of the universe's time frame to the only possible point in the extra-verse's time frame, 0.

Spoiler: 2

I think you misunderstood me for this one. Given a 4 quintillian sided die, the number 3 is no more valuable than 12. Yeah, the chances of having 3 is only 1 in 4 quintillion, but the chances of it landing on *something* is 100%. Per the idea that it has to be proven that any other universe is capable of supporting life, I would disagree. By life, I assume you only care about human life, and therefore we can define life in this discussion to mean a structure capable of supporting a mind. In our universe, the materialist position posits that the mind is a product of the structure and activity of the brain (I'll cover this in three). The brain itself is just the medium of the mind and not anything special, therefore even within our universe its reasonable to state that a mind can be supported in mediums other than brains. Expanding this to alternate configurations for the universe, all that universe has to do is be capable of supporting its equivalent of structure and activity. So human, fff'tznk, it doesn't matter--it's not important which one of the potentially infinite other possibilities the universe could have been and therefore fine tuning fails in its premise that the universe must exist to support *us*.

Spoiler: 3

I'm so happy you have opinions on atheists. Instead of making assumptions about me, try to understand that I'm not psychic and if I misunderstand or miss something, instead of vitriol, try to explain. I could just as easily paint you with a broad brush that all theists blah blah blah and your just like them blah. But I'm not. Give me the same courtesy.

Let me tell you what it looks like to me when you say stuff like "Lord knows that is really the only thing any of you have offered by way of refutation on here...outside of straw mans and red herrings." It insinuates to me that you're not here for honest discussion, but rather are just here to get an anger woody and convince yourself that you pwned another atheist. If this insinuation is true then that'd be mighty childish, so I'll assume I just misunderstood you.

Now to the actual point, I'm a materialist, so I don't see the mind as anything special. Gonna get a bit technical here so gird your loins and grab your favorite beverage.

I ascribe to something called the theory of self representation for what makes the mind special. Basically it goes like this:
All objects in the universe can have the property of representation. For almost all objects in the universe, this property of representation must be assigned by an external source, ie a rock only represents a mountain because a person assigns the value of representing a mountain to that rock. There is only a single thing in the universe that we know of which has representation without external assignment: Mind states.

Mind states are the activation structure of a collection of neurons. These mind states must be self representative because if an external thing such as a different brain region or a god were to assign representation to these mindstates, then you end up in the realm of infinite regression, aka the humunculus fallacy.

A god assigning mindstates their representative quality still falls awry of the humunculus fallacy because the mind states of that god would also have to have something external to itself assign their representative qualities, and if a god's mindstates can be self representative, then why can't a humans?

So given the above, we've established that the unique property that makes a mind is that its mindstates are self representative, and that these mind states cannot have external representation without engaging the humunculus fallacy. Since self representation must necessarily be a quality inherent to our mind states, and since mind states are the activation structure of a collection of neurons, and since neurons are purely natural structures, it follows that self representation *can* arise from natural things. The system is composed of natural things, therefore the system can give rise to mind states.

I vote we drop 2. In my opinion 2 has devolved into an extension of 3. While I find 1 to be extraordinarily fun, I've accepted premises in it that have no bearing on the underpinnings of my beliefs about the structure of any potential extra-verse and therefore would not achieve my goal of challenging my beliefs. I'm happy to continue 1 if you want purely for the pleasure of the thought knots it wraps my brain into.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is perplexing

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

Discussions in this thread ar enot in anyway restrict to any one or other person. It is not your thread to make such claims or restrictions in who posts.

2 make random and irrelevant claims

Specify which claims are random and irrelevant.

3 I respond to your claim

You failed to respond coherently in terms of science

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

What discordances or inconsistencies?

You obviously doe not know what falsification means in Methodological Naturalism.

 

[questfortruth]

This is a Baha’i article I came across. Please kindly share your views.

Too complicated. Here is simple:
Proof of God

 

[questfortruth]

If it proves anything it's that a God is not known to exist.

Where the world come from? Only two answers possible: From God, I do not know. Answer Not from God is impossible. Hence, From God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Don't worry. I'm very aware of the many gaps of knowledge that exists at the frontiers of physics.
I'm also very aware that the point being discussed (start of the space-time continuum and how that worked) are currently as unknown as can be.

And although I'm not a physicist, far from it, and only have superficial bits of knowledge, the main point here that by the scientific body of knowledge that back those models up, these models are at least plausible.

They have their problems, their unanswered questions, etc. To many for any single one of them to be considered conclusive. But they also nevertheless have good stuff backing them up. Making them plausible.

They at least attempt to deal with what we actually see in reality. These are ideas not simply taken from ancient books and just believed. These are ideas that are derived from studying actual reality, and adjusted and tweaked or discarded upon further study of reality... for the purpose of actually accurately matching reality. Describing it, predicting it.

The point is that you just can't cast it aside for and replace it with bare religious assertions, for the sole reason that you happen to already believe the bare religious assertions.... on faith even, of all things.


That's the point.

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

We don't know anything about what happened before planck time. Which is what again... 10^-43 sec or something?

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.

Which, given what we do know, is a nonsensical thing to talk about.
Time is part of the domain you are trying to explain the origins of.
There is no "before" time. So how could there be a cause?
There is no "time" for a cause to happen in.

You can't logically use the universe, to explain the origins of the universe.
It is circular reasoning.

Exactly.
So stop invoking causality to explain the universe.
Causality is a phenomenon of the physics IN the universe. Physics that rely on the existence of space and time. Which is the universe.

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).

I'm just gonna skip the oxymoron of a "cause of time" and just grant you "a cause" for the sake of argument.
Why would it have to be a sentient thing? This smells like an assumed conclusion again.

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.

Systematical rejection couldn't possibly be because of problems with the statement like hidden premises, assumed conclusions and such? No?

Either I agree with you OR I'm wrong?
It can't possibly be you who is incorrect here?

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

Yes, you have made that bare claim many times now.
You have yet to support it.

Show how it is plausible in any way.

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

Haaaa.....
You're one of those.

A lot of stuff suddenly makes sense now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I
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 universe began at T = 0.
The question you ask reveals your ignorance about what the universe actually is.

The universe started at no time. Time ITSELF started when the universe started.
So, the universe started at T = 0.

The universe starting at time "y" or "A" or "B" instead of T = 0, is so nonsensical ... its in the category of "not even wrong".

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.

First of all, that's a hilarious attempt. Again in the category of "not even wrong".

Secondly: it's not an arbitrary time. The start of time can only start at T = 0.

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..

No. What we instead have here is a combo of the following:
- argument from ignorance
- argument from incredulity
- argument from awe
- assumed conclusion / hidden premise

And after asking a few questions, I'm sure we can add special pleading to that list as well.

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?

They are produced by the brain.
Read up on neurology.

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.

Another bare statement with no evidence that flies in the face of evidence we do have.
Also includes hints of the assumed conclusion that will likely follow.

No charge for the lesson, amigo.

Was the lesson "spot the fallacy"?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The fact that those models exist is more than enough to establish that our universe had a beginning

No, It's not. Furthermore, the comment is quite bizarre. Somehow you think that if certain cosmological models exist determines what the history of the universe was. It doesn't.

If the universe never began (and is eternal), wouldn't time also be eternal?

Yes, eternal into the past and potentially eternal into the future. And if the universe had a beginning, that instant might be a point in an infinite timeline of a prior substance if one were the source of the universe. Or, the universe came into existence from nothing, at which point time began to exist. Or it has always existed, eternally banging and crunching. None of these can be ruled in or out at this time using reason applied to evidence, and as I explained when discussing Craig, I'm not much interested in proclamations arrived by any other method, such as the one you and he like - ruling out with the wave of a hand leading to a theistic non sequitur.

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

That's fine. As I said, there is only one type of discussion that has any value in resolving differences - dialectic - which requires both parties employ the rules of critical analysis. And the only ideas I consider knowledge are sound conclusions derived from the proper application of reason to true premises and evidence. The dicta of faith, which don't derive from from this process, aren't knowledge. That appears to be what you and Craig have to offer. You both believe in gods by faith, and that drives what you permit yourself to see (faith-based confirmation bias). It tells you it's OK to disregard logical possibilities even if you can't justify doing so using reason. And so, you make comments like the one above. Your mind is closed just like Craig's. He'll tell you that his is closed. See if you don't agree with this:

"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right."

This appears to be how you process information as well - simply reject out of hand whatever doesn't conform to what one has chosen to believe by faith to "authenticate" the "witness of the Holy Spirit." As I said, I'm not interested in the opinions of people that think this way.

I've explained why 3 of the 4 FAILED.

No, you haven't. You called one "worse that magic" and two "logically impossible." Those are unsupported opinions, and are rejected because of that. Like I said, there are rules to critical thought. Violate them, and you generate unsound conclusions.

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

The KCA is refuted. You can find the refutation on this thread and on the Internet. You can find my refutation in this thread. You never rebutted that. You simply dismissed much of it out of hand. There is no value in repeating my refutation, which stands unrebutted. Remember, dissent alone is not rebuttal. You'd need to show where the conclusions of the rebuttal are incorrect, which you haven't done. Remember this as well: you cannot successfully rebut a correct statement.

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

Why would I be more interested in what Craig has to say? He a typical Christian apologist. His agenda, methods, and values are not mine, and as I've explained, his reasoning flawed and his mind closed to contradictory evidence. It's a familiar pattern.

 

[leroy]

Discussions in this thread ar enot in anyway restrict to any one or other person. It is not your thread to make such claims or restrictions in who posts.

Granted, but what is the point of quoting a comment if you are going to make a random and unrelated claim?

Specify which claims are random and irrelevant.

In the context of the conversation, we where discussing weather if cause and effect can be simultaneous or not.

So any comment unrelated to that issue is random and irrelevant

You failed to respond coherently in terms of science

The fact that you ignored my response strongly suggests that I made a good response that you were unable to address.

 

[leroy]

What discordances or inconsistencies?

You obviously doe not know what falsification means in Methodological Naturalism.

Those mentiiones in the paper that I quoted.

 

[shunyadragon]

Those mentiiones in the paper that I quoted.

Selecting citing references to justify your agenda reflect you are clueless as to Quantum Mechanics.

 

[F1fan]

Where the world come from?

Are you asking "Where did the world come from?" Well earth formed like any other planet, from debris that compresses more and more due to gravity and other forces.

Only two answers possible: From God, I do not know. Answer Not from God is impossible. Hence, From God.

How is a God possible at all? There are no known gods to exist outside of human imagination, so how can you say it is a possibility? Your assertion here is more likely due to religious influence rather than any evidence. No one has show evidence of any gods, so why should we accept your belief that it is possible?

These arguments are weak and inevitably rely on assuming a God exists, and that is the fatal flaw.

 

[questfortruth]

No one can show evidence of any gods. These arguments are weak and inevitably rely on assuming a God exists.

There are millions of gods and goddess recorded by researches in the world.
What gives atheists right to say, that they are not gods?

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi lli Monster, appreciate your imput.

This don't seem quite right. For instance, the "Many-Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is just that...an interpretation of quantum mechanical results. Not a prediction of what results we should expect from quantum mechanics. The results we have and some of them are problematic and weren't predicted. Specifically problems of measurement. The interpretation is an attempt to resolve the problems.

Quantum mechanics didn't predict the multiverse. The multiverse is an attempt (an interpretation) at resolving the results quantum mechanics seem to give us.

This is true but muddles the issue of understanding the basics of Quantum Mechanics as the potentially timeless, boundless infinite foundation of our physical existence regardless of whether 'possible' other universes or the multiverse exists or not. Any argument for possible beginnings is a vague 'argument from ignorance' based on a religious agenda. Science does not make these assumptions. There is no evidence that our universe and physical existence are temporal or finite. The existing theories and hypotheses do not nor can they reach this conclusion. Therefore the assumption of KCA arguments have no basis unless by faith you believe our physical existence has a beginning. The KCA arguments are dependent on 'believing' in this assumption.

The basic relationship between the Quantum World and our macro time/space dimensional universe is the issue. The Quantum World that underlies our physical existence is timeless like the macro world of our universe. There is no continuous time/space existence in the Quantum World. Time in the Quantum World is not continuous and limited to the momentary behavior of the basic particles of matter and measured in Quanta.

 

[shunyadragon]

Those mentiiones in the paper that I quoted.

Meaningless. because you do not remotely understand the principle of falsification in science. The papers you cited do not reach the conclusions you make, because you take things out of context to justify your religious agenda.

Fundamentally there is absolutely no evidence to justify the assumptions of KCA arguments that our physical existence has a beginning.

 

[ppp]

There are millions of gods and goddess recorded by researches in the world.

There are millions of stories about deities recorded. A story about something is not the thing.