Mathematical Proof of God?

[leroy]

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.

And according to you what is my conclusion?

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

Jajaja that is ridiculous

Yes there is “some evidence” and no serious scientists would deny it // the controversy is on weather if the evidence is good enough or not, but nobody disputes that there is evidence,

 

[F1fan]

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

Millions you say? They must be breeding like sewer rats.

What gives atheists right to say, that they are not gods?

What gods? Atheists don't care. But we atheists do have the intellectual right and authority to assess any claims made by believers.

Your real problem is all the monotheists who you offended. Some of them can be quite violent in response to being offended, so be careful.

 

[F1fan]

Yes there is “some evidence” and no serious scientists would deny it // the controversy is on weather if the evidence is good enough or not, but nobody disputes that there is evidence,

Some evidence, you say? Well lets see this evidence. Make sure it is factual, not assumptions or beliefs that theists confuse as being fact.

 

[shunyadragon]

And according to you what is my conclusion?




Jajaja that is ridiculous

Yes there is “some evidence” and no serious scientists would deny it // the controversy is on weather if the evidence is good enough or not, but nobody disputes that there is evidence,

Please present the "some" evidence that 'no serious scientists would deny.'

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

No gods have been identified by any means. Plenty of mythologies that include deities have been found, but no gods.

What gives atheists right to say, that they are not gods?

What atheists say about all gods is the same thing you say about all but one. Whatever you think gives you that right is the same thing that gives the skeptic the right (and duty, even) to also reject them, and yours as well. One could ask what gives you the right to pick just one and believe in it. The only rights involved here are the right to think freely. You seem to think that others, but not you, need permission to hold opinions about gods.

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

No, the answer "not from God" is possible. It's the hard (gnostic) atheist's position, where "God" means any deity believed to exist by anyone at any time, and it's this agnostic atheist's position regarding the one you likely mean, the Christian god. That god has been ruled out by pure reason. Tri-omni deities don't make errors they regret like mankind in the time of Noah, and wouldn't try to correct them using the same breeding stock. That deity doesn't exist for the same reason that married bachelors don't exist. Likewise, an imperfect perfect god doesn't exist.

Moreover, that same god has been ruled out by evidence (empirically). The evidence for the theory of evolution rules out the possibility of an honest, loving god that wants to be known and believed, and who claims to have created life as the biblical deity allegedly did. Even were the theory falsified tomorrow, it doesn't rescue that deity. It simply means that a deceptive intelligent designer went to great pains to make it appear that evolution occurred naturalistically. That's not the deity of the Christian Bible. In fact, the most likely deceptive intelligent designer would be a race of extraterrestrials that themselves evolved naturalistically, not a supernatural deity.

 

[leroy]

Please present the "some" evidence that 'no serious scientists would deny.'

evidnece: the universe seems to be expanding

 

[shunyadragon]

evidnece: the universe seems to be expanding

That is only evidence that the universe is expanding nothing less and nothing more. Not related to any scientific evidence as to whether God exists or not.

Please present the "some" evidence that 'no serious scientists would deny [as to whether God exists or not.].'

 

[Kharisym]

evidnece: the universe seems to be expanding

I don't see how, 'The universe is expanding'

That is only evidence that the universe is expanding nothing less and nothing more. Not related to any scientific evidence as to whether God exists or not.

Please present the "some" evidence that 'no serious scientists would deny [as to whether God exists or not.].'

I think Leroy is references the BGV (Borde Guth Vilenkin) theorem. I haven't looked into the BGV in detail so I can't make any claims about it.

Am I correct, Leroy? If so, I'm not going to defend it. Just getting you two out of a conversational rutt.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

If it was valid you wouldn't have to defend it.

Non sequitur.

And if the rest of us are missing something then exlain what we are missing.

I will, once it is admitted that "we do not know much about the argument of which we are critiquing".

Can you admit that?

Thus far you are making critical factual errors that you have not addressed.

Factual errors like what?

I notice in other responses that you often refer to God as if it is real, and that is an error itself.

Well then, from my vantage point, when you refer to God as a false, fictional belief, then that is an error itself.

See what I did there?

No gods have been demonstrated to exist.

Well first of all, this is a text book example of a non sequitur that you and others, in your smug/contemptuous ways, keep coming.

Lets conduct a syllogism test and see if your statement passes the logic & reasoning test, shall we?

1. No gods have been demonstrated to exist.

2. Therefore, no gods exist.

Non sequitur. Test; failed.

Just like aliens have not been demonstrated to exist, but it does not follow that therefore, no aliens exist.

So it may be better for you to rephrase your future thinking into..

"So far, I have not seen any convincing evidence of any gods, so I do not believe any gods".

Of course, I will disagree with you, but at least your statement will be logical and not fallacious.

Your argument is supposed to prove a God exists, yes?

The arguments that I listed for the existence of a God is convincing/persuasive to me...and I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists.

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

Yeah, and the argument against infinite regression is a key, fundamental point of P2 of the KCA, and I simply assumed that those who were on here critiquing the KCA would already be familiar with how the argument works as it relates to infinite regress.

I was wrong.

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.

You are WRONG. Again, one has to actual know the argument in order to state what the argument does, and doesn't do.

When you don't know the argument, then that is where you make inaccurate assessments of the argument, as is evident here.

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.

This is light work, sir.

hahaha.

Irrelevant game playing by you. Now you are bluffing.

Don't make statements of knowledge if you do not want to be called to prove your case.

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?

Admit defeat? Admit defeat from who? You?

hahaha.

 

[leroy]

I don't see how, 'The universe is expanding'


I think Leroy is references the BGV (Borde Guth Vilenkin) theorem. I haven't looked into the BGV in detail so I can't make any claims about it.

Am I correct, Leroy? If so, I'm not going to defend it. Just getting you two out of a conversational rutt.

Yes i AM talkign about the BGV theorem

Which shows that any universe that is expanding on average has to have a beginning and it seems to be the case that our universe is expanding

 

[Kharisym]

Yes i AM talkign about the BGV theorem

Which shows that any universe that is expanding on average has to have a beginning and it seems to be the case that our universe is expanding

Why did you drag it out then? :-( Just stating that your referencing BGV would have cut down a huge amount of irritation between the two of you. Not everyone is familiar with it, and if its the underpinning of your claim then its a bit important to state it. lol.

 

[F1fan]

Well then, from my vantage point, when you refer to God as a false, fictional belief, then that is an error itself.

Your vantage point is irrelevant. What is relevant is what facts you can bring to the table to create a valid argument. Kalam doesn't do it as has been outlined by numerous people.

Lets conduct a syllogism test and see if your statement passes the logic & reasoning test, shall we?

1. No gods have been demonstrated to exist.

2. Therefore, no gods exist.

Non sequitur. Test; failed.

The problem is that you rely on the assumption that a God exists for the argument to work. It is assuming the conclusion, and that is a fallacy. The whole argument, among others, is designed to "prove" a God exists. But it is careful to craft premises that massage an invalid conclusion. Logic is designed to create valid conclusions, and to do this fallacies have to be avoided, along with assumptions.

You refer to a God existing, then that opens the door to you being asked to demonstrate your specific god exists. Theists can't even demonstrate any kind of god exists, nor that any sort of supernatural phenomenon exists. Just like pascal's wager it's designed to bolster the belief of theists who are willing to overlook the basic flaws.

The arguments that I listed for the existence of a God is convincing/persuasive to me...and I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists.

We don't care about your personal beliefs. They are irrelevant.

Yeah, and the argument against infinite regression is a key, fundamental point of P2 of the KCA, and I simply assumed that those who were on here critiquing the KCA would already be familiar with how the argument works as it relates to infinite regress.

I was wrong.

You were wrong to assert infinite regress impossible. It's not a fact, so not a valid premise, yet Kalam depends on it. This is one reason it fails.

You are WRONG. Again, one has to actual know the argument in order to state what the argument does, and doesn't do.

When you don't know the argument, then that is where you make inaccurate assessments of the argument, as is evident here.

Yet you don't bother to explain how me, or anyone else, is getting it wrong. The Kalam is pretty simple, and the language is easy to follow, so go ahead and explain what we are not understanding.

 

[Kharisym]

@F1fan @shunyadragon

Looking into the BGV Theorem stuff has certainly lead down a rabbithole. Here's a paper that claims to break the finite history conclusion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4554.pdf

Here are some other things:
Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem | Wikiwand
Borde, Arvind; Guth, Alan H.; Vilenkin, Alexander (15 April 2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions"
Carroll, Sean (2014-02-24). "Post-Debate Reflections". Sean Carroll Blog. Archived from the original on 2014-02-25. Retrieved 2019-11-19. -- Post-Debate Reflections – Sean Carroll
Carroll, Sean M. (2018-06-04). "Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?". arXiv:1802.02231 [physics.hist-ph].

I'm just doing background research to get a sense of the larger topic and haven't looked at any of these sources to any level of detail, but its certainly a neat wonderland.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes i AM talkign about the BGV theorem

Which shows that any universe that is expanding on average has to have a beginning and it seems to be the case that our universe is expanding

How does this have anything to do with the existence of God>

 

[rational experiences]

Humans quote mass was held cooling and pressurised.

The human teaching says remove mass then space opens.

So space gets larger as mass is removed. Therefore pressure is constantly changing is a scientific warning...don't change any balance.

The God a man human wants. He says first. I'm a natural man human. My life depends upon the rock planet.

So I say why I made this statement. A human population consensus says yes it's common sense.

O planet Rock. It's our God in science a correct chosen human teaching.

Science a chosen human practice only.

Terms of science taught by humans.

So thinker says my highest wisdom is I need God to be held as mass. Always must my converting of earths mass align to mass. I need my formula to return to mass.

I must keep it as mass. Human advice only. As first you are a human conscious of your own needs.

Isn't any destroyer human gain in science.... as I want for my machines...resources. and place the gain as the highest importance.

Consciousness told you removing mass could cause mass to not exist.

History said if you only used sailing ships less wars wound be fought.

If you didn't invent metals then we wouldn't have weapons....cars we didn't need or any type of resource user. Going fast kills biology is dangerous.

We could have lived a well thought upon life if you looked ahead instead of looking back.

Is a liar humans self destructive teaching.

 

[shunyadragon]

@F1fan @shunyadragon

Looking into the BGV Theorem stuff has certainly lead down a rabbithole. Here's a paper that claims to break the finite history conclusion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4554.pdf

Here are some other things:
Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem | Wikiwand
Borde, Arvind; Guth, Alan H.; Vilenkin, Alexander (15 April 2003). "Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions"
Carroll, Sean (2014-02-24). "Post-Debate Reflections". Sean Carroll Blog. Archived from the original on 2014-02-25. Retrieved 2019-11-19. -- Post-Debate Reflections – Sean Carroll
Carroll, Sean M. (2018-06-04). "Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?". arXiv:1802.02231 [physics.hist-ph].

I'm just doing background research to get a sense of the larger topic and haven't looked at any of these sources to any level of detail, but its certainly a neat wonderland.

I have addressed this problem in the past in general, but it was ignored. The first problem with selectively using the BGV Theorem in this or any other Theological argument is that it is only one of a number of cosmological hypotheses concerning the origin of our universe, and it proposes the possibility of a multiverse and none propose an absolute beginning of our physical existence, The BGV Theorem is not universally agreed in cosmology. Pretty much all cosmologists acknowledge the possibility of a multiverse, and that our universe and all possible universes form from preexisting Quantum existence based on Quantum mechanics,

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes i AM talkign about the BGV theorem

Which shows that any universe that is expanding on average has to have a beginning and it seems to be the case that our universe is expanding

As in past your posts on your part selectively referring to the BGV Theorem does not support your argument for a finite beginning of our physical existence or conclusively a finite beginning of our universe.

I have addressed this problem in the past in general, but it was ignored. The first problem with selectively using the BGV Theorem in this or any other Theological argument is that it is only one of a number of cosmological hypotheses concerning the origin of our universe, and it proposes the possibility of a multiverse and none propose an absolute beginning of our physical existence, The BGV Theorem is not universally agreed in cosmology. Pretty much all cosmologists acknowledge the possibility of a multiverse, and that our universe and all possible universes form from preexisting Quantum existence based on Quantum mechanics,

 

[leroy]

How does this have anything to do with the existence of God>

You keep changing the topic.....I was responding to your original question which had to do with the evidence for a beginning

So ether accept this evidence or refute it

 

[leroy]

As in past your posts on your part selectively referring to the BGV Theorem does not support your argument for a finite beginning of our physical existence or conclusively a finite beginning of our universe.

I have addressed this problem in the past in general, but it was ignored. The first problem with selectively using the BGV Theorem in this or any other Theological argument is that it is only one of a number of cosmological hypotheses concerning the origin of our universe, and it proposes the possibility of a multiverse and none propose an absolute beginning of our physical existence, The BGV Theorem is not universally agreed in cosmology. Pretty much all cosmologists acknowledge the possibility of a multiverse, and that our universe and all possible universes form from preexisting Quantum existence based on Quantum mechanics,

Well at most you could say that the BGV is not conclusive evidence

But it is still evidence for a beginning

Pretty much all cosmologists acknowledge the possibility of a multiverse, and that our universe and all possible universes form from preexisting Quantum existence based on Quantum mechanics,

So what? The BGV theorem doesn't claim the opposite//

 

[shunyadragon]

Well at most you could say that the BGV is not conclusive evidence

But it is still evidence for a beginning.

Only a beginning from preexisting Quantum existence in a possible multiverse, The BGV Theorem is not evidenced it is a Theorem based on the interpretation of the evidence heavy in being a math model,

So what? The BGV theorem doesn't claim the opposite//

Confusing? Opposite of what? It does not propose an 'absolute beginning of our universe.' It proposes the formation of our universe from preexisting Quantum existence