Mathematical Proof of God?

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

.

Okay, this is gonna get a bit long and complicated.

A small thing to a giant.

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.

I am competitive and love challenges.

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.

For me, it is about winning people over to Christ. If not, then I will just take the win, in general.

Hahaha.

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.

Understood. Unlike what I see from others on here, I genuinely detect honesty and sincerity coming from you. I will do my part to keep things on the up & up and I have no doubt that you will do the same.

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.

True, but see, laws of logic transcend space-time. For example, the argument against infinite regress, this impossibility not only holds true on Earth, but in Heaven as well.

So that being said, we don’t have to know what is beyond our universe in order to falsify certain propositions.

We don't know if time exists, something similar but different to time, if nothing exists, or something other than nothing.

I think time is an irreversible effect that is here to stay in any realm of reality. And we can use both inductive and deductive reasoning to draw conclusions of a supernatural reality.

There is no known mechanism for us to extrapolate what the rules are outside our universe.

Laws of logic applies to any possible world…and even mathematical proofs; 2+2=4 in all possible worlds.

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.

Laws of logic and mathematical truths, applies to any possible world.

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.

I’m down.

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.

Wow. Impressive.

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.

I’m with you so far.

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.

Ahhh. Not so fast. The argument is that God was timeless or (atemporal) before creation, and from the moment of creation (t=0), God entered into time (or initiated time), and now God is currently in time, just like you and I are.

So as of now, God operates within time.

If I understand you correctly, then what you're saying is that a) Both the universe and extra-universe experience time

Both the universe and extra-universe now experiences time. But the extra-universe did not experience time before time was initiated with the creation of the universe.

The universe and time, both began to exist simultaneously. You cannot have one without the other. It is called the space-time continuum.

, b) The extra universe's time frame extends infinitely into the past

Nope. Actually, the extra-universe time frame could not have extended infinitely into the past. Remember, the problem with infinity regress; that problem applies even to God and heaven’s realm.

Since the laws of logic applies, even to God and in heaven, then we cannot fallaciously special plead because we want it to suit our fancy when it comes to God.

We must apply the same rules with God, which we have no problems doing, since we are dealing with a logical/rational concept of God anyway.

, and c) our universe has a start point that is some real number value in the past.

Yes. The universe has a start point that has some real number value.

There are a few answers to this. a) the extra universe does not experience time at all,

The extra universe experiences time.

b) We're not the only universe (multiverse boogeyman!)

The multiverse theory is not an adequate explanation to negate the philosophical problems, nor is the theory an adequate explanation to explain the empirical data (or in spite of the empirical data).

c) Experiences in how time is perceived is drastically different between the universe and extra-universe

I see no evidence that it is.

d) The time frame of the extra-universe is finite.

Yes. Finite into the past, infinite into the future.

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).

Infinite regression is indeed impossible and this poses a tough problem for people who don’t like the implications of a finite universe.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

An infinite number of universes cannot exist, though.

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).

No need to assume, because time does 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.

Time exists in the extra-verse.

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%.

Wait a minute, didn’t you state that 3 is the “life permitting” side? Well, that IS the value.

And that is the point; only one of the sides has the life permitting value (thus, 1 chance in X). The chances of it landing on something is 100%, but casino patrons don’t gamble so that the die can land on something, but rather, a specific something.

Per the idea that it has to be proven that any other universe is capable of supporting life, I would disagree.

My point was; any universe which supports life must be fined-tuned, regardless.

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.

Not necessarily. Tell ya what, I will make it easier for you; lets define life as “any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli.”


Minds need not be included, because that is kind of a separate issue, which is even more of a problem for the naturalist.

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).

With all due respect, that is an inaccurate position.

The mind correlates with the brain, but it isn’t a byproduct of the brain, no more than the images on your tv screen (or computer) a byproduct of the television.


The images on your screen are manifested due to external input, not internal inputs.

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.

I certainly agree with that, because after all, on Christian theism, God has a mind, but doesn’t have a brain.

So it is apparent that a brain is not a requirement for a mind.

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*.

Not so fast. Remember, the odds are 1 chance in 10^10^123. Gold was struck on the first try, and the odds were astronomically against it..yet it was accomplished.

The 10^10^123 probability is based on the initial conditions ALONE, meaning that the initial conditions themselves had to be fine-tuned before you even have the chance of having life…and even once the conditions were met, you are still far from life, considering that the initial condition parameters are independent of the parameters relating to the cosmic constants (their values), which would also need to be precisely set and could not be off by a tiniest degree.

That is all engineering at its finest…and mindless & blind forces do not accomplish those feats…but minds can.

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.

Courtesy given.

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.

Well, as I had a stated, the focal point(s) of what I said was ignored and instead, the common, typical atheistic quip was given.

It happens all the time, and it happened with you. So I just simply call it how I see it.

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.

What is your best evidence for materialism?

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.

The problem with that is; all the physical objects within the universe, or STEM (space, time, energy, mass), began to exist. So you can only trace each representation back so far until there is nothing there for anything to be represented. Yet, there needs to be an explanation of STEM’s origins, and you cannot logically provide an explanation of STEM’s origins by looking within STEM.

An external explanation is needed…and not only is it needed, but it is absolutely, positively necessary.

There is only a single thing in the universe that we know of which has representation without external assignment: Mind states.

Ultimately less, as I believe that God’s mind has representation without external assignment, but that certainly isn’t the case for finite, human minds.

Mind states are the activation structure of a collection of neurons.

Not necessarily true. I don’t know exactly how the mind correlates with the brain, and I don’t think anyone does…HOWEVER, it is clear that they are not the same thing.

When you are sad, your neurons aren’t sad. When you are angry, your neurons aren’t angry. When you are happy, your neurons aren’t happy. When you think of an apple, your neurons aren’t thinking about the apple, nor are your neurons THE apple that you are thinking of.

It is as if there is an inner self, that isn’t being accounted for, which has those thoughts and feelings beyond the chemicals in your brain.

This “self”, is your soul. You are more than just a blob of matter, you are special. You have a God-given soul, which is the real you, which will continue to exist even when your physical body no longer operates.

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.

Please clarify.

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?

Why are you under the impression that the mind states of that god would also have to have something external to itself to assign their representative qualities?

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.

Please clarify what you mean. Because from the looks of things, it is a non sequitur.

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.

Since the neurons began to exist (along with the rest of STEM), and given the fact that a case can/has been made that a mind was required to bring STEM into existence, then it logically follows that neurons was not needed for the mind which created neurons (and STEM) to exist.

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

Lets carry on as is, as see where it goes.

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.

 

[Sheldon]

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

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.

No he's not wrong, the claim he made was correct, you were wrong in your unevidenced and facile assumption that "everything must has a cause". Firstly as @TagliatelliMonster explained, there is objective from quantum mechanics that this is untrue, simply denying this is nonsense. Secondly, in every single instance where we understand a cause, they are always natural causes. Thirdly those causes all occurred within the physical temporal universe, so it's very poor reasoning to assume this necessarily would be the case before that universe existed in the form we currently observe. Lastly the even as flawed as it is, the KCA is a first cause argument, not a theistic one, and WLC simply piles the assumptions on at the end, that a deity has x y and z characteristics, this is a begging the question fallacy clearly, and then that this would make such a deity necessary in order to create a universe, again a begging the question fallacy.

If you're going to indulge this kind of hubris and arrogance in your posts, I'd suggest you don't use WLC as a source, he is a very poor debater and philosopher, his reasoning is often so blindly biased it is risible, even for a religious apologist.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

It is you who did this, using the KCA, @TagliatelliMonster was pointing this out. You claimed everything that begins to exist has has a cause, and cause (a dubious prospect anyway), but then claimed this meant the universe itself must have had a cause, thus using a perceived characteristic of the physical temporal universe, to make an unevidenced assumption about a state where it didn't exist. Now you are pointing out it fallacious reasoning to others who have told you this very thing, bizarre...

 

[Sheldon]

1. The universe began 137 billion years ago: What is the significance of that time frame?

Well the most significant fact I can see is that you're wildly wrong.

I have to hope you have missed out a decimal point there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

It just means that Kalam isn't an argument for God at all.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

Oh brother, time is a natural phenomenon of the physical universe, time would not have existed prior the physical universe, so your claim that something was eternal, as well as being unevidenced assumption, is risible.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Ok I have clearly been taken in by an elaborate wheeze. Mea culpa.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Sigh, how does something begin, when time itself doesn't exist? You do understand what the word beginning means don't you?

beginning
noun

1. the point in time or space at which something begins.

Time and space didn't exist, so you have rather made a hash of this haven't you.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Maybe you are, I am content to accept the facts. Unlike apologists I don't need them to fit any narrative or belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

The KCA is an ancient and traditional apologetic argument for the existence of God based on the 'assumption' that physical existence had a necessary absolute beginning.

 

[Sheldon]

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

So a god of the gaps polemic then, using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that a deity is even possible?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The KCA is an ancient and traditional apologetic argument for the existence of God based on the 'assumption' that physical existence had a necessary absolute beginning.

Except it isn't an argument for God at all.

It doesn't even mention God.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

It is unknown to physicists, it is known to Christian theologians.

That may not mean anything to you, just like the ignorance of scientists doesn't mean anything to me.

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.

I know just enough to get me by

As far as plausible models; any presentable model, in order for it to carry weight, it must hold true in spite of what we already know, which most doesn't.

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.

The Standard Big Bang model has the most empirical evidence supporting it...it has a history of evidence pouring in to support it.

All other models are attempts to best explain it, and they all fail because the evidence for a beginning of the universe is so strong that it is a virtual fact in cosmology.

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.

Funny you should mention "ancient books", because Gen 1:1,

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth"

Keyword: Beginning.

That was written thousands of years ago when everyone thought the universe was infinite/eternal.

And yet just in the last century, scientists have just discovered and concluded what the Bible had been saying for thousands of years within the first 10 words of the book, that the universe had a beginning.

So it sounds to me as if the Bible was right.

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.

I go where the evidence takes me, plain and simple.

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

The BGV theorem holds true regardless on what happened before planck time.

Not to mention the philosophical arguments, which holds true regardless of any naturalistic explanation you can possible give.

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.

Time cannot be stretched backwards to infinity past. It is impossible.

As I stated before, there was no chronological "before" time, but there was a causal "before" time.

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.

The universe began to exist. And everything that begins to exist has a cause. Point blank, period.

Nothing within the universe can be used to explain the cause of the universe.

I'm just gonna skip the oxymoron of a "cause of time" and just grant you "a cause" for the sake of argument.

There was a cause of time.

Why would it have to be a sentient thing? This smells like an assumed conclusion again.

Because only a sentient being can decide to create at X time instead of Y time.

And only a sentient being can fine-tune/engineer the parameters which govern our universe with such precision.

I wonder how many times I will have to say this.

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

No hidden premises with me, I like a more straight-forward, bold approach.

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

Hey, you don't have to agree. Carry on with your disbelief, if you will.

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

Show how it is plausible in any way.

Show what is plausible?

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

Yeah, I am one of those who don't believe that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have never been observed to do.

I am indeed one of those.

A lot of stuff suddenly makes sense now.

Here is what makes sense; dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and fish produce fish.

If there are any exceptions to that, I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Sheldon]

The KCA is an ancient and traditional apologetic argument for the existence of God based on the 'assumption' that physical existence had a necessary absolute beginning.

Sorry to nit pick, but it wasn't, it was only a first cause argument, not a theistic one. It has been rehashed by some contemporary apologists like WLC adding a slew of new unevidenced assumptions.

 

[Sheldon]

it is known to Christian theologians.

Subjective religious belief and or experience, is not knowledge. Knowledge can be objectively demonstrated.

 

[Sheldon]

Too complicated. Here is simple:
Proof of God

That's not a proof, it is a false dichotomy fallacy though, and ironically a circular reasoning fallacy that uses a begging the question fallacy.

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

Laughable nonsense.

 

[Sheldon]

My point was; any universe which supports life must be fined-tuned, regardless.

Your point is a dubious unevidenced assumption. The expression fine tuned is not a factual one, it is a metaphor some scientists use to explain the very narrow parameters of a universe like ours that will support the kind of carbon based life we see. This doesn't mean it was actually fine tuned, though religious apologists have leaped on the phrase and misrepresent it of course, as they are so often want to do.

 

[Sheldon]

This “self”, is your soul. You are more than just a blob of matter, you are special. You have a God-given soul, which is the real you, which will continue to exist even when your physical body no longer operates.

I don't believe you, please offer something beyond an evidenced subjective claim to support this assertion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This “self”, is your soul. You are more than just a blob of matter, you are special. You have a God-given soul, which is the real you, which will continue to exist even when your physical body no longer operates.

Just wanted to quote this to highlight it as an example of the toxic crap that makes religion often not a benign thing.

We aren't special without God doing something to make us special? Really?

Is this what your church tells people so they'll be afraid to leave?

 

[shunyadragon]

Too complicated. Here is simple:
Proof of God

False. The human mind is perfectly able to do and progressively develop math since humans were the first human