Mathematical Proof of God?

[shunyadragon]

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.

Disagree. The First Cause argument was an apologetic argument from the beginning and proposed in also in Islamic apologetics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Disagree. The First Cause argument was an apologetic argument from the beginning and proposed in also in Islamic apologetics.

The Kalaam argument may have been used as an element of arguments for God, but it isn't an argument for God in its own right.

 

[shunyadragon]

False, The KCA argument was first proposed byʿIlm al-Kalām an Islamic theologian as an argument for the existence of THE first cause, God

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

False, The KCA argument was first proposed byʿIlm al-Kalām an Islamic theologian as an argument for the existence of THE first cause, God

Handy tip: arguments for God have the conclusion "therefore God exists" or words to that effect.

Again: no issue with saying that it was an element of some argument for God, but argument for God argue for God.

 

[F1fan]

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 the other stories in Genesis are incorrect, namely the Adam and Eve story and the Noah's flood story. Neither conform to what we know factually about earth and the universe. And no Gods are known to exist, so why take the stories in the Bible literally and as if they are factual?

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.

At best you can claim that our current universe and it's observable space/time has it's own God, and there might have been other Gods in other incarnations of universes, and even in a multiverse scenario. So many, many Gods, assuming any God are a real phenomenon, and not just imagined by ancient people.

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

It would because you have already decided your religious beliefs are true and you are looking desperately for validation. Doing it via biased interpretation of ancient books is dubious.

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

No, you follow the beliefs of your religious indoctrination. What scientists report is an example of people following the evidence. They report nothing about gods nor any supernatural goings on.

So, rational people defer to scientists, not various religious folks.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Yeah, I want to know what is fine tuned about a universe where children are born with genetic defects that cause cancers. How about flesh eating bacterias, or deadly viruses? That all sounds pretty hostile to life.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

You just stated that time itself started. So we both agree that time began to exist.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause, and whatever gave time its beginning could not itself be a product of time.

Elementary school logic.

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".

"Not even wrong".

You've been watching too much Sean Carrol, haven't you?

hahaha.

There is no explanation as to why STEM would began to exist when it did, when the conditions required for it to begin were there from past eternity, only for it to begin in a finite time.

Makes no sense.

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.

You are wrong.

If time started, then it started for a reason...and the question is why did it start in the first place...and why did it start at that moment, and not sooner or later.

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.

What we have here is a universe that began to exist.

That is what we have, and some of us are smart enough to understand that nature cannot be used to explain the origins of nature.

That is circular reasoning.

Now, you may be fine with that, but I'd rather stick to explanations that actually explain the effect without having to use fallacious reasoning to do so.

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

So, when I am sad, is my brain sad? Yes or no.

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.

About as assumed of a conclusion as you stating that thoughts are produced by the brain.

Was the lesson "spot the fallacy"?

No, the lesson is "educate the uneducated".

 

[F1fan]

You just stated that time itself started. So we both agree that time began to exist.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause, and whatever gave time its beginning could not itself be a product of time.

Elementary school logic.

What we call time is just how the laws of physics behave. So time didn't begin to exist, it is just a property of matter/energy after the Big Bang. We humans created what we call time as a reference for how we understand the universe.

What we have here is a universe that began to exist.

Why is this event any more significant than when the earth began to exist? Or when our sun began to exist? Or the Hawaiian Islands began to exist. According to Hawaiian lore there were gods that created the Hawaiian islands. Do you accept those stories as true?

How else do you explain all these things that began to exist but are not caused by a supernatural cause?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

You are wrong. Simply wrong.

It is difficult to talk cosmology with folks who know nothing about cosmology.

Sounds like you don't don't what the Steady State and Oscillating models were all about...not to mention the Vacuum Fluctuation and Quantum Gravity models.

No point in debating the subject if you don't know what's going on with it...all you want to do is argue, which of course, I don't have a problem with.

But I do have a problem with arguing about a subject that the other person doesn't have a clue about.

Yes, eternal into the past and potentially eternal into the future.

Impossible. You are wrong. It is finite in 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.

"that instant might be a point in an infinite timeline".

That is infinite regression, which is impossible.

Or, the universe came into existence from nothing, at which point time began to exist.

So, there you have it, people.

"Any explanation, no matter how ridiculous, is still better than the God hypothesis".

That is essentially what you are saying^.

You wouldn't dare believe that a horse can pop into your living room out of nothing if I told you...yet, you are willing to believe that a universe may have??

So, the universe came into existence from nothing..that is is the price of atheism right there.

hahaha.

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.

"eternally banging and crunching".

That is the Oscillating theory that was already disproven, and the entire purpose of that proposed model was to avert an absolute beginning, which was my point to you before...which you claimed wasn't the case...and now here you are postulating exactly that.

SMH.

I have nothing more to say on the matter.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Your vantage point is irrelevant.

Then so is yours.

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.

Yeah, ok.

The problem is that you rely on the assumption that a God exists for the argument to work.

That is nonsense.

Premise 1 and 2 says nothing about God and therefore does not assume any God.

P1 and P2 are religiously neutral statements that can be found in any text book on cosmology.

So you are WRONG.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

No God is assumed with either of those.

I rely on the evidence supporting those two facts, and if the direction points towards God as the explanation to explain those effects, then that is where I go.

It is assuming the conclusion, and that is a fallacy. The whole argument, among others, is designed to "prove" a God exists.

Once it is determined what is needed to produce those effects (P1 and P2), then the argument proves itself.

It logically follows, whether you like it or not.

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.

Please demonstrate this faulty accusation, please.

You refer to a God existing, then that opens the door to you being asked to demonstrate your specific god exists.

Nonsense.

The argument is not meant to demonstrate any specific God, but only that a supernatural, sentient agent is needed to explain the effect....which, btw, is still a defeater of atheism because all it takes is the existence of one God to destroy the atheistic worldview.

Who/which this specific God is, is irrelevant at this point.

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.

Opinions.

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

"There is no evidence for God" <---your personal belief.

I don't care about that, either.

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.

"It's not a fact" <----unsupported assertion.

Please provide evidence for your claim of knowledge.

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.

Look up WLC's Kalam Cosmological Argument, and tell me why the case made for a First Cause is false.

I don't care for these generalizations, I'd like specifics.

I do not think you can provide any.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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".

First off, you are WRONG.

I never said "everything must has a cause", I said "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause".

And again, if there is any exception to that intuitive principle, then I haven't seen in yet and neither have you.

Firstly as @TagliatelliMonster explained, there is objective from quantum mechanics that this is untrue, simply denying this is nonsense.

I already addressed his sentiments about quantum mechanics and why it isn't necessarily true...and also made reference to the philosophical problems with that interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Or did you miss that part?

Basically what I am saying is; quantum mechanics cannot help you here, and does not violate P1 of the KCA.

Secondly, in every single instance where we understand a cause, they are always natural causes.

So, what would be the natural cause of a universe popping into being uncaused out of nothing...as you claim occurs in quantum mechanics?

You are contradicting yourself between one sentence and the other.

Truth does not contradict truth when it comes to the same subject matter, which means that it must not be true in the first place.

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.

Nonsense. The universe began to exist...so you cant logically use causes occurring within the physical temporal universe, to explain the origins of the physical temporal universe.

This is circular fallacious reasoning, and would have Aristotle turning over in his grave.

Lastly the even as flawed as it is, the KCA is a first cause argument, not a theistic one

Nonsense. A first cause argument is a theistic argument, if it is a theistic arguing for a first cause.

, 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.

Please state how WLC is begging the question as he maintains that a deity must have x, y, and z characteristics.

Explain why and how.

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.

Interesting. Sean Carrol had stated (in his debate with Craig) that WLC is the one guy who puts the fear in the hearts of his atheists friends.

So, WLC must be doing something right, poor debater and all.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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...

Um, you clearly skipped over a premise of the argument, which is disturbing, considering the fact that the argument only has two premises.

I said..

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

That is the KCA.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

Yup. I sure did.

Forgive me for not being as perfect as you are, good sir.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

Time is a nature, irreversible byproduct of a physical universe which began to exist.

So far, you've said nothing to negate that...so now you are just arguing for the sake of argument.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

You are misunderstanding the argument.

I said on more than one occasion (on this very thread), that all STEM came in to being simultaneously...in other words, at the same time.

When the universe began to exist, time began to exist along with it...at the same time and in the same instance.

Lets see how many more times I have to repeat this, since it has been about 3 or 4 times already.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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?

No, a "nature can't do it, but a god can", then.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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.

"Very narrow" is the understatement of the century.

Those parameters were set...the dials were set to the exact value needed to support life.

You don't defy 1 chance in 10^10^123 odds on only one try.

If you believe that, I will leave you to it...and I will stick to my intelligent design theory.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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

Just keep tuning in to the person I am having this discussion with, and maybe you will learn a thing or two.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

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?

Well in classrooms all across America..they teach toxic crap like..

1. Humans are evolved primates.

2. Reptiles evolved into birds

3. Whales were once land dwelling mammals.

4. A universe may have originated from nothing.

5. Inanimate matter either suddenly/gradually came to life and began to talk, think, and have sex.

Talk about toxic, I don't have enough faith to believe in any of that nonsense.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is difficult to talk cosmology with folks who know nothing about cosmology. Sounds like you don't don't what the Steady State and Oscillating models were all about...not to mention the Vacuum Fluctuation and Quantum Gravity models. No point in debating the subject if you don't know what's going on with it

You don't actually debate. You just disagree and dismiss ideas you don't like without rebuttal, just a simple declaration of incredulity: "Impossible!" Not very compelling.

"Any explanation, no matter how ridiculous, is still better than the God hypothesis". That is essentially what you are saying^.

It's the least parsimonious of the four logical possibilities I provided, and therefore the most ridiculous one to choose if one feels compelled to choose one as proponents of the KCA seem to feel. It's the only option that depends on there being a deity, the least likely thing imaginable to exist undesigned and uncreated. How could such a thing come to exist, and if there's one, why not a race of them?

But still, I haven't ruled the possibility out, just put it last in likelihood on my list of candidate hypotheses for the history of our universe by a few degrees of magnitude.

"eternally banging and crunching". That is the Oscillating theory that was already disproven

You're wrong. You're probably referring to the acceleration of universal expansion and dark energy, but that doesn't disprove that the universe won't eventually slow that expansion rate. We don't know why the inflationary epoch ended, but when it did, the rate of universal expansion was slowed.

So, the universe came into existence from nothing..that is is the price of atheism right there. hahaha.

The inability to hold a complicated thought without reducing it to a piece seems to be the price many faith-based thinkers pay for wearing a faith-based confirmation bias. You share that with Craig. Your thinking is not nearly as good as you think it is. Nor is Craig's.

I have nothing more to say on the matter.

I'm good with that. Arrogance, condescension, bluster, and bully tactics weren't working for you here, so you've moved on. That's understandable.

I just saw an article about how people identify that other people are not as smart as they posture to be. Here are some excerpts. I'd love to know what you think about them:

• "They say "educate yourself"
• "They like to "debate" but shut down and get angry the second they get an unexpected question or have to think about their answer."
• "Really intelligent people are very secure in their intelligence but fakers will most likely be trying to put others down to seem smarter."
• "They defensively tell people to "read a book" instead of answering a question."