Mathematical Proof of God?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

....and the original KCA Islamic argument later adopted by Christians is an argument for God.

No, not even them.

People like William Lane Craig use the KCA as an element of their arguments for God.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, not even them.

People like William Lane Craig use the KCA as an element of their arguments for God.

I disagree. Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the Kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated. William Lane Craig was principally responsible for giving new life to the argument, due to his The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979), among other writings. The Kalam cosmological argument's premises surrounding causation and the beginning of the universe were discussed by various philosophers, the philosophical view of causation being a subject of David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and the metaphysical arguments for a beginning of the universe being the subject of Kant's first antinomy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Splitting frog hairs over the purpose of the KCA over wording does not work.

What is the Conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? – Part 2 – The Secular Frontier

What is the Conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? – Part 2
Posted on September 23, 2015 by Bradley Bowen


In the previous post on this topic, I argued that William Craig’s book The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe (Here’s Life Publishers, 1979) provides a good deal of evidence supporting my view that the ultimate conclusion of the kalam cosmological argument (hereafter: KCA) is: GOD EXISTS,

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the Kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated. William Lane Craig was principally responsible for giving new life to the argument, due to his The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979), among other writings. The Kalam cosmological argument's premises surrounding causation and the beginning of the universe were discussed by various philosophers, the philosophical view of causation being a subject of David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and the metaphysical arguments for a beginning of the universe being the subject of Kant's first antinomy.

Here it is. Tell me where it mentions God:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

[shunyadragon]

Here it is. Tell me where it mentions God:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Simplistic Reader's Digest Dumb Dumb condensations DO NOT reflect the specific references concerning the KCA argument as cited concerning the purpose and including the history from Islam apolgetics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Splitting frog hairs over the purpose of the KCA over wording does not work.

What is the Conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? – Part 2 – The Secular Frontier

What is the Conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? – Part 2
Posted on September 23, 2015 by Bradley Bowen


In the previous post on this topic, I argued that William Craig’s book The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe (Here’s Life Publishers, 1979) provides a good deal of evidence supporting my view that the ultimate conclusion of the kalam cosmological argument (hereafter: KCA) is: GOD EXISTS,

Even William Lane Craig, dishonest hack that he is, still makes it clear in his writings that his argument for why the cause of the universe must be God are not part of the actual Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Simplistic Reader's Digest Dumb Dumb condensations DO NOT reflect the specific references concerning the KCA argument as cited concerning the purpose and including the history from Islam apolgetics.

Sounds like our communication impasse here comes from you not knowing what the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is.

That syllogism I gave is the argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even William Lane Craig, dishonest hack that he is, still makes it clear in his writings that his argument for why the cause of the universe must be God are not part of the actual Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

False as cited.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like our communication impasse here comes from you not knowing what the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is.

That syllogism I gave is the argument.

NO, as in all logical arguments it is the purpose of the argument lies at the root of the apologetic argument and you are ignoring my references.

The three stooges Duck Bob and Weave get you nowhere.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sounds like our communication impasse here comes from you not knowing what the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is.

That syllogism I gave is the argument.

Simplistic Reader's Digest Dumb Dumb condensations DO NOT reflect the specific references concerning the KCA argument as cited concerning the purpose and including the history from Islam apologetics.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human says microbiology lives only in oxygenated water.

There is no dimension in living.

First a man human thinking says zero owns all energy.

Yet he stands on a zero held frozen mass.

So he says mass as zero energy is God and rock.

What I know. Rock isn't any number.

Energy as mass as history he says is in its first quanta free and consuming.

Then he tries to convince everyone in biology you biological being began there.

We then challenged that theist group whose brain had been burnt by gained star mass energy Rock returning gain. To earth..changing gases and ground mass.

If you think humans began as evil beings...then why satanic Brother by human chosen organised human only chosen behaviour do you still exist? When not only do you remove gods rock position.... By converting mass.

You also burn up burning mass.

How can you still exist. And have never changed as an evil human by your chosen behaviours. Still the same as you ever were?

Real answer is as a human you lied.

Pretty basic advice to a human. You aren't human conscious anywhere else says all chosen biological studies. Until you are the human. Sperm ovary copies to grow into human parents.

If you say God had a purpose yet you make all the quotes as a man and as a Human. Guess what. You said it was said by you. A man human.

So legal contested your minds self possession to claim by legal ...no man is God.

Pretty basic human reasoning. Reasoned as for some mysterious circumstance you couldn't accept you aren't rock first. Gods rock is human mans science status first. And the second reason is God as rock converted gets destroyed.

You can't say you are gas at it remains as the gas always.

The question was....if a God was real why does it support very evil chosen bad behaviour that has remained constantly historic expressed?

In one life. As a baby you begin to learn. Children learn. Adults choose to apply what they learnt...past tense.

Therefore you can't claim you're learning to become a better human when civilisation status is why you choose not to be a good person.

If you say zero is absolute you meant it was...as a human standing on rock.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Simplistic Reader's Digest Dumb Dumb condensations DO NOT reflect the specific references concerning the KCA argument as cited concerning the purpose and including the history from Islam apologetics.

It's like you're not reading what I wrote.

Again:
- the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is not an argument for God.
- it has often been used as an element of arguments for God.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Ah, that's not entirely true. The argument being made is that for any given collections of geodesics (the path a thing takes when going in a straight line through a space-time system. In a flat universe, the geodesic is straight, in a curved, it can loop in on itself, and in an irregular it can do the samba), when traced into the past, necessarily has to converge to a singular point within an inflationary universe. This applies to our current, standard models but it is a hot bit of research right now and the cosmologists are wearing their makeup for it.

This is all red herrings. Long story short, the universe began to exist.

Point blank, period.

The theorem only has one condition, that the average Hubble expansion is greater than zero...which all plausible models meet.

In fact, Vilenkin said himself the theory is independent of the theory of relativity or any energy conditions.

So even if we have to modify those equations or upon any new discovery, the theorem will hold.

In the video, Vilenkin even covered attempts to evade the theorem (5:50), which all fail.

And attempts made to evade the theorem presupposes that there is something about the implications of the theorem that is shaking some peoples nerves...and that something is an absolute beginning of the universe.

I don't know what to make of the link you provided here..

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.00955.pdf

From what I gather (from my sources), there have been no breakthroughs in cosmology or physics that definitely bring a past-eternal universe back to the forefront.

There have been speculative wishful thinking hypothesis, but obviously none of those have the empirical backing that the Standard Model has.

Anyone can come up with any fancy, hocus pocus scenario, but what is the actual evidence for it?

There is none.

And usually, my sources are on top of things like that.

A model that claims to break BGV is the island model (I know nothing about it... yet) and there's a pre-publication paper on my bucket list which claims that the BGV model for calculating H_avg is incorrect. What the BGV *does* eliminate are the classical models such as the quantum multiverse model, the fractal model, any model that posits universes creating universes (like inside black holes, or aliens making univers, etc), bouncing brane, and the FRW model. This list is not inclusive. Basically, and this is me probably showing my ignorance, if it touches the de Sitter model, BGV breaks it.

Here are my notes reading the 2003 BGV paper:

An inflationary system must be necesserily past-incomplete per BGV. Further, any system containing stuff must be either past or future incomplete because to be otherwise would require an ideal balance of density and uniformity (edit: against the inflationary force) and this ideal balance would be disrupted by quantum events. This also negates nested regression because each regress would contain stuff (the stuff that made our universe or n universes we're nested within) which necesserily would prevent the existence of an ideal state.

Brane and cyclic and brane universe cosmologies (circa 2003) fail to meet the criteria for being steady state because they involve shifts in lightlike geodesics, which would necesserily result in a failure to maintain ideal state.

My musings on this: Each extraverse must be necessarily expanding because if the extraverse is balanced or future incomplete, then this would result in each nested intraverse being future-incomplete as well (But what if time slows within the intraverse approaching n=inf as the extraverse approaches its end state? This could allow for a future-infinite intraverse within a future-finite extraverse? Would this model of slowing time run afoul of the mechanisms that keep inflation from being an actual shrinking of mattered regions in space? ie-can we treat slowing time the same as shrinking matter, especially since approaching c does result in physical deformation as observed externally).​

Lets make this easy...look, even if the BGV theorem is violated...that still doesn't negate the philosophical arguments against infinite regression...and those arguments are independent of physics.

So an absolute beginning (and first cause) is not only needed, but absolutely positively required.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

You are incorrect. There is at least one other phase. The Planck Epoch. And whatever you are about to assert about that epoch, you are wrong.

Nonsense.

The Planck Epoch occurred after the universe began to exist...which says nothing about why/how it began to exist in the first place.

It does not. It represents the hard boundary of our knowledge. You have not the foggiest clue about the beginning of physical reality or even whether it began. You are just making @#!$ stuff up. And it isn't even rational @#!$ stuff.

According to, you know, actual science...it (the universe) began to exist.

I guess your strategy is to trade sound/valid arguments for anger/frustration.

While you are succeeding in the latter, you are failing in the former.

Considering how much time and effort you are sinking into trying to convince everyone else that you have a clue. You do.

I don't care about your feelings towards the argument is what I meant.

You have yet to do a lick of science. But by all means, demonstrate your apathy. Demonstrate it now.

*yawns* <---is this off to a good start on the apathy tip?

 

[rational experiences]

A human man is a baby first.

The first human father's human memory says he wasn't a scientist.

As you do begin life consciously a human baby. As an adult human man in science you lie.

You stand on rock that you said is as substance the flesh body of a God and it is rock.

Absolute. Created in space. You live walk on it too so it's the only correct science of a humans answer.

If you began again you don't even exist. When you do a human conscious assessment on natural human behaviours it's found that the decision making of the human is flawed in science.

Destructive ideology in fact to self living conditions.

Why the Bible's status was humans flawed consciousness. Choices.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's like you're not reading what I wrote.

Again:
- the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is not an argument for God.
- it has often been used as an element of arguments for God.

NO, as with most logical arguments the purpose of the argument as cited is to PROVE the existence of God as cited.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's like you're not reading what I wrote.

Again:
- the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is not an argument for God.
- it has often been used as an element of arguments for God.

Again . .. Simplistic Reader's Digest Dumb Dumb condensations DO NOT reflect the specific references concerning the KCA argument as cited concerning the purpose and including the history from Islam apologetics.

 

[Kharisym]

Simplistic Reader's Digest Dumb Dumb condensations DO NOT reflect the specific references concerning the KCA argument as cited concerning the purpose and including the history from Islam apologetics.

The KCA is a subset of a larger body of arguments meant to refute the application of Grecian logic, namely the Grecian proofs of an eternal world, to Islam and therefore refute what he deems heretical application that undermines the teachings of Islam. It originates from Al-Ghazali's book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers and is described in the first section, "Refuting the doctrine of the world's pre-eternity." Both philosphies, the KCA and the eternal world (as used by Islamic philosophers) both assume the existence of a creator God. One of Al-Ghazali's points later in his book is attempting to show that an eternal world cannot prove God's existence, but that God's existence necessarily follows from the KCA.

The book: https://ia801304.us.archive.org/24/items/imamghazali_201510/Al Ghazali Incoherence of the Philosophers.pdf
A Beginner’s Guide to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Incoherence of the Philosophers - Wikipedia

So you might say the KCA itself is incomplete in that it is a *subset* of arguments proving God. WL Craig took the KCA, and then reapplied it adding his own set of proofs structured for the modern day.

edit: You're both sort of wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again . .. Simplistic Reader's Digest Dumb Dumb condensations DO NOT reflect the specific references concerning the KCA argument as cited concerning the purpose and including the history from Islam apologetics.

I just realized that I've been arguing for I-can't-remember-how-many pages with someone whose go-to debate tactic is copy-pasting "Dumb Dumb" when he sees something he disagrees with as if he has something meaningful or worthwhile to say.

I'm out.

 

[F1fan]

Sure you do. Your personal motive is the fact that you (just like most unbelievers), don't like the idea of a Creator, especially one that tells you what to do...such as do not have sex unless you are married, or do not have sex with the same gender, or do not watch porn.

So since you'd rather not have such cosmic accountability for your actions, your motive is to deny the existence of the creator.

That is what this is really all about.

Are you aware there are over 200 creators in human lore? I already brought up the creator gods of the Hawaiian Islands, do you accept those as real?

Rational minds reject the ideas of creator gods because they are ideas that do not correspond to anything in reality.

But you were wrong, that is the point. Any cosmologist who is an unbeliever but is true to the science can make the exact premises without making any assumption of acknowledgment of a God.

What God exists as a fact? Why would a scientist HAVE to believe in some religious idea to do their objective work in science? It is not a professional requirement, yet you want to impose this standard. Why? Explain your motive, and why it is an advantage objectively.

The point is, no assumption about God was made.

Then how does a God even get brought up? There are no facts, nor evidence, that a supernatural cause is a reasonable force at work in the universe.

You are I apparently disagree as to what has been going on here.

I follow facts and defer to experts in science, and you follow your religious beliefs. You don't seem willing to minimize the negative effects of religious influence on your knowledge and thinking.

No one has offered any criticisms of my contention that infinite regression is impossible.

I did, and as I have stated numerous times you offered no factual basis for your claim that infinite regression is impossible. I asked you who told you it is impossible and you didn't offer any experts in science.

The truth is there are only theoretical models of how things were before the Big Bang. That is uncertainty, and you can't claim a fact from uncertainty and be honest.

Sure, there has been lots of "you haven't proven it", "you haven't provided evidence for it"...there has been lots of that going around.

Aint that a *****, having to prove your claims and premises are true.

Who is to say that God doesn't cause earthquakes or thunder?

Sure, demonstrate the God exists, and then demonstrate it is the actual cause.

If you can't, then we defer to what facts and experts in science report. No gods are known to exist.

I already addressed most of what you said...and all I've been getting is generic, systematic rejections.

I need substance.

You keep repeating the same false beliefs and claims. You don't offer the evidence being asked of you.

No, I am pro-science, pro-reason, and pro-education.

I am anti-macroevolution, anti-abiogenesis, and anti-voodoo science.

These are misinformed, religious beliefs that are anti-science. You show the same contempt for science as many Christian extremists.

The thing is rational and well-educated minds accept and defer to experts in science. Your views admit you reject expertise in science and have adopted disinformation the is spread by corrupt religious people called creationists. Only Christian extremists believe their nonsense. No one else.