Mathematical Proof of God?

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Erm, yes it is. The church gets massive tax breaks from the government. It is one of the wealthiest organisations on the planet yet pays zero tax.

Well first of all, I do not attend church...and I am against any church for profit...and all money given to the church should be for the upkeep of the facility, and nothing else.

So tax breaks shouldn't even be an issue.

Second, even with that being said, there is a big difference between a tax break, and me paying taxes to a public school for a religion (evolution is the atheistic religion) that I don't agree with to be taught.

That would be like you paying for Christianity to be taught in schools...would like that? Probably not.

Well then.

Ooh, another religionist who is going to win a Nobel prize and gain fame and fortune from disproving evolution.
I look forward to the publication of your paper.

My prize/reward is in Heaven.

 

[ppp]

{;ease read them and respond.

How did the references demonstrate that? This is the problem. I am happy to discuss your position. Provided that you are able to articulate your position in more than just vague terms. I'm not going to put more work into responding to you, or anyone, than you put into your statements in the first place.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It is believed by theologians.

Big difference.

That may not mean anything to you

It doesn't.
Just like the beliefs of all the "theologians" of the hundreds, if not thousands, of religions you do NOT believe in, don't mean anything to YOU.

, just like the ignorance of scientists doesn't mean anything to me.

Ignorance matters not, true.
For everything else though, you depend on what science does know. And your "theologians" are caught in an almost eternal dance of playing catch-up and post factum reïnterpretation of their "theories" to match the latest scientific findings.

This is where the "gods of the gaps" were discovered.

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.

Nope. It most hold up to the evidence.
What we know today may be wrong also, after all.

So new theories must be able to stand up when tested against the evidence.
If it passes testing against the evidence of reality but is incompatible with what we think to already know.... maybe the problem is with what we think we know...


It's like I always say:
When your beliefs don't match the evidence of reality... it's not reality that is incorrect!

Current state of physics is a actually a fine example of this...
Quantum mechanics doesn't really play nice with classical physics. Yet both seem correct within their own domain. But they are kind of fundamentally incompatible with one another.

This comes down to finding that theory of "everything". Unifying gravity with the other forces.

So at this point, as far as I understood it anyway, the situation is this:
- quantum mechanics is incorrect / missing something
or
- classical physics (relativity) is incorrect / missing something
or
- there's a third thing we don't yet know about that connects both "realms" with eachother in a grand unification theory

In any case, seems like a good example. Quantum physics came along and it is incompatible with classical physics. Yet both are accurate within their own domain. It false apart when you put them together.

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

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

Keyword: Beginning.

Every culture / religion has its ancient creation myth. Most can even be traced geographically to eachother.
It's one of the oldest questions of human kind. I don't find it surprising that religions tend to have creation myths. What I would find surprising is a religion without one.

In any case, the creation myth of the particular religion you happen to follow is not any more special then the others just because you happen to follow it.

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

That is just not true.
The steady state hypothesis is not what people thought "thousands of years ago".

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.

In the same way, it did the same with literally every other religion.
But you think it's extra special because it's the one you adhere to.

It also "confirms" the Norse myths, the egyptian myths, the inca myths, the hindu myths , the roman myths, etc etc etc etc etc. Literally every single creation myth.

And the only way it can be said that it "confirms" it, is that they all state that there was a start / beginning.
That's about it.

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

As right as literally every other creation myth. Thousands of them. All mutually exclusive.
Also, "right" is stretching it just slightly....

Consider an analogy to make it clear...

Suppose primitive humans stumble upon an apple on the ground, a fruit they never saw before.

One guy theorizes that there is a magical factory somewhere where apples are created by supernatural robots by the command of a super being who rules the multi-verse.

The second guy things the apple didn't have a beginning and just always was there, waiting to be discovered.

Later on, it turns out that the apple had a beginning and thus wasn't an eternal object.

Was they with his supernatural factory really any more "correct" about the origins of apple then the second guy?



Really?

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

Doubling down on your assumed conclusion.

What "decision"?

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

Yes.
If dogs would produce cats, evolution would be falsified.
In evolution, all newborns are always of the same species as their parents.

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

Neither have I.
As said, exceptions would falsify evolution.

 

[Kharisym]

So looking into the current opinions of the originators of the BGV, I came across Guth and Velinkin talking about their opinions on if a multiverse exists. They both say a multiverse is very likely to exist. Guth says 70% chance, and Velinkin actually touches on my pet theory about what the multiverse is like. He talks about the energy state of the vacuum and quantum tunneling. My theory is essentially this: The higgs field has multiple false minima and in any given region of space its possibly for the higgs field to jump to a lower energy false vacuum. Once it makes this jump, and if its a sufficiently large region to overcome the inward pressure of the surrounding higher energy space, then this lower energy region spreads at the speed of light destroying the higher energy universe's matter content and effectively generating a new universe. When two of these waves collide, it creates an interference pattern that allows the energy of the higgs field to 'jump' to a higher false vacuum, effectively producing an infinite cycle. A challenge to this I can think of is if inflation could cause any 2 expanding waves of lower energy to never collide.

Here are the interviews: Do Multiple Universes Surely Exist? | Closer to Truth
Here's more info about the higgs field and the annihilation of the universe:

Disclaimer: I'm not a cosmologist, I probably have just enough knowledge to be afflicted by Dunning-Kruger, and therefore I'm probably wrong. lol.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Yes. At T = 0. Not some "arbitrary time". Time can only start at the time that it starts.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

I already explained how this is non-sensical.
Causality requires space time to exist.
"a cause of time" requires events with temporal context to happen before time exists.

, and whatever gave time its beginning could not itself be a product of time.

Which means causality goes out the window.

"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.

What makes no sense is to try and say that there was another option for time to being then at the start of time.

Time began at T = 0. The ide of having other options is just bizar.

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.

Same mistake.

Why were you born at age 0? And not at age -5 or 15?
Your age at the time of your birth is not arbitrary. It's 0.

When you ask "at what time" the universe started, you are essentially asking about the age of time.
T = 0, the start of time, is the reference point. And the only option.

You seem to not be aware of the problem with talking about temporal events in an environment where temporality does not 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.

"Nature", like "cosmos", encompasses everything that 'is' and is not necessarily restricted to this space-time bubble.

That is circular reasoning.

Actually, it's a strawman.

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.

You fail since your "explanations" are invested with fallacies and unsupported premises. Like in this very quote, where you simply "declare" without evidence that the space-time continuum is an "effect".

What is your evidence of this?
To me, it's a non-sensical statement.
Because an effect has a cause that happened BEFORE the effect.
But the "effect" here, is time itself. So for that to have a cause, you need a "before time".

Again, it's so funny that you accuse me of trying to use "nature to create nature", while it's in fact YOU who's trying to use the physics of the universe, to try and explain the universe.

You yourself are guilty of the strawman you (incorrectly) accuse me off.

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

"sad" is an emotional state produced by the brain.

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

No, that is based on vast amounts of empirical evidence from neurology, psychiatry, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So to sum it up:

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and fish produce fish.

Evolution doesn't say otherwise, btw.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Disclaimer: I'm not a cosmologist, I probably have just enough knowledge to be afflicted by Dunning-Kruger, and therefore I'm probably wrong. lol

First rule of DK club: Members don't know they are members.

 

[shunyadragon]

How did the references demonstrate that? This is the problem. I am happy to discuss your position. Provided that you are able to articulate your position in more than just vague terms. I'm not going to put more work into responding to you, or anyone, than you put into your statements in the first place.

They determined that Craig and other Christian apologists used the KCA as stand-alone proof of the existence of God.

 

[Kharisym]

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

Yes. At T = 0. Not some "arbitrary time". Time can only start at the time that it starts.

I think the issue here is that we're not understanding what you're saying, and since we're basically responding to a misinterpretation of your claim, then our claims are not answers to yours. You should probably consider other ways to explain this concept.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Maybe you should ask yourself that. After all, you're the one who claims a miracle worker "hocus pocus"-ed the universe into existence.

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

Those "philosophical arguments" are irrelevant since there is no "infinite regression" in a universe with a finite past that started at T = 0

and those arguments are independent of physics.

You say that as if it's a good thing.
I prefer arguments that are in line with the evidence of reality and don't just ignore it.

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

And at what "time" did that cause occur? In which time dimension?

 

[ppp]

They determined that Craig and other Christian apologists used the KCA as stand-alone proof of the existence of God.

How specifically?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Salam

He is not wrong. It proves a Creator, but you need additional arguments to prove it's the ultimate being. So he was correct, it's just a component to over all make one look at other arguments for God.

Itself proves a Creator that's it. Does not even prove it's one Creator, you need other arguments for that.

At the very best, and I'm very charitable here, it "proves" that the universe began somehow, in some way.

It "proves" absolute diddly squad about how, why, what,...

So no, it does not prove there was a "creator". Or even a "creation".
It just "proves" that a change occurred. It says nothing at all about how that occured.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the difference is, the pretending of the Church is not at tax payers expense.

Oh, if only that were true.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Evolution doesn't say otherwise, btw.

If you believe that a reptile evolve into a bird, then contradicts a dog producing a dog.

Oh, I forgot, a bird is a reptile, right?

That is all part of the con, the scheme, the deception.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Maybe you should ask yourself that. After all, you're the one who claims a miracle worker "hocus pocus"-ed the universe into existence.

Again, when a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, the magician is the one performing the hocus pocus.

On atheism, there is no magician, but there sure is a lot of hocus pocus going on here.

I have evidence that magicians perform magic, but I don't have evidence that magic performs itself.

That is the difference.

Those "philosophical arguments" are irrelevant since there is no "infinite regression" in a universe with a finite past that started at T = 0

The philosophical arguments are relevant because it attempts (and succeeds) to provide an explanation as to why time began in the first place.

You say that as if it's a good thing.
I prefer arguments that are in line with the evidence of reality and don't just ignore it.

I do too. Yet, we draw different conclusions, which means that one of us isn't within the realm of reality after all.

And at what "time" did that cause occur? In which time dimension?

Time began at T=0.

 

[F1fan]

If atheists are so sure that God doesn't exist, why do they bother creating arguments against God's existence?

There is a long list of over 4000 gods. Which ones are you referring to?

There are some gods that a rational mind can be sure do not exist SINCE there is a significant description of the god and what it does. These claims can be assessed and declared invalid. Thor is an example.

But as a number of us have noticed believers have become less and less precise about what they think their god is, and I suspect they are being vague to avoid the dilemma of defending the ideas. Additionally the more detains a believer shares about what they believe a God to be that more scrutiny can be applied. So as we see in your approach you are referring to God as a very basic and vague concept.

The bottom line is why assume any sort of God exists? We see no supernatural phenomenon at work in the universe, and natural causes explain what we observe. God concepts are largely an ancient set of ideas that have been passed on by various cultures. Some gods have died off, some remain. The god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have prevailed mostly due to the military power that backed these religions. A massive amount of literature and cultural investments have been made due to the influence of these religions. So these ideas are quite prevalent, literally all over cities in Europe, the Middle East, and North America.

So as humanity advances, and this includes thinking and meaning assignment, non-theism advances too. There is more and more acceptance of not adopting a religious view, and for people to ponder the concepts that are taken for granted by many in societies all over the planet. The social pressure to adopt religious beliefs is declining. The freedom to not believe is increasing. We see Christian extremists becoming worried about this and pushing back. In Florida we see the state asking a law about allowing "In God We Trust" posters in public schools, and violating of the constitution.

Why are Christians doing this? Don't they trust their God? Apparently not. And that is their insecurity and problem, not society's problem.

So atheists are arguing against the beliefs and claims made by theists like you. We are not debating a God, we are debating fallible mortals, like you, who make claims about a God existing, yet can't provide any evidence that compels a rational mind to agree. So we remain unconvinced. I suggest you find some evidenced and try again.

And just a reminder, threats and insults are not a good impression of someone who claims to live in the light of Jesus, and against the forum rules, so be careful.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

I think the issue here is that we're not understanding what you're saying, and since we're basically responding to a misinterpretation of your claim, then our claims are not answers to yours. You should probably consider other ways to explain this concept.

And who is this contention directed towards, Khari?

 

[KWED]

I don't know how many times I have to say this (no disrespect to you)...but..

1. We have both empirical and philosophical evidence that physical reality began to exist.

2. Whatever caused physical reality to exist, could not itself be a product of physical reality.

Now, that is just elementary school logic..and circular reasoning should one decide to go that route.

So, since physical reality lacks the explanatory power to produce the effect, then you cannot logically appeal to any naturalistic cause...and at that point, the supernatural is the only game left in town.

Gen 1:1, Judeo-Christians have been saying it for thousands of years. Either jump on board, or get left behind...and I don't mean that figuratively, either.

I mean it literally.

Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

 

[Kharisym]

And who is this contention directed towards, Khari?

I was trying to give constructive criticism to you. It seems a lot of people have made arguments against that particular claim of yours, but based on my conversation with you, it seems we have all misunderstood it. When multiple people fail to understand a claim, then its more likely to be the way the claim is presented, not the audience.

 

[KWED]

I don't reject evolution/abiogenesis based on what I don't understand....I reject them based on what I do understand.

Really?

I'm not sure evolution is even a natural process.

Ah, not really.

But here is what you need to come to grips with...
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.
Hope that helps.

Oh dear. You really don't understand it, do you?
Quelle surprise!