Mathematical Proof of God?

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

This rambling post is incoherent and cannot be responded to well.

Basically, I am saying Quantum Mechanics is your god.

How is that for straight-to-the-point simplicity?

Science and Quantum Mechanics (not remotely believed as God) simply describe our physical existence and is neutral as to the existence of God

Nonsense. Quantum mechanics used as a gap filler. When it doubt, appeal to Quantum Mechanics.

, because the belief in God is a Theistic belief without objectively verifiable evidence.

Opinions.

Scientists that believe in God and those that do not agree that science and Quantum Mechanics simply describe the nature of our physical existence as nothing more and nothing less,

?

It remains you lack any fundamental knowledge of science and base your view of science on an ancient religious agenda.

Doesn't matter where I get my view from...the question is; is my view based on truth?

It is.

It remains a fact that our universe and our physical existence is 'potentially' infinite based on very basic Aristotelian math and contemporary math and science..

I agree.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

When you say "theory" that means you are guessing. It's not the science definition of theory.

Which is fine because it isn't a scientific theory, it is a philosophical theory.

So much for your failed gotcha moment.

As I noted the Abrahamic believers have tried to make their various versions of god fit certain parameters and characteristics, much of which are based on we humans, like intelligence, thought, intent, actions, decisions, justice, etc. This God is even referred to as male, which implies a penis.

And?

Then if your God exists outside of time how can it perform an act, and create energy and time?

You are asking this question based on a gross misunderstanding of the argument. No one is saying that God exists outside of time...and I've made that point multiple times.

So at this point, you are attacking straw man.

And I still have never gotten an answer from a believer why this all powerful God allows children to develop cancer, and many die.

Unbelievers shouldn't concern themselves with what a God of whom they don't believe in does, and doesn't do.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Then you stop assuming infinite regress is impossible. Deal?

Stop telling the truth? Ok. I will lie. Infinite regression is possible.

Happy now?

We know energy exists. we know energy can't be created or destroyed.

Nonsense.

You are talking about the first law of thermodynamics, which is a law that comes into effect only after the universe began to exist.

Try again.

No gods are known to exist, and no mechanism is known that could allow a god to create energy.

Funny. No mechanism is known which allows particles and universes to pop into being out of nothing...but that hasn't stopped some of you folks from believing that nonsense.

Taxi cab fallacy.

So the most likely assumption is that energy has always existed.

I agree. God is the energy that has always existed.

There is no basis for additional assumptions, like assuming a god exists, and assuming it created/caused energy. These are unnecessary (except for theists who are desperately trying to find verification for their belief in a god).

It is about as necessary as can be.

And since you are a fallible mortal prone to errors of judgment, you could be wrong. There is no evidence of any gods existing, so your assumption is baseless.

Opinions.

So if you attribute all this to a god why do we see genetic defects in many children? If you are going to claim your god created brains and consciousness then it also has to be accountable for defects. This includes children with cancers. Do you accept this as part of your belief?

Yes, I accept this as part of my belief. Any more questions?

 

[Sheldon]

Nothing here and in previous posts on your part but pure WU HU without any coherent responses concerning the references provided.

Really, the "no you are" kiddies retort?

A good example of the three stooges is Duck, Bob, and Weave.

I am unfamiliar with the reference.

I am not an apologist.

You are not an adherent of the Baha'i Faith? Best amend your profile then.

A problem with the English language here.

How so?

 

[Sheldon]

Your meaningless redundant smiley faces and rhetoric continue unabated without addressing the references provided,

I see a speech impairment: Smiley Face Stutter.

I see hilarious irony, followed by denial.

 

[Sheldon]

First Cause for the existence of God. No one else uses this argument for any other purpose.

A no true Scotsman fallacy, hardly a compelling argument, the clue is in the name, "FIRST CAUSE" argument. Chicken is not a recipe for chicken casserole, but is can be used in one...

 

[Sheldon]

our physical existence is potentially boundless and infinite beyond our universe and all possible time/space dimensional universes.

Oh really, care to demonstrate some objective evidence to support this assertion?

There is absolutely no evidence for any dimensional or temporal limit to our physical existence.

Ah, so it's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy then. There is no evidence a giant invisible unicorn isn't hiding on the moon.

 

[Sheldon]

which is a law that comes into effect only after the universe began to exist.

Try again.

Tell us again how everything that begins to exist has a cause.

 

[F1fan]

Stop telling the truth? Ok. I will lie. Infinite regression is possible.

Happy now?

Did you throw your food against the wall as you posted this?

Nonsense.

You are talking about the first law of thermodynamics, which is a law that comes into effect only after the universe began to exist.

Try again.

There is no alternative since what I stated is the limit of what we know. You have no knowledge to dispute it. You are free to guess, but it will likely be prejudiced towards religious beliefs, so even less relevant.

Funny. No mechanism is known which allows particles and universes to pop into being out of nothing...but that hasn't stopped some of you folks from believing that nonsense.

Taxi cab fallacy.

All we can present here is what experts in science report. That you resist this limitation and prefer religious ideas is irrelevant to rational minds.

I agree. God is the energy that has always existed.

You are free to call energy God just as much as someone can refer to a pile of feces as God. Neither matters.

No Gods are known to exist outside of human imagination. But we do know energy exists, and can't be created or destroyed.

 

[F1fan]

Which is fine because it isn't a scientific theory, it is a philosophical theory.

Which is guessing, not science.

So much for your failed gotcha moment.

You are asking this question based on a gross misunderstanding of the argument. No one is saying that God exists outside of time...and I've made that point multiple times.

No, just √pointing out a set of incoherent arguments that make logical errors. Basically the God acts like a human but isn't bound by the rules we humans have to exist under. And you can't explain how this occurs or how it can occur.

Unbelievers shouldn't concern themselves with what a God of whom they don't believe in does, and doesn't do.

We don't.

Don't confuse non-believers addressing the claims by believers as if we think your God exists. You make unverifiable claims, and we challenge the claims.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

There is no alternative since what I stated is the limit of what we know. You have no knowledge to dispute it. You are free to guess, but it will likely be prejudiced towards religious beliefs, so even less relevant.

Anyways..

All we can present here is what experts in science report. That you resist this limitation and prefer religious ideas is irrelevant to rational minds.

Ok.

You are free to call energy God just as much as someone can refer to a pile of feces as God. Neither matters.

Gotcha.

No Gods are known to exist outside of human imagination. But we do know energy exists, and can't be created or destroyed.

Energy is God.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Which is guessing, not science.

So much for your failed gotcha moment.

A reptile evolving into a bird aint science, either. But look who believes in that nonsense.

No, just √pointing out a set of incoherent arguments that make logical errors. Basically the God acts like a human but isn't bound by the rules we humans have to exist under. And you can't explain how this occurs or how it can occur.

No, God isn't bound by your rules.

Don't confuse non-believers addressing the claims by believers as if we think your God exists. You make unverifiable claims, and we challenge the claims.

Oh, is that what you call it? Challenging the claims?

Oh, forgive me for not being able to tell that that is what you were doing.

 

[rational experiences]

Memory of the first scientist who men today try to emulate.

Said.....the only law in natural history is natural. By all cosmic outcomes.

As it became exactly caused by any term cosmic cause.

Ended in created creation only status of its owned position.

Without any humans argument.

It's exact as it is real law. Natural outcome.

No human argument as you aren't involved in natural history why energy mass exists as any type of body.

So Theists try to con humans saying once a past point in time your life began.

Yet the point in time historic he knows is burning Destruction as energies history converting of masses.

Science being a human con.

Then he implies energy can never not exist. Human you're just energy. Yet we die then bodily convert.

Just like his machines processes claim to any type of energy mass he decides to convert. Body changes body is destroyed body is removed.

His comparison of our life bio to his machines energy reaction.

Memory says once a human came into life changed by heavens which was bodily it's owned types of masses. Hadn't first owned death. As the human.

As natural law held every single type of presence exactly as its highest presence...being present. In any type of mass.

Which the theist human remembers. Once humans didn't die. As it's true.

So as he changed natural the cosmic law as a machine wielding scientist he knows he gave us death. As he introduced changes to natural earths cosmic law himself.

Every body it's owned status it's highest.

Did it as the scientist human says our human memory.

As created creation had not owned a purpose behind all of its highest greatest presence. Highest presence is the law.

It's what his own scientists memory told me via his own human man designed caused AI machine conditions. An outcome. Allowing a woman to know him.

As science is owned by human men only. Science is the laws they choose to wield by their human designed controlled machines.

Which does not in any true term own or agree with any natural law....presence as a machine first does not exist anywhere.

It's why humans named science and human scientists life's destroyer as we are correct. Science was never correct.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh really, care to demonstrate some objective evidence to support this assertion?

The simple math of potential infinities determines this since Aristotle proposed and defined it thousands of years ago.

Ah, so it's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy then. There is no evidence a giant invisible unicorn isn't hiding on the moon.

It is not an argument from ignorance. It is based on our observation of our universe. It is a simple fact of the present observations of science and the well-understood concept of potential infinities since Aristotle is that there are no observable or conceptually finite or temporal limits of our physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

A no true Scotsman fallacy, hardly a compelling argument, the clue is in the name, "FIRST CAUSE" argument. Chicken is not a recipe for chicken casserole, but is can be used in one...

No again a simple fact that no one else besides Theistic Apologists uses the KCA argument to prove anything.

 

[rational experiences]

Father's teaching stop the scientist. Know the scientist is only naturally just a human.

Position no machine. Is exact advice.

Not loving a human woman equal compared her life to a zero space term. Notified womb word used. Looked at rock knowing he did. You don't know rock unless you look at it then see it.

Compared rock to a human womans life body.

Did not love. Proven. By thought.

Every single scientist who died realised in DNA dearth history proven moment why they were wrong. Why for no reason I saw Einstein. He said he was wrong as just a man and sorry.

So every single man scientist would have realised the same at his death.

Formed a message about himself. Know me. Innocent woman daughter. Stop me. Only by knowing me. I have no scientific understanding myself. Message of science was given.

Which I've proven.

I heard. I've tried to tell you this message is your own mans advice.

No machine is exact is humans first position.

No science either as every single presence is present.

.science tells stories about natural presence yet if it's not seen you can't talk about it.

Your words talking didn't own why it existed. No science exists says science.

Reason you changed the cosmic frozen law. Sun mass was held above present but frozen just kept natural light burning.

You took a mass equation relating to a machine only conversion. O about. Metal ball itself size. Nuclear per machines conditions.

You destroy it. It had been put into earth historic origin by then sun which was then frozen as attack.

Above hence then released that same ball amount. Which places the Nuclear reaction outside of containment. Christ owned scientists warning holy grail you cannot hold nor contain.

A sun to earth change wasn't contained first position. Law freeze saviour kept bio life safe.

Which you just happen to ignore as you are life's heavenly destroyer in person. Just as all predicted man scientist behaviour said.

Under satanic science leadership agreed by all men you'll succeed.

O the sun mass just gives it back. Void vacuum had sucked it back out mother law. Science has changed that safety law once again.

Sun historic first owner of it. Told never touch it keep it under ground mass.

All old tribal warnings of men. You ignore them as they are tribal and not scientists. Those men told you the old man's science memories.

As the law sun owns it first man has no control over it. Trying to hold it could produce an atmospheric sun nuclear release the warning.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are not an adherent of the Baha'i Faith? Best amend your profile then. I am a believer in God and fully realize that from the human perspective there is no proof for the belief in God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Basically, I am saying Quantum Mechanics is your god.

How is that for straight-to-the-point simplicity?

Misuse and misrepresentation of Quantum Mechanics and Gods.

Nonsense. Quantum mechanics is used as a gap filler. When it doubt, appeal to Quantum Mechanics.

This reflects your self-imposed ignorance of Quantum Mechanics and science.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually no, you are incorrigibly ignorant of Quantum Mechanics making outrageous statements.

I'm reminded for some reasons of pots and kettles and the color black.

In Quantum Mechanics at the 'Quanta level' scale, it has been objectively observed that the Quantum world that underlies our three-dimensional time/space universe does not have three dimensions and continuous time like our maco scale universe

Speaking of outrageous statements, the above certainly qualifies. Firstly, we can't "objectively observe" or "observe" in any other way any physical state, property, process, etc., as being "continuous", whether classical or quantum.
The reason for this is quite simple (or at least one reason for this is). All measurements we can ever hope to make using any measuring devices whatsoever are necessarily limited. They are not only necessarily course grained, they also must be finite and therefore contain (and record/display) at most finite information about what they are used to measure.
Thus, even if a meauring device can be so perfect that it can be made arbitrarily precise (i.e., given a measurable property of some physical system, the device can be calibrated so that the difference between the "true value" of the property and the measured value can be made arbitrarily close to zero), the device will still record/store/display at best only rational numbers.
But given any continuously distributed parameter, or indeed any interval in the continuum, one finds that the entire set of rational numbers is negligible (its measure is 0). In other words, almost all numbers are irrational.
But we cannot ever measure irrational numbers, because a single such number requires infinite information.

Second, in quantum mechanics this nonsense of the "'quanta level' scale" not having three dimensions or continuous time is balderdash. Systems in QM evolve continuously in time. As for the dimensions of the space such systems "live" in, it is not really different from classical systems. QM is usually formulated via the Hamiltonian formalism (the path integral approach is based on the Lagrangian, but the differences here don't matter) whether in the Heisenberg or Schrödinger pictures (or the interaction picture). The spaces of such systems, classical or quantum, can have arbitrarily many spatial dimensions and a single time dimension. But they must reduce or relate to our physical 3D world. QM differs from classical physics in a number of ways- in the way systems are represented formally and even more so when one brings in the observables of the theory and their mathematical properties.
But none of this means QM implies, or that our observations entail, a discrete spacetime. Relativistic QM turned out to be a nightmare that was only "resolved" by reinterpreting basic aspects of the theory only to run into formal difficulties that were themselves resolved only by reinterpreting what it means to be a physical theory as well as allowing for mathematical nonsense. But that's largely irrelevant here.
What is relevant is that QM uses the same physical space of non-relativistic classical mechanics, and the same relativistic structure as well (Galilean). It relies on continous time. It does not contain a theory of space or spacetime such that statements about the "quanta level scale" have any meaning.

Time only exists as a momentary time of discontinuous events of the basic particles of matter. as observed in cyclotrons.

More nonsense. Time in QM is continous and dynamics are (in principel) entirely reverible, just as in classical mechanics. Both theories have the same group structure as well (and even in QFT, quantum theory inherits the group structure it has from classical electromagnetism, i.e. that of U(1) gauge group).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

At the Quantum scale, measured in Chronon or Quanta time is a discontinuous discrete time is observed concerning the behavior of Quantum particles. Continuous time arrow as in our three-dimensional time/space world is not observed.

Wholly inaccurate. What you are describing is a theory of Quantum spacetime or quantized spacetime which we dont' have yet. We don't have any well-formulated theory of such an entity (there are several ongoing and mutually exclusive attempts to formulate one) and absolutely no observational evidence beyond the instinct that many physicists have- namely, that QM is more fundamental than, or at least as fundamental as, GR, and thus any reconciliation of gravitation and quantum theory must involve quantizing relativistic gravitation and therefore quantizing spacetime itself. However, as this has so far proved impossible at any number of levels, from non-renormalizability to Sorkin's "impossible measurements" to causal inconsistencies even at the pre-gravitational level (QFT on a curved spacetime), it cannot be said in any sense to be "observed".