The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[Ringtone]

How did you get David Letterman to pose for that picture in your second link?

I told him there was a squirrel to be had.

 

[Ringtone]

Tired, useless, ontological tricks meant only for the faithy folks to soothe themselves. Does not belong in the science section.

Mods: please move to religion section or rubber room.

Nonsense! Your ignorance and irrationality do not impinge on the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tired, useless, ontological tricks meant only for the faithy folks to soothe themselves. Does not belong in the science section.

Mods: please move to religion section or rubber room.

Nonsense! Your ignorance and irrationality do not impinge on the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications.

Self soothing word salad. Just reiteration # eleventy zillion of a person of weak faith trying to convince himself in public that the iron aged fairy tales are real.

 

[Ringtone]

Self soothing word salad. Just reiteration # eleventy zillion of a person of weak faith trying to convince himself in public that the iron aged fairy tales are real.

We both know you can't competently discuss the science and mathematics of the matter.

Whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.

We cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!

Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.

In scientific terms:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I don't know. The OP says everything that begins to exist has a cause, it's his story. I'd like to know the cause of the beginning of gods' existences.

I don't see what's funny about that.

Maybe it's the same reason that God exists.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Self soothing word salad. Just reiteration # eleventy zillion of a person of weak faith trying to convince himself in public that the iron aged fairy tales are real.

We both know you can't competently discuss the science and mathematics of the matter.

Whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.

We cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!

Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.

In scientific terms:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).

Boring ontological nonsense. Fun philosophy. For about 30 seconds of a sophomore philosophy class. Then...zzzzzzz

 

[Hollie]

Self soothing word salad. Just reiteration # eleventy zillion of a person of weak faith trying to convince himself in public that the iron aged fairy tales are real.

We both know you can't competently discuss the science and mathematics of the matter.

Whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.

We cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!

Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.

In scientific terms:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).

Odd that you whine about mathematics but present no mathematics in support of your gods.

 

[cnm]

So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh?

Oh. I didn't realise I wasn't supposed to take your points literally. My bad.

 

[cnm]

What caused gods to begin to exist?

So you're ultimately implying that you don't exist. Are you a figment of your own imagination?

crickets chirping

Did gods not begin to exist?

 

[Ringtone]

I don't know. The OP says everything that begins to exist has a cause, it's his story. I'd like to know the cause of the beginning of gods' existences.

I don't see what's funny about that.

View attachment 453666

Maybe it's the same reason that God exists.

*****SMILE*****

Zoon Right over their heads, Eagle. It's like talking to children.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Zoon Right over their heads, Eagle

No, you amateur. It's just that nobody wants to tangle up with you and go down the rabbit hole of your regressive, ontological pap. Maybe find you a youngin' that wants to spend 5 hours watching you move the goalposts and show him every turtle all the way down...

 

[Ringtone]

What caused gods to begin to exist?

So you're ultimately implying that you don't exist. Are you a figment of your own imagination?

crickets chirping

Did gods not begin to exist?

Does something exist or not? Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness? That's what you're unwittingly implying. If that's your belief, fine. You lose. You're a lunatic. See my signature below regarding magic. Have a nice day. End of discussion.

I'm asking these questions to help you think for yourself for once in you unexamined life.

 

[Ringtone]

No, you amateur. It's just that nobody wants to tangle up with you and go down the rabbit hole of your regressive, ontological pap. Maybe find you a youngin' that wants to spend 5 hours watching you move the goalposts and show him every turtle all the way down...

What are you talking about? The OP is free to read for yourself.

 

[cnm]

Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?

I've already said I don't know. It's your OP, I'm asking you. You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.

Here's another one to run from. Are gods part of the universe?

 

[fncceo]

Godel, Liebniz, and (originally) St Anselm (1033 to 1109) have made the same ontological argument as proof of the existence of G-d.

I prefer Oolon Colluphid's Ontological Proof of the Non-Existence of G-d

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." ... It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

 

[alang1216]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​

​

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​

​

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

Let's assume everything you wrote is 100% true, is there any demonstrable connection between this creator and the God of the Bible?

 

[harmonica]

there is no god..no one can or has ever proved it --plain and simple
..all we hear is babble crap ''''''proof'''

Baby talk. You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.

no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
hahahahahahahahah

 

[BULLDOG]

there is no god..no one can or has ever proved it --plain and simple
..all we hear is babble crap ''''''proof'''

Baby talk. You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.

Wow. Somebody got a new Thesaurus for Christmas.

 

[Hollie]

The OP being a William Lane Craig groupie simply shuffles the Craig arguments to propose his version of the gods.

The fallacies of the Kalam argument are really quite apparent, especially as the argument exempts the gods from the very premise of the argument; everything has a cause, but... but... but... but not my gods. The claimed lack of cause for the gods suggests that there is an allowance for other exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or that allow for other hypotheses such as a universe without the needs for various gods as the cause.

It is an inescapable conclusion that a cause precedes an event. To arbitrarily exclude the gods from causation with nothing more than, “...because I say so” is pointless and time wasting. Proposing a religious / philosophical presentation that involves matters of science means the religious perspective invites scientific criteria of review. Astronomy does not provide support for notions of astrology any more than biology is a scientific basis for supernatural creation.

I would like to see the OP present the “Kalam Theory of Biology” because we’re still waiting for the ID Creationer “General Theory of Supernatural Creation” with no indication either are coming anytime soon.

 

[sealybobo]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​

​

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​

​

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.
Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

View attachment 453563

Yep!

Scientists say global warming exists
Planetologists understand global warming.
Therefore, all scientists are planetologists.

Logically valid until the premise and conclusion don't hold true

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

Your premise is true. What happens then?

Science says global warming exists
planetologists understand global warming
Global warming is real