The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

Prove that the universe had a beginning.
It doesn't need to have a beginning.
The only reason you think it needs to have a beginning is because it explains something you don't understand.

The unmitigated gall of your pretentious insouciance is deeply offensive and unintelligent.

Which is why gods and God was invented by humans in the first place. A convenient story to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge.

A universe which by your perfect *understanding* has always existed could not possibly be so complex that thousands of years of concerted study and analysis by all off mankind has brought us to the current position of having "MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge," which description you think and claim excludes you personally because YOU understand what nobody else reading these lines does. How many Nobel Prizes line your mantle, anyway, Mister Just Joined My Ignore List?
So.... any questioning of your preconceived notions to supernatural gods is offensive?

Oh, my. You delicate flower. Because you’re not emotionally or intellectually prepared to understand that not everyone on a public message board is going to uncritically accept your claims to three unique gods, you might want to consider shielding yourself from such tortuous encounters. What’s on Oprah?
 
ChemEngineer said:
"...A universe which by your perfect *understanding* has always existed could not possibly be so complex that thousands of years of concerted study and analysis by all off mankind has brought us to the current position of having "MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge," which description you think and claim excludes you personally because YOU understand what nobody else reading these lines does. How many Nobel Prizes line your mantle, anyway, Mister Just Joined My Ignore List?
1. We have not really had "Thousands of years of study."
Science is relatively new.
Virtually all science happened in the last 50-150 years..
DNA is only 60+ years old, Radiocarbon dating 70 years old. Serious deep space astronomy same. Einstein's theory less than 100.
Computers barely 50 years old.

2. "Massive Gaps is literally the fallacious "God of the Gaps" FALLACY, nonetheless we've already put thousands of man-created gods out of business. (Fire, lightning, fertility, etc) with even basic stuff.
I don't understand who, how, or when the Universe was created, but unlike you and people of other religions/Man- Creation Myths, I didn't make up a god for what I/we do Not understand ... YET. The bogus basis of virtually all gods/religions that has been debunked 10,000 times and still counting. (Genesis is also demonstrably and laughably wrong as a creation Myth)

3. Your specialty for a decade has been putting people on ignore
You have to. Sometimes a majority of posters in a section.
Hundreds have made mincemeat of your voodoo posts on this board and others.

`
 
Last edited:
Changes to Standard Model of physics could point to a 'God Equation'
...
Abnormalities found in the 'standard model of physics' by Fermilab and CERN could reveal a 'universal theory of everything' according to famed physicist Michio Kaku.

In his latest book, Kaku, a leading string theorist from City College of New York, describes the ongoing search to find a 'God Theory' that explains everything.

This is a theory Albert Einstein hoped to discover but failed to find in his lifetime, with Kaku describing it as being able to explain the 'rich diversity of matter'.

Speaking to MailOnline, Kaku describes the Standard Model of physics as the 'Theory of Almost Everything', adding that it was 'inevitable discrepancies would be discovered eventually' as the theory was both 'ugly' and limited in its scope.

That is exactly what has happened in 2021, first with the discovery by CERN showing that muons appear to behave differently than the theory predicts, then with the discovery of a 'wobble' in the movement of muons by Fermilab.

A Muon is a tiny particle similar to an electron and finding a 'wobble' 0.1 per cent off the Standard Model could hint a new force of nature.

Kaku told MailOnline the 'God Theory' would unite all the forces of nature into a single, inch long equation, and 'finding even the tiniest deviation in the Standard Model, might give us a clue to the real fundamental theory.'
...
 
Changes to Standard Model of physics could point to a 'God Equation'
...
Abnormalities found in the 'standard model of physics' by Fermilab and CERN could reveal a 'universal theory of everything' according to famed physicist Michio Kaku.

In his latest book, Kaku, a leading string theorist from City College of New York, describes the ongoing search to find a 'God Theory' that explains everything.

This is a theory Albert Einstein hoped to discover but failed to find in his lifetime, with Kaku describing it as being able to explain the 'rich diversity of matter'.

Speaking to MailOnline, Kaku describes the Standard Model of physics as the 'Theory of Almost Everything', adding that it was 'inevitable discrepancies would be discovered eventually' as the theory was both 'ugly' and limited in its scope.

That is exactly what has happened in 2021, first with the discovery by CERN showing that muons appear to behave differently than the theory predicts, then with the discovery of a 'wobble' in the movement of muons by Fermilab.

A Muon is a tiny particle similar to an electron and finding a 'wobble' 0.1 per cent off the Standard Model could hint a new force of nature.

Kaku told MailOnline the 'God Theory' would unite all the forces of nature into a single, inch long equation, and 'finding even the tiniest deviation in the Standard Model, might give us a clue to the real fundamental theory.'
...
Your usual IDIOT post.
Kaku cleared this up a few years ago Copy-paste/throw-horse-shoes boy.

Physicists often use 'god' as an expression of awe at the universe/figuratively, NOT Jesus Christ or any other Personal god that the OP and every other VOODOO practitioner here does.

ie, Michio Kaku Clears Up God Discovery

`
 
Relative Strengths

Strong nuclear force: 1

Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4

Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13

Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40

Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
At random?

I have news for you. (They didn't.)
 
Relative Strengths

Strong nuclear force: 1

Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4

Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13

Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40

Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
At random?

I have news for you. (They didn't.)
I have news for you. Claiming your three gods supernaturally, magically invented natural forces is completely unsupported conjecture.
 
Relative Strengths

Strong nuclear force: 1

Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4

Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13

Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40

Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
At random?

I have news for you. (They didn't.)
Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?

Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?
 
Relative Strengths

Strong nuclear force: 1

Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4

Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13

Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40

Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
At random?

I have news for you. (They didn't.)
Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?

Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?

Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?
Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?


Physics tells us how to build the barn, but not why we should help our neighbor build his ... and church is a great place to both offer and ask for help ...

"Love your brother as you love yourself" makes more sense to more people than F=ma ... nevermind both are vitally important ...
 
Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?
Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?


Physics tells us how to build the barn, but not why we should help our neighbor build his ... and church is a great place to both offer and ask for help ...

"Love your brother as you love yourself" makes more sense to more people than F=ma ... nevermind both are vitally important ...
I agree for those seeking brotherhood. My point is when posters here try to use the depth of physical laws to "prove" God's existence, it does not connect with what you said. In that case the liturgy is studying the art and not simply praising the artist.
 




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.​


You smoke a lot of weed, don't you?
 
There is no "proof" of God's existence.

That's why it's called "faith".

Consider, for a moment, what it would mean to every religion if the existence of God was undeniably proven. What if it was undeniably proven that God did not exist?

Religious beliefs cannot exist without faith and faith, by it's very nature, is something which cannot be proven.

Those who would prove the existence of God will, unknowingly or not, destroy the meaning of God...
 
Relative Strengths

Strong nuclear force: 1

Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4

Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13

Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40

Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
At random?

I have news for you. (They didn't.)
Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?

Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?

Brandolini's Law: It requires an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it took to produce it.

The point of The Anthropic Principle is to refute atheist bullshit. You obviously missed that point and instead created an inane either/or choice which pretends that you cannot do both.

The world needs more than physicists, or didn't you know? Hitler and his evil followers were very big on science, weren't they. They conducted "experiments" on prisoners, torturing and killing them. No liturgy there.
 
Brandolini's Law: It requires an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it took to produce it.

The point of The Anthropic Principle is to refute atheist bullshit. You obviously missed that point and instead created an inane either/or choice which pretends that you cannot do both.

The world needs more than physicists, or didn't you know? Hitler and his evil followers were very big on science, weren't they. They conducted "experiments" on prisoners, torturing and killing them. No liturgy there.
This is my message #470 to ReinyDays:
I agree for those seeking brotherhood. My point is when posters here try to use the depth of physical laws to "prove" God's existence, it does not connect with what you said. In that case the liturgy is studying the art and not simply praising the artist.
He had roughly the same objection as you, to which I was sympathetic.
I was strictly speaking to the science aspect. It is obviously not an either/or choice. But you had to dirty science with the Hitler card. For shame.

.
 
Brandolini's Law: It requires an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it took to produce it.

The point of The Anthropic Principle is to refute atheist bullshit. You obviously missed that point and instead created an inane either/or choice which pretends that you cannot do both.

The world needs more than physicists, or didn't you know? Hitler and his evil followers were very big on science, weren't they. They conducted "experiments" on prisoners, torturing and killing them. No liturgy there.
This is my message #470 to ReinyDays:
I agree for those seeking brotherhood. My point is when posters here try to use the depth of physical laws to "prove" God's existence, it does not connect with what you said. In that case the liturgy is studying the art and not simply praising the artist.
He had roughly the same objection as you, to which I was sympathetic.
I was strictly speaking to the science aspect. It is obviously not an either/or choice. But you had to dirty science with the Hitler card. For shame.

.

You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.

Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
 
You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
I disagree totally.
Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.

.
 
You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
I disagree totally.
Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.

.
Look it up. Ask someone who is educated. I can't be bothered with someone as pretentious over nothing as you so clearly are.

ciao brutto
 
You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
I disagree totally.
Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.

.
Look it up. Ask someone who is educated. I can't be bothered with someone as pretentious over nothing as you so clearly are.

ciao brutto
Statistics is all over physics. You gave no context. I am very familiar with the several forces in physics, but there is no statistics involved.
 
You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
I disagree totally.
Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.

.
Look it up. Ask someone who is educated. I can't be bothered with someone as pretentious over nothing as you so clearly are.

ciao brutto
Statistics is all over physics. You gave no context. I am very familiar with the several forces in physics, but there is no statistics involved.

Statistics is a mathematical construct ... useful, but it's not physics ... statistics tells us most stars in the universe are red dwarfs, but that doesn't say why ... we need physics to say a star's mass is inversely proportional to expected life span ...

"Lies, damned lies and statistics" --- Benjamin Disraeli
 
You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
I disagree totally.
Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.

.
Look it up. Ask someone who is educated. I can't be bothered with someone as pretentious over nothing as you so clearly are.

ciao brutto
Statistics is all over physics. You gave no context. I am very familiar with the several forces in physics, but there is no statistics involved.

Statistics is a mathematical construct ... useful, but it's not physics ... statistics tells us most stars in the universe are red dwarfs, but that doesn't say why ... we need physics to say a star's mass is inversely proportional to expected life span ...

"Lies, damned lies and statistics" --- Benjamin Disraeli
I know what statics is. The point was that ChemEngineer used it with no further context.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top