The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[sealybobo]

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.

Apples and oranges. Anyone can construct a fallacious syllogism precisely because the fundamental principles of logic are universally understood. Hence everybody knows what a sound syllogism looks like:

1. Socrates likes all flowers.
2. Roses are flowers.
3. Socrates likes roses.

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.

Hogwash!

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.
2. The physical world began to exist.

And just like that, atheists stop believing that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true.

LOL! Suddenly like a dog they go all squirrel! and imagine that the physical world just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness.

Ok, who created the creator then? You want me to accept that your god character gets to defy all logic, fact, science and reason. And gets to break all the rules.

If what you are telling me doesn't pass the scientific method then I throw it out.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?

 

[Moonglow]

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

And is a proven occurrence.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

He’s on his way to atheism. Right now it’s bothering him that god is not scientifically provable.

 

[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

And is a proven occurrence.

Observable

 

[Ringtone]

To question whether the Gods could create a rock so heavy that even they couldn't lift it seems preposterous. More important is the ramification of the first principle of whether or not the Gods could microwave a burrito so hot they couldn't eat it.

What, precisely, are you saying here, Hollie, and why is cnm giving you a thumbs up for this incoherency? Are you saying that God should be able to do the absurd or impossible?

 

[cnm]

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."

Resistance was futile.

 

[james bond]

Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?

0 + 0 =

Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.

I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.

 

[Moonglow]

Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?

0 + 0 =

I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.

Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.

 

[james bond]

Observable

Hilbert's hotel room argument squashed the singularity argument or did you not observe that?

 

[james bond]

Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.

C'mon both Georges Lemaitre and Edwin Hubble showed an expanding and accelerating universe.

 

[james bond]

Ok, who created the creator then?

The creator was always there timeless and spaceless from the first video.

 

[Ringtone]

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

I've already said I don't know.

Actually, you hadn't already said that, and that response is nonsensical. Did you fail to answer this yes/no question because you don't know what ontological nothingness means or because you don't know what you believe in this wise?

It's your OP, I'm asking you.

Are you asking me because you think I can read your mind, because you didn't read the OP, or because you're prevaricating?

You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.

Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?

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

I didn't run away from anything in the first place. Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?

As a sane human being who observes the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science relative to sufficient reason and causation: I hold that such a thing is not possible, that such a thing is an absurdity—i.e., inherently contradictory or self-negating. That's the whole point of the OP, so you shouldn't be asking your ridiculous question in the first place. In fact, if you didn't watch the videos or read the text in the OP, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread in the first place.

Moving on. . . .

An ontological nothingness, which is the absence of being, caused something to exist?!

Or, stated another way:

Something cased itself to exist before it existed?!

I ask you once again:

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

​

It's a yes/no question.

 

[Ringtone]

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."

Respectfully, Godel, Liebniz and Anselm's are ontological arguments proper that proceed from the essence of the idea of God itself, while Kalam's is a cosmological argument predicated on the first principles of ontology (the metaphysics of material being in general) and proceeds from sufficient causation.

 

[Ringtone]

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

Well, that goes to an entirely different discussion, doesn't it?

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Actually, it looks like somebody learned some new words. Stick around and I'll teach you some more, but keep you're dictionary handy as, unlike those with adult vocabularies, you'll have to look them up.

 

[Ringtone]

Ok, who created the creator then? You want me to accept that your god character gets to defy all logic, fact, science and reason. And gets to break all the rules.

If what you are telling me doesn't pass the scientific method then I throw it out.

Baby talk. Something exists rather than nothing, dummy. The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science tell us that something has always existed.

The first premise: That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.

Are you really that stupid or are you prevaricating?

 

[Ringtone]

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

You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.

 

[harmonica]

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

You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except you imbecility.

hahahhahahahahahahh
......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around

 

[harmonica]

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

You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except you imbecility.

so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite