Proof of God

[pocaracas]

Hasn't this been dismissed already, in various occasions?

First premise: wrong!

The definitions employed are faulty. Our brains cannot grasp what it means "to begin to exist" in a real sense. We can grasp what it means to begin to exist in a transformative sense: things get transformed into other things


- A few planks of wood get transformed into a chair or a table; two hydrogen nuclei get transformed into an alpha particle, a bunch of organic matter is transformed into a new baby, etc...


But nowhere in here is anything purely created, just transformed.


And, indeed, for a transformative event, you need some prior energy, something that acts on something else. But that is not where you want to apply this premise. You want magic to happen to nothing creating the building blocks of the Universe.

No one can disprove the premise one.

Whether existing things transformed into other things or things developed out of available resources, everything that begins to exist has a cause. There is nothing eternal in the universe including universe itself.

"We are star stuff".
Electrons and other elementary particles, the sort that make up everything we know of... those are eternal, in a time-forward sense.
Going back in time, we hit the Big bang and we can't say...

Second premise: Not necessarily! At best, you can claim that, at the big bang, all the particles that were later transformed into hydrogen, stars, planets, etc. were created... but... given that our understanding of "created" relies on a transformative event, that means that something would have to exist prior to the Universe... and that is what current physics is suggesting with virtual particles and fields that, under some conditions do cross into real particles... it is a possibility.
Can you safely say that the big bang wasn't itself a tranformative event from some unknown (very likely unknowable) state into what we call the known universe... the known particles?

If it was, then, just like the stars don't need a helping hand to become super-novae, then the universe too would need no help in becoming what we see now

Suppose you are right and universe came out from some existing stuff. Does that change anything in the premise two? Does that means universe has no beginning? Your body also developed out from available stuff, does that mean you have no beginning.

It means the building blocks of the Universe have always been there. Like the building blocks of my body had been around for a long long while before they assembled into me.

Hence, "premise" 3 follows in the same way as any other event in the cosmos... it is as it is. No magic is required!

And your conclusion that the only power that could give rise to a Universe is god is completely erroneous. It could happen by purely natural means.

Is “Natural” some law or force or is it some mystical phenomenon. How and why NATURAL is happening. What exactly NATURAL is? Do you have ANY scientific definition for it?

In this case, Natural phenomenon is mindless.
Can be studied, probed, measured... somehow...

Unless you wish to call that process "god", but why carry all the baggage associated with all the gods that have ever been created by human imagination into that definition?

Do you mean that sentient beings, non-sentient beings, and this universe are the products of Chance or Accident? If you think that chance and accident cannot cause the universe then what are your assumptions for this cause.

errr.... I am aware of no beings apart from this universe. So sentient and non-sentient begins are part of the universe and have come about through a long, long chain of events.
If causality is a strict thing for all fields, even quantum, then it was going to be this way.... if not, then some randomness played a part.

Either way, I am not aware of any being apart from the Universe and I cannot fathom how could someone become aware of such beings... can you?