First order logic, set theory and God

[Cepheus Ace]

No, I am getting the argument. But there are three rebuttals.

One with the axioms and the inability to construct the necessary system V without a specific axiom allowing such.

One that says that P1 should only state that *finite* systems have causes (because that is the most we can extrapolate to from our knowledge).

And one that says P1 is simply false in the real world: we know of systems that are uncaused in the real world.

And no, the energy is NOT the cause in a quantum system: if anything it is an effect that is caused by the configuration of the system. But the specific results of a quantum system are *not* caused: there is nothing prior to them that determines what they will be.

And yes, quantum systems do allow for energy to appear (and disappear) in short time intervals. This is a measured effect related to the uncertainty principle. In particular, it explains the spread of masses for systems of very short duration.

As for 'pre-existing energy changing forms', that begs the question of *why* the forms change. And there is no 'cause' for those changes.

But the rebuttals don't work.  You're assuming out of nowhere there is energy.  Well, where did it come from?  Even in quantum mechanics you assume energy, even if it's very small amounts.   What are you suggesting, "pop" and then there was energy? You can say something is a good rebuttal if you can't even demonstrate the process.  If I'm wrong, show me a video of someone making energy out of nothing.  And it would even be harder back then if we're assuming "no cause."  If you can't demonstrate it with a cause (someone prepping it), how do you expect it to happen without?

ever heard of quantum fluctuation? its a phenomena where temporarily the law of conservation of energy is completely and utterly violated for short time for no reason or causation whatsoever. that's right energy coming in and out of existence from pure nothingness with no causation behind it

and lets get real here, the only reason people use the origins of the universe to argue for god is because a lot of the other garbage they used to say proved god has already been debunked by science long ago. There has never been an instance of saying god cause anything ever lead to an improvement in human knowledge and understanding. It offers no new insight into anything, it has no discernible changes or effects on our daily lives regardless of whether its true or not, it makes no empirically verifiable predictions or models. But that doesn't matter because the whole point of it was to use gaps in human knowledge to conclude god without proving god

these philosophical arguments fails completely and utterly at proving anything but its own redundancy.

and even if the argument was completely sound and irrefutable it still fails by default because arguing that a god exists is completely difference from proving a god exists which no one has ever been able to properly define let alone make a testable hypothesis.
Its the equivalent of arguing that if you poke a bush with a stick it will poke you right back, but if you can't demonstrably show it happening then any argument you make for your position can be flat out rejected without any objection


Here's a simple job for you
Step 1: Define God thoroughly
step 2: create a hypothesis around this definition
Step 3:Create a falsifiable experiment to determine whether the hypothesis if true or not
Step 4: verify the results of the experiments
Step 5: give the results for peer review
Step 6: if you're experiments successfully proved god then go collect you're nobel prize

but no one who argues that a god exists has ever been able to accomplish step 1,this is precisely why these arguments are heard mainly in public gatherings and not in serious scientific conferences. These arguments are there solely to fool lay people who don't know any better with fancy sounding jargon and well known psychological tricks.