First order logic, set theory and God

[Cepheus Ace]

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.

What caused the quantum fluctuation?  Unless you can prove the source, stop making nonsensical hocus pocus claims.  Even if you can prove on a small scale, you can't prove it on a mass scale.  If you can't prove it on a small scale, then how the heck are you going to suggest that it was a large scale anomaly?  Why aren't we observing these large scale anomalies today?  If what you said is true, then you should be able to demonstrate steps 1-6 and claim your noble prize for creating a universe, even if it's smaller than ours.  Even the journals suggesting these "quantum fluctuations" are saying they are "indirect" by testing them against light waves.  Since this report in 2015, there have been additional studies showing the properties of light.  I believe it was at MIT they made some observations that what demonstrated that light can travel much faster than we thought possible.  I'll have to look for the study here in a bit when I get on my other computer.  Anyway, we can make assumptions, and we can even form a hypothesis and try to test those assumptions but indirect observations don't equate to large scale observations, so even if you could observe you are still leaps away from it happening, especially in regard to energy and matter.  It may very well be that there was a source for those fluctuations and that they weren't quite what we thought.

so you demand proof fo quantum fluctuations then claiming that it must have a cause..... while holding the position that a god without a cause is running amok creating universes willy nilly even though you have zero evidence for it... double standards much?