First order logic, set theory and God

[polymath257]

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?

Yes, the energy just 'pops'. There *is* no process: the events are not caused.

We can create situations where the probabilities change and that has allowed us to test this. The Casimir effect is one consequence of this quantum fluctuation.

And I notice that you only addressed the last of my rebuttals, not the first two. That P1 is false in the real world is an experimental fact. But the other two show *internal* difficulties with your axiomatic system.