First order logic, set theory and God

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu guoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

As far as your comment, I never made such a claim.  Nice try though.  If you believe a large scale anomaly occurred, then you need to demonstrate it.  Not just suggest that light revealed something so that it must have been how a universe filled with large amounts of mass and energy suddenly popped out of nowhere.  From it came lions, tigers, and bears...Oh my!  But even if I did suggest something else and you were able to refute it, it still doesn't validate any claims you've fabricated.  You would need to demonstrate those independently.

Your hocus pocus fairy tales aren't any better than the next fairy tale.

You say that this is a large scale anomaly but compared to what? this may be an incredibly tiny anomaly that seems large to us. What is your basis for comparison of scale?

Can the universe suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere? Sure why not, makes more sense than "magic man dun it".

I tend to think that there is some sort of pre-existing state that the universe emerged from. But I have little evidence for that and I only believe what can actually be proved.
You should try it.

Why would I need to compare it to anything?  I'm not making the claims.  Are you saying a few little particles that may have cause themselves by some unknown process equates to our universe with insane amounts of mass/energy?

As far as your second statement, it seems as though the parts of it are disqualifying to each other.  If you say it can happen, then why can't there be a source? Your last statements supports that conclusion.  What is that pre-existing state?  I'm fine with you saying "you don't know", but how do we rule out anything if "we don't know" what it was?

Interesting statement from you:

"I only believe what can actually be proved"

That sounds very similar to what you hear in Scientology.  Not to the extent of it, but I remember Tom Cruise had an interview and he said something very similar in reference to his belief.

---

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.

Was discussing this with one of the atheists on here the other day.  Zero-point energy and the aether hypothesis.

Regardless, feel free to believe whatever you like.  Not going around in circles with mass and energy popping out of nothing and creating an expanse with an enormous amount of energy that can't be thoroughly explained.  I'll be happy to believe it if someone can demonstrate it or replicate a large scale anamoly.  Until then it's just people asserting small things and trying to assert it towards past cause and effect.  Arguing about it is the equivalent of banging your head against the wall, because nobody can make a conclusive argument for "how it happened" since we can't go into the pass and observe it.