First order logic, set theory and God

[polymath257]

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.

---

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.

Well, the point is that there *are* events that have no cause. That is enough to destroy your argument. The scale of them is irrelevant to that.

Now, there *are* descriptions as to how large scale fluctuations can exist in situations of high curvature (which is NOT the present universe).

Your asking 'how it happened' is equivalent to asking for a cause. And that whole point is that there *is* no cause. There *is* no 'mechanism'. But we can observe it and model it *as probabilities*. And that is precisely what quantum mechanics does. It is a local, non-realist, a causal description that works incredibly well.

Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between 'not knowing a cause' and 'knowing there is no cause'. The experiments with Bell's inequalities and Lambert's inequalities show there is no cause and no realism. There is, however, locality.