First order logic, set theory and God

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

---

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.

Not at all. It actually makes the same claim. You have the particles sufficient of themselves.

I agree, the scale of them is irrelevant, because the research isn't scaling the claims.  They're just isolated observations.  Nothing more.  That doesn't mean we can't use them and draw more information, but that's the nature of scientific study.

But hey, believe whatever you like and disagree with me all you want.  It's immaterial to this discussion unless you can go from A to Z with your claims, and at best you've made it to B.  So until then, you can chalk it up as the ultimate explanation of all things, and to me it is an isolated event that people are using to create a fairy tale.  Who's right?  Who's wrong?  We don't know, which is why I reject your conclusion.