First order logic, set theory and God

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

So what if they are small and 'isolated' observations? They show that not all events have causes.

And that is enough to break your syllogism.

I'm not the one going from A to Z. I am the one showing you cannot go backwards from Z to A because the chain breaks at C.

There are several questions.

One is whether your axiom system applies to the real world. I have given an argument to show that it does not. You seem fixated by this one objection while ignoring the following ones.

Then there is the question of whether the axioms you have chosen are justified by what we know. I have given an argument to show that your P1 is way too strong even in an idealized world where there are always causes. We only have justification to say that finite events have causes, not that infinite events do. In particular, there is no reason to suspect that infinite regresses have causes. So you need a *separate* argument to deal with them.

Finally, there is the problem of your actual 'proof' where you use a system V with no justification on how it is constructed. We *know* that systems of set theory that allow 'large' sets are inconsistent, so you need to show your axioms for system construction. You *may* be able to fix this with an appropriate set theory, but naive set theory is problematic (and there are contradictions other than just Russell's paradox).

It isn't a matter of *my belief*, but whether you have demonstrated your claims. And the fact of the matter is that you are quite far from having done so.,

I already addressed that. If they didn't need a cause, then they are self sufficient, which was one of the options.  But really, they may not be.  If I'm not mistaken, they used a vacuum and light, so they could've been dependent on those things to cause them.  Either way, the argument doesn't demonstrate that it was an isolated anomaly that created the universe.

Your "chain breaks at C" comment doesn't make sense.  There's no justification for saying it interrupted anything.

Also, there are no claims that I would need to demonstrate. It would be on you to demonstrate your fairy tale so that it has real world implications, especially on a large scale. If, and when, you can do that, then you will have something and I will agree with you, but as long as it's just blind conjecture on your part, I'm going to have to pass.

When someone reports something doing a study using the scientific method, there is always a conclusion that gives a brief explanation of the findings and discusses the potential for future expansive study. So on the study you are citing, did the scientists suggest it had to have been what caused the universe to *poof* into existence?